The Use of Animals in Experimental Research: Arguments for and Against

Introduction

Over the years and in recent times, the use of animals in experimental research also known as animal testing has developed in a controversial issue in the society. The notion has led to the development of some views regarding the moral and ethical validity of the involvement of animals in medical and other forms of research. The use of animals in research mostly involves the process whereby new and unproven medical interventions are tested on animals to determine the likely effects of such medical breakthroughs when used by humans. In most cases, the animal experiments are carried out in the field of medicine and pharmacy. This action is done either to as mean of testing new drugs or as a medium of testing a new method of surgical operations to the determination of the likely effects of such new invention on humans. As mentioned earlier, the involvement of animals in experimental research has drawn a wide range of attention from observers, the society, and also animal rights advocacy organizations. This action has been condemned and supported by specific members of the society. Based on the sensitivity of the issue, the study is therefore developed against the use involvement of animals in experimental research. The study will point out cardinal facts in support of its thesis, in end a conclusion would be drawn, to sum up, the ideas of the study.

Arguments against Animals in Experimental Research

According to the survey conducted by the Humane Society International, it was concluded that animal testing in its forms and ramifications are very harsh and cruel. The organization also noted that when the sorts of experimentations are in progress animals are made to undergo all kinds of adverse treatment such as force-feeding, food and water deprivation, force inhalations and they are also kept in a prolonged condition of physical restraint. These animals are also subjected to some infectious burns, injuries, infliction of pain to observation reactions and also the extreme case of deaths by neck breaking (Rachels, 57). The use of animals in experimental research is also widespread in the field of cosmetics. One of the leading examples of these forms of tests is the Draize eyes test. Which is carried out to determine the effects of irritation associated with the uses shampoos and others beauty care products. The process of attaining this outcome is carried out on animals such as rabbits which involved the restraint of their eyelids for days. The process is cruel, painful, and also results in the impairments of the animals, (Rachels 66)

In the field of pharmacology and medical science, animals have been adopted as a means of test out new drugs. The processes involve the injection of these creatures with unproven and unregistered drugs, and these animals are observed for a period. These cases are also very cruel because the animal used for this forms of experimentation is offended subjected highly poisonous drugs and overdoses which could lead to permanent impairment and also death. In recent times, some studies have been concluded which negates the use of animals for medical testing. According to Paul Furlong a leading medical professor of clinical neuroimaging at the Aston University UK, the use of animals for the medical test is not only cruel but it is also less effective. The above nation is based on the fact the human anatomy is mostly different from that of animals hence they are poor test tools for human medicine. Professor Paul furlong concludes by noting that it is challenging to create animal models similar to that of humans, ("Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing")

Other studies developed against the use of animals in experimental research

John Gluck noted that about five years ago, the National Institutes of Health noted chimpanzees as the closest animals to human concerning anatomy and body configurations. This declaration has led to the endangerment of the species across the United States. John Gluck, a leading animal research expert, noted that as a young graduate making an initial entrance into the field of science, he was of the opinion that the gain of scientific advancement serves as fare justification of the harm done to animals in the medical research and experimentation process. However, after several years of study and investigations in the field of science, he came to a conclusion that a decision to intentionally harm animals cannot be justified and it also poses a hindrance to the understanding of the field of science, (Gluck, 1)

Some scientists have also pointed out the fact that a drug successful passes the animal experimentation process is not necessarily safe for human use. The notion is based on the adverse effects of the drug tests in the 1950s. During this period, the sleeping pills known as thalidomide resulted in the birth of 10,000 deformed babies across the country. The drug was tested on animals, and it posed no side effects before it was approved for human use. Another valid example of the misleading nature of animal testing in the field of medicine was the cases of arthritis drug known as Vioxx. At inception and experimentation, the drug provided a form of protective support for the hearts the mice used in the test processes. However, the drug led to over 27,000 heart attacks in humans. Based on this sudden surge in the numbers of cardiac arrests caused by the drug, it was pulled out of the market. The above notion points out the fact that the use of animals in experimental research could be less effective misleading and also result in some human fatalities, hence this practice should be discouraged and eradicated from society. ("Should Animals Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing")

The use of animals in experimental research is also proven to be more expensive in comparison to other alternatives. Therefore, the action is a massive waste of the government finances. Several studies have been carried out in support of the above-stated notion. A biotechnology company known as the Empiriko created a device responsible for the prediction of the liver condition and its metabolic reactions to drugs. At the end of the process, the company discovered that their advanced technique was not only faster, but it was also cheaper and more accurate compared to the animal test option, ("Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing").

