ANIMAL TESTING 5
AnimalTesting Should Be Abolished Due to the Associated Torture to Animalsand Potential Harm to Human Beings
Animaltesting is the use of animals as lab specimens for biomedical andcosmetic research. During the study, animals are used to testtherapeutic drugs, chemical weapons, and surgical procedures amongother processes. Nevertheless, animals’ rights activists advocatefor the enactment of policies that will bar scientists from using theanimals in laboratory trials. They claim that the procedure isinhumane and tantamount to torture. Besides, the results derived fromthe analyses are often inaccurate because the body systems of animalstend to operate differently from those of human beings. Therefore,animal testing should be abolished due to the associated torture toanimals and potential harm to people.
Conductingexperiments with animals amount to animal torture since it results insubstantial injuries on specimens. For instance, harmful substancesare applied on rabbits’ sensitive eyes to evaluate their effect ontissues during ‘Draize tests.’ The observation lasts for threedays during which researchers look for signs such as swelling,discharge, ulceration, redness, and cloudiness. Besides, ConscienceAlbino rabbits are used in skin tests for substances such as shavingcream, sunscreen, and lotion. During the trial, the animals’ fur isshaven and chaffed to increase sensitivity on the skin. The substancebeing tested is applied, covered, and evaluated after four hours toassess the effect and ability to cause irritations such as scabs,redness, weeping, or inflammation (Dublin SPCA, n.d).
TheLD50 experiment checks the lethal effect of substances on animals.Besides, it determines the toxic dosage of substances by exposinganimals to the chemicals through stomach tubes and inhalers until 50%of them die. The tests use rats, dogs, as well as rabbits. Theanimals are observed for 14 days to evaluate for signs such asbleeding through the mouth, eyes, nose and rectum. Other symptomsevaluated include vomiting and paralysis. The test subjects are latereuthanized despite the nature of tests (Dublin SPCA, n.d).
Anotherimportant reason for banning animal trials is that cosmetic tests arenon-beneficial to humans. Such experiments are often not effected dueto the significant differences between animal species and people. Numerous studies have revealed that the eyes and skins of animals aredifferent from those of humans. It is common for chemical substancesto indicate varying levels of toxicity in distinct animals. Besides,other tests such as the LD50 fail to account for sex, age, foodintake, living conditions, and the temperature within the livingsituation of the animal (Dublin SPCA, n.d).
Nonetheless,FDA (n.d) refutes the ban on animal testing because it extendsmedical research knowledge. Animals are used to test drugs, vaccines,biologics, and medical devices to evaluate the level of safetyassociated with the therapeutic products. They are used to determinethe chemistry, nature, and potential damage to cells (toxicology).They are also used in evaluating how much of a drug is biologicallyabsorbed in the blood system as well as the quantity of the productthat is chemically broken down in the body (FDA, n.d).
Otheruses include evaluating the speed at which some products are excretedfrom the body. Furthermore, researchers use the specimens in testingmedical devices as well as the ability of a given regimen to functionwithin living tissues without causing harm to the creature(biocompatibility) (FDA, n.d). The Food and Drug Administrationregulates the utilization of animals in medical research to ensureminimal or even zero suffering.
Smith(2014) disputes the use of animal testing in medical research, as itis associated with misleading results that have caused a delay insignificant medical advances. In the case of stroke, the study onrodents failed to apply to human beings due to the disparities on howstroke affects animals and people. A healthy animal that experiencesstroke does not undergo a slow progressive arterial damage similar tohumans. Moreover, scientists also developed thalidomide as a reliefto morning sickness for expectant women. Although the drug testedpositive on a variety of animal species before being introduced tothe market, it led to tens of thousands of birth defects and fetaldeaths worldwide. Some of the babies suffered from phocomelia- adisease that hinders the development of limbs. Consequently, the useof animal testing is not a reliable source of information onconsumption of products (Smith, 2014).
Smith(2014) further provides that the advanced technology now offersreliable alternatives to animal testing, including, lab-grown organsand cells, human clinical tests, and improved over the counterexperimentation methods (Smith, 2014).
Inconclusion, animal experimentation should be prohibited because itresults in animal torture. Furthermore, the medical results acquiredfrom the tests tend to be inaccurate given that the human bodydiffers significantly with the systems of the animals used in theexperiments, such as mice and rabbits. Despite the fact that animalexperimentation has led to significant breakthroughs in the medicalworld, some severe cases have backfired. For instance, the morningsickness drug indicated it was safe to humans when used on monkeys,however, it caused adverse effects on both the mother and the fetusupon being used on humans. Instead, the animals’ activists proposethat scientists should use the latest advanced technology to growhuman flesh samples for experimentation.
DublinSPCA, (n.d). Using animals in cosmetic testing. The DublinSociety for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.Web. Retrievedon 20 July 2016 fromhttps://www.dspca.ie/media/UsingAnimalsforTestingCosmetics1.pdf
Foodand Drug Administration (FDA), (n.d).Why animals are used for testingmedical products. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrievedon 20 July 2016 fromhttp://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm194932.htm
Smith,R. (2014). Medical research – Still a scandal. BritishMedical Journal.Retrieved20 July 2016 fromhttp://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2014/01/31/richard-smith-medical-research-still-a-scandal/