The Ecologist Online Magazine, January 2008.  Kathy Archibald.

Article  that animal researching may be faked or ineffective, and above all, useless.

NewScientist Magazine, 26 November, 2008. A. C. Grayling

Article which talks about things that goes on in animal testing that people don’t know about.

Pandora Pound, February 28, Roberts Ian.

Article debating if animal research really benefits humans.

Everyday people are seen with their most loved and prized possession. It’s usually not a car, or expensive jewelry, or even someone they are with, rather, it is their animal, partner in crime, or as many know, their best friend. Of the 106.4 million households in the U.S., 33.6 million have at least one cat as a pet, this doesn’t even include the number of dogs U.S. households have which far outreaches that of cats.

People don’t think much of what goes on with all the millions and millions of animals in the world and what is involved with all of them. They never even stop to think what happens to animals that aren’t lucky enough to find caring and loving homes. When people like you and I use luxuries such as shampoo, or lotion, or even medicine such as vaccines and pain killers, normally, the thought of what went into this for this to be able to be used doesn’t cross many minds. Instead, they keep pushing for more and more improvements in every product without even knowing that the lives of innocent animals are being used to benefit everyday life for humans.

Furthermore, animals are suffering and being put in unhealthy environments in labs so that they can be tested on to make researchers rich. Animals have no way of voicing how they are feeling, and the pure misery and agony they are put in is intolerable to some. Unfortunately, to many, it’s a necessity. Many believe that it’s worth it for millions of animals to be tested on in a single year to benefit the lives of humans. A vast number of these animals being tested on, die from lethal materials put into their bodies, lack of nutrition, or they just give up on life and die of pure depression. Alternative testing needs to be used and the fact that animal testing isn’t “animal abuse” is hypocritical and ridiculous. A new alternative, or even a simple start as to new limits on what can be done to the animals needs to be put in place.

Continuing on, a brief history of animal testing should be summarized to let all know what animal testing originated from. It started centuries ago in Europe and the United States, primarily for two reasons. Curiosity for starters. Even in the Stone Age, when people cut into an animal they were probably curious about the various blood vessels and organs that were visible inside the creatures body (Judson,13). Secondly, convenience. Live humans were not generally available or willing to be operated on to satisfy another persons curiosity. Animals were the alternative. Early scientists cut into living and dead animals, as well as human corpses, to learn about the internal construction and function of bodily systems (Judson,13). In the early beginning of animal testing, animals were experimented mainly to understand the the bodily systems, but now animal testing has further extended the basics of looking at bodies, to injected lethal chemicals and slowly killing animals.

Animal experimentation became the primary method of learning about anatomy, physiology, and disease processes because the state-supported Roman Catholic Church is early Greece and Rome forbade the dissection of human corpses. This let physicians and other curious scientists cut into animals without worry because animals were believed to have no souls carried within their bodies. This also made many believe that the absence of a soul meant that the nonhuman animals felt no pain. A major scientist who saw a perfect opportunity to research human corpses was unable to due to this law, but instead dissected pigs, dogs, monkeys and other animals, assuming that the biological systems and functions would be much the same throughout the animal kingdom, and he was one of the first early scientists to transfer observations of animals to humans. Galen of Pergamon’s theory of health and disease was that the human body consisted of four “humors” blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile, and that when these substances were out of balance or when they were malfunctioned, a person became ill. Although Galen was mistaken, his theory carried on for fifteen hundred years (Judson,14). This single scientist led many other experimenter’s curiosity with take them. It led to animal testing becoming more and more complex, and before anesthesia was invented, animals suffered greatly as they were experimented on alive or dead. Even today with anesthesia, animals are still put in much pain as they are being tested on.

Because animal testing evokes strong emotions, positions held on the issue vary greatly. Many who are for animal testing say that without animal testing many life saving vaccines , drugs, and surgical procedures would never have been developed. And with the potential for genetic engineering exploding, manipulating animal and human genomes may provide a way to get rid of many hereditary diseases that have plagued people for centuries- diseases such as cystic fibrosis, hemophilia, sickle cell anemia, and certain forms of cancer (Judson,34). Researches realize stress can skew results, and ultimately they conclude that the animals they test on are treated humanely. Many also believe that because of how much money is invested in animal testing researchers just become rich, but in reality much less money is being made off of animal testing then is put it. About three cents of every dollar spent for health care is actually spent on research of all types. This means that there isn’t nearly as much money being put into animal testing as there is health care, and many believe that animal testing is costing millions and millions of dollars with no good coming from it. Many who argue in favor of animal testing also argue that animal testing isn’t always based on animals similarities to humans, but sometimes its the differences that matter. For example, animal testing is oftentimes performed to learn such secrets as why sharks are resistant to cancer, how amphibians regulate their own blood pressure, and the mechanism used by cockroaches to regenerate severed nerves that run from the insects body to its leg (Judosn,36). By studying these particular situations and becoming more knowledgeable in areas like this and with many more animal cases like the ones listed above, could prevent much human disease and suffering that sways many to be for animal testing.

