Additionally, the animals used in the experiments are in captivity, and may be harmed or killed. The substance being tested may well prove to be lethal for the animals, or the conditions during their captivity may lead to their deaths. On top of that, some of the tests may never render any useful information at all, and therefore animal lives are sacrificed in vain, and no human benefit was derived. Before the passage of the AWA, the only laws constraining animal use in society forbade the purposeless, deviant, or even sadistic infliction of pain or suffering onto animals.
One argument that is considered seriously is that animals cannot provide consent to the testing to which they are being subjected. Above all, though, is that the testing certainly can and often does involve the pain and suffering of the animals. When possible, researchers claim to take measures to prevent or minimize suffering, but there are times when providing, say, an anesthetic will change the interaction of the drug being tested.
Organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals PETA have placed the opposition to animal research more clearly before the eyes of the public. In order to do so, they have publicized a number of animal tests that were urgently distasteful to the public, even if they were not examples of the norm in research:.
In the late s in England at Huntingdon Life Sciences facility, employees were recorded hitting and screaming at dogs, as well as doing sexually repulsive things during the taking of blood samples. All of the accused and recorded staff involved were fired and prosecuted.
In California, a monkey bred at the University of California, Riverside, had the lids of his eyes sewn shut and a heavy device was lodged onto his head. The conditions were created as part of a sight-deprivation experiment. In Covance, Germany in , monkeys were kept isolated with minimal to no lighting for extended periods of time without being warranted by the testing purposes or protocol. Moreover, animal systems may not be similar enough to the human systems for the results to match.
The product may harm or benefit the animal, but not a human. Plus, even different species of animals may not have the same reactions. A mouse may react positively to a drug, while a bird may not. Another diversion from accurate test results is that since the animals are in an unnatural environment, their bodies will be under stress and may not react to the test drugs in the same way they would in a natural environment.
It is important to ask why we are ethically entitled to value human lives above animal lives. If the human benefit seems to outweigh the costs of the animal lives, then the only allowable animal experiments must provide the greatest of human benefit. This is, however, not always the case, and a certain number of these experiments are about trivial concerns, such as cosmetics tests.
In comparison, a mouse has a lifespan of years, allowing researchers the opportunity to study through research and experimentation how something may affect the life cycle. Any long-term research involves mice and rats because of this unique aspect to the research. There are protections in place for the animals. Although animal research may have ethical concerns, the US has regulated its practice since Veterinarians are required to inspect the living conditions of the animals.
Committees must approve animal research and be held responsible for the humane treatment of each animal. Access to food and water is mandatory, as are shelters that follow minimum sizing standards. Many of the items that are tested are never used. Animal testing may provide safety benefits for new products, but some of the items that are tested will never be used. That means animals will likely be sacrificing their lives to determine the safety of a product that a human will never even know was being developed.
With no direct societal benefit produced, what is the benefit of an animal suffering from the testing process? It can be an expensive practice. Caring for an animal requires a large investment. Some of the animals that are used for testing are bought at auction or taken from the wild, which brings additional costs into the process.
Now multiple those costs over an entire laboratory and the cost of animal research becomes very high, very quickly. It may not offer valid results. That means animal research can be more unreliable than even researchers claim it may be. Several drugs have passed animal testing, but have been found to be harmful to humans.
Nearly vaccines for HIV showed potential in primates, but failed in humans. That means the results that animal research can produce may not even be valid. Many facilities are exempt from animal welfare laws. That means there are more than 20 million animals who could be at a high risk of abuse or neglect in the name of research. Even when the facilities are in compliance with the law, they are governed by committees that are self-appointed and only a direct inspection of the facility would let someone know there are issues going on.
From living cell lines to cultures and other forms of cell harvesting, there are possibilities available. A cell line from cervical cancer cells taken in is still being researched, even though the individual died from that cancer in the same year. Poor research practices invalidate the data obtained. Data discrepancies are not the only issue that face animal research transitioning to human research. When poor research practices are used, the data that is obtained could be invalidated.
There is also the possibility that poor research practices could create false positive data that could then place human lives at risk. Unless there is accurate and complete oversight over the current field of animal research, this threat to the data will always exist. Reverse data can also be a problem with animal research. There are drugs and products that could be harmful to animals, but highly beneficial to humans, and the current state of research priority would make it extremely difficult to know if this was the case.
Animal testing occurs before human testing. An example of this issue is aspirin. It is a dangerous product for animals to have, but think of the millions of lives that have been improved or saved because of the drug.
Pros of Animal Research To begin, research using animals may lead to new medications being discovered. Examples of medications that have been the result of animal testing are Penicillin, several asthma treatments, cancer and .
All proposals to use animals for research must be approved by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) set up by each research facility. Humane treatment is enforced by each facility's IACUC, and most major research institutions' programs are voluntarily reviewed for humane practices by the Association for Assessment and .
List of Pros of Animal Experimentation. 1. Contributes to many cures and treatments that save many human lives The majority of the medical breakthroughs that have happened in the last years were direct results from animal research and experimentation, according to the California Biomedical Research Association. Home 10 Pros and Cons of Animal Experimentation 10 Pros and Cons of Animal Experimentation Millions of animals are being used for experiments in the US each year.
On the contrary, animal research ethics and the integrity and morality of such tests have been questioned by environmentalists. Pros PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) supporters will stand in unison against the support of animal testing. Animal Testing Pros and Cons |List of 8 Facts to Consider Animal testing is a process in which small animals like rats, mice, rabbits, pigs, dogs etc. are used for experimentation. This is a regular practice in drug development and other areas of scientific research.