Name 5

TheUse of Animals in Commercial and Scientific Testing

Theuse of animals to conduct scientific research has been acontroversial issue for many years. The proponents of the idea ofanimal testing state that it has numerous benefits to human beings.The majority of the opponents, on the other hand, base theirarguments on the need to protect animal rights (Mohr 49 and Ringach309). Animal testing may result in cruel treatment of animals andsome side effects during clinical trials, but has facilitated thedevelopment of nearly all drugs used in the treatment of differentdiseases.

Argumentsfor animal testing

Animalsprovided suitable models for conducting scientific tests that areintended helps the researcher find solutions for medical conditionsthat require urgent attention. This is because animals have a shorterlife cycle that allows researchers to monitor the efficacy of theirdrugs throughout the life of an animal model (Dietz 2 and Magel 1).For example, a mouse has a lifespan of about two-three years, whichimplies that a scientist can test how a potential drug works in thebody of an infant and an adult mouse within a short period. The shortlife cycle has given the scholars and researchers in the field ofhealth care to develop therapeutic products for killer diseases, suchas cancer.

Animalmodels give researchers an opportunity to test different drugs aswell as beauty products on a whole system that is comprised ofinterconnected organs. The opponents of the idea of using animals formedical or scientific testing argue that alternative models (such ascomputer-based systems, tissue, and cell cultures) instead ofsubjecting animals to unnecessary pain (Knight 392). However, thefact that the products being tested are applied in human bodies thatare comprised of a complex system. It will only be reasonable to testthese products using models that are equally complex. For an instant,one can easily monitor the transfer of a drug from one organ of ananimal model to another, which makes it easier to study how productswill be transferred and work in the human body.

Counterarguments

Althoughstudies have shown that experiments performed using animal modelshave facilitated the development of effective drugs, a lot of testshave resulted in adverse reactions during the clinical trials. It isestimated that only 8 % of all scientific experiments that givepositive results on animals produce the same results in human bodies(Mark 115). Human beings and animals that are used in laboratoryexperiments have several biological differences, including theirgenetic composition and the way in which they organs body systemsfunction. Therefore, drugs that are transported successfullythroughout the body of an animal may fail to work in human beings orlead to adverse events, such as diseases and death.

Theuse of animals to test the efficacy of different beauty andtherapeutic products leads to their cruel treatment. In most cases,animals used in scientific experiments are confined in cages or putunder conditions that are different from what they experience intheir usual surroundings (Doke 225 and Jarvis 409). In addition, someof the practices (such as injection with lethal chemicals orpathogens) subject animals to suffering that often lead to theirdeath. Some experiments require the dissection of animals, whichsubjects them to unnecessary pain. The primary objective of carryoutout these experiments is to develop products that can heal humandiseases (Ranganatha 30). This is an indication that animal testingis a selfish idea that human beings use enhances the quality of theirlives at the expense of the pain and maltreatment that animals gothrough.

Rebuttal

Althoughthe opponents of animal testing hold that these experiments areinaccurate and lead cause unnecessary pain on animals, a few of thesuccessful tests have resulted in the development of the mosteffective drugs in the world. These tests have enabled the world toeliminate several killer diseases. Studies have shown that over 90 %of all breakthroughs made in the field of medicine within a period of100 years resulted from research projects that were performed usinganimals (Doke 224, AAL 1, and Shaw 1). Drugs and vaccines that wereused to eliminate diseases (such as polio and smallpox) from theworld were tested using animals before they could be taken forclinical trials. From this perspective, animal testing can beconsidered as a life saving process that has enhanced the quality oflife as well as the overall wellbeing of human beings by minimizingillnesses that cause epidemics.

Inconclusion, the use of animals to test for the effectiveness ofbeauty and therapeutic products has been criticized by those who holdthat it leads to cruel treatment the models and approve of productsthat are harmful to human beings. Although the opponents of the ideaof animal support their argument with valid reasons, it is evidentthat these experiments have resulted in medical breakthroughs thatcannot be achieved using any other alternative. Animal testing mayhave numerous limitations, but it should continue because 8 % of thesuccessful experiments that were performed using animals have savedthe lives of millions by preventing the occurrence of diseaseepidemics.

Workscited

Akhtar,A. “The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation”.CambridgeQuarterly of Healthcare Ethics24.4 (2015): 407-419.

AmericanAssociation for Laboratory. Benefits of animal research. AmericanAssociation for Laboratory.2015. Web. 12 July 2016.

Dietz,W., Piersma, T. and Rogers, G. “When the seasons don’t fit:Speedy molt as a routine carry-over cost of reproduction”. PLOSOne8.1 (2013): 1-7. Print.

Doke,K., Dhawale, C. “Alternatives to animal testing: A review. SaudiPharmaceutical Journal23 (2015): 223-229. Print.

Jarvis,S., Day, E. and Red, B. Ethicalguidelines for research in animal science.Edinburgh: Scottish Agricultural College, 2011. Print.

Knight,A. Weighingthe costs and benefits of animal experiments.Oxford: Oxford Center for Animal Ethics, 2012. Print.

Mark,W., Evaniew, N., and Ghert, M. “Lost in translation: Animal modelsand clinical trials in cancer treatment”. AmericanJournal of Translational Research6.2 (2014): 114-118.

Magel,C. Cruel cosmetics. AnimalAustralia.2016. Web. 12 July 2016.

Mohr,B. “The current status of laboratory animal ethics in SouthAfrica”. ATLA41(2013): 48-51.

Ringach,L. “The use of non-human animals in biomedical research”. TheAmerican Journal of the Medical Science342.4 (2011): 305-313.Print.

Ranganatha,N. and Kuppast, J. “A review on alternatives to animal testingmethods in drug development”. InternationalJournal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences4.5 (2012): 28-32.

Shaw,G. Animal experimentation. AnimalTesting.2016. Web. 12 July 2016.