Leading statistical data in the United States also points out the fact that the government wasted over $7.3 million on animal-related testing and experimentation in 2016. People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals also noted that the government spends about $54 million on annual animal testing and experimentation regardless of the fact these actions have not yielded any tangible results, ("Experiments On Animals: Overview | PETA"). The above-discussed notion also points out the fact that the adoption of animals in experimental research does not only create pain and discomfort for these creatures, it is also a valid means of wasting the taxpayer's money since it yields little or no results.

Argument In Support of Animals in Experimental Research

Having effectively considered several arguments against animals in experimental research, there is a need also to discuss some of the arguments that have been developed in support of this concept. Most of the point of view developed in support of animals in experimental research is based on the claims that animals, not humans, cannot adequately express themselves. Therefore it is difficult to tell if they are in pain or not. It is also believed by this group of individuals that animal lives are not as crucial as that of humans, hence there is no need to place considerable emphasis on what happens to them during medical tests and experimentations (LaFollette, Hugh, and Niall Shanks 56).

Arguments in support of animal experimental research are also developed based on the fact that animals are the best tools for these tests because in cases of adverse eventualities, there would be limited or no lawsuits. However, if humans were used for this form of experimental research, the reverse would be the case (Gonchar). Over the years, the supporters of animal experimentation have also based their argument along religious lines. They are guided by the notions which state that humans have been given divine right to dominate over animals. Hence, humans' possess the sole decision regarding what to do to animals ("The Plague Dogs"). Lastly, it is also believed that the benefits associated with the use of animals in experimental research should be regarded as more important than the possible discomforts and pains involved in the animal testing process (Food, Inc.).

Conclusion

Based on an adequate analysis of both sides of the argument, there is a need to effectively refute all the opinions developed in support of the use of animals in experimental research, based on the fact that the process is cruel, inhuman, and immoral. Regardless of the fact that animals are non-humans, they can also feel pain and discomfort, hence the need to eradicate the forms of animal experimentation. Several studies have also proven that the human body is different from that of animals. Therefore it is illogical to relate or accept a medical intervention as valid for humans based on the conclusion derived from animal tests. Studies have also pointed out some occasions in history whereby some drugs had already passed animal tests and still led to the deaths and deformity of several individuals. This case also proves that the results of animals in experimental research are not always a valid conclusion for human health requirements. Studies have also confirmed that animal experimental research is costly with little or no effects. However, the adoption of alternatives to animal testing has proven to be more accurate, reliable, and less expensive. Based on the above-depicted evidence, there is a need to discourage the use of animals in experimental research and select other logical and moral alternatives.

Works Cited

"Experiments On Animals: Overview | PETA". PETA, 2018,

https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-used-experimentation-factsheets/animal-experiments-overview/. Accessed 15 Nov 2018.

"Food, Inc.". Imdb, 2018, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1286537/?ref_=ttls_li_i. Accessed 15

Nov 2018.

"Should Animals Be Used For Scientific Or Commercial Testing". Animal-Testing.Procon.Org,

2018, https://animal-testing.procon.org/. Accessed 15 Nov 2018.

"The Plague Dogs". Imdb, 2018, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084509/?ref_=ttls_li_i. Accessed

15 Nov 2018.

Gluck, John P. "Opinion | Second Thoughts Of An Animal Researcher". Nytimes.Com, 2018,

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/opinion/sunday/second-thoughts-of-an-animal-researcher.html. Accessed 15 Nov 2018.

Gonchar, Michael. "When Is Animal Testing Justified?". The Learning Network, 2018,

https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/when-is-animal-testing-justified/. Accessed 15 Nov 2018.

LaFollette, Hugh, and Niall Shanks. Brute Science: Dilemmas Animal. Routledge, 2016.

Rachels, James. "Why animals have a right to liberty."Animal Rights. Routledge, 2017. 57-66.