Kelsey Yoder

English 122

Leah Rogin-Roper

Research Paper Rough Draft

Animal testing: Cruel and Unusual or Scientifically Necessary?

http://www.freewebs.com/animaltestingcons/animal%20testing%20-%20cage.jpg

Everyday people are seen with their most loved and prized possession. It’s usually not a car, or expensive jewelry, or even someone they are with, rather, it is their animal, partner in crime, or as many know, their best friend. Of the 106.4 million households in the U.S., 33.6 million have at least one cat as a pet, this doesn’t even include the number of dogs U.S. households have which far outreaches that of cats. Despite our affection of pets and animals, we are still using them for animal testing. This paper addresses the pros and cons of animal testing and research in ultimately determining that there are alternatives which suggest that the cruel and unusual aspect of animal testing should be considered more than the relevance of this testing to the scientific field.

People don’t think much of what goes on with all the millions and millions of animals in the world and what is involved with all of them. They never even stop to think what happens to animals that aren’t lucky enough to find caring and loving homes. When people like you and I use luxuries such as shampoo, or lotion, or even medicine such as vaccines and pain killers, normally, the thought of what went into this for it to be able to be used doesn’t cross many minds. Instead, they keep pushing for more and more improvements in every product without even knowing that the lives of innocent animals are being used to benefit everyday life for humans.

Animals are suffering and being put in unhealthy environments in labs so that they can be tested on to make researchers rich. Animals have no way of voicing how they are feeling, and the pure misery and agony they are put in is intolerable to some. Unfortunately, to many, it’s a necessity. Many believe that it’s worth it for millions of animals to be tested on in a single year to benefit the lives of humans. A vast number of these animals being tested on die from lethal materials put into their bodies, lack of nutrition, or they just give up on life and die of pure depression. Alternative testing needs to be used and the fact that animal testing isn’t “animal abuse” is hypocritical and ridiculous. A new alternative, or even a simple start as to new limits on what can be done to the animals needs to be put in place.

In order to properly address this issue, brief history of animal testing is necessary to provide all readers with the main concepts and origin of animal testing. It started centuries ago in Europe and the United States, primarily for two reasons. Curiosity for starters. Even in the Stone Age, when people cut into an animal they were probably curious about the various blood vessels and organs that were visible inside the creatures body (Judson,13). Secondly, convenience. Live humans were not generally available or willing to be operated on to satisfy another person’s curiosity. Animals were the alternative. Early scientists cut into living and dead animals, as well as human corpses, to learn about the internal construction and function of bodily systems (Judson,13). In the early beginning of animal testing, animals were experimented mainly to understand the bodily systems, but now animal testing has further extended the basics of looking at bodies, to injecting lethal chemicals and slowly killing animals.

Animal experimentation became the primary method of learning about anatomy, physiology, and disease processes because the state-supported Roman Catholic Church in early Greece and Rome forbade the dissection of human corpses. This let physicians and other curious scientists cut into animals without worry because animals were believed to have no souls carried within their bodies. This also made many believe that the absence of a soul meant that the nonhuman animals felt no pain. A major scientist who saw a perfect opportunity to research human corpses was unable to due to this law, but instead dissected pigs, dogs, monkeys and other animals. Assuming that the biological systems and functions would be much the same throughout the animal kingdom, he was one of the first early scientists to transfer observations of animals to humans. Galen of Pergamon’s theory of health and disease was that the human body consisted of four “humors” blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile, and that when these substances were out of balance or when they were malfunctioned, a person became ill. Although Galen was mistaken, his theory carried on for fifteen hundred years (Judson, 14). This single scientist led many other experimenter’s curiosity with take them. It led to animal testing becoming more and more complex, and before anesthesia was invented, animals suffered greatly as they were experimented on alive or dead. Even today with anesthesia, animals are still put in much pain as they are being tested on.

Because animal testing evokes strong emotions, positions held on the issue vary greatly. Many who are for animal testing say that without animal testing many life saving vaccines, drugs, and surgical procedures would never have been developed. Among the ways for us to learn whether and how a substance of physical property will harm people- and domesticated and wild animals- involves often complicated study. Learning about potential harm requires determining how the living organism absorbs, uses, and releases the substance (Draggan, 2). Usually this is a study done that requires the ingestion of chemicals, and since humans aren’t aloud to be tested on, animals are the ones that take that void. Without animals, scientists would virtually lose a basic method or model for getting information needed to make wise decisions that protect public health (Draggan, 1). With the potential for genetic engineering exploding, manipulating animal and human genomes may provide a way to get rid of many hereditary diseases that have plagued people for centuries, diseases such as cystic fibrosis, hemophilia, sickle cell anemia, and certain forms of cancer (Judson, 34). Researches realize stress can skew results, and ultimately they conclude that the animals they test on are treated humanely. Many also believe that because of how much money is invested in animal testing researchers just become rich, but in reality much less money is being made off of animal testing then is put in. Recently, hundreds of scientists and students took to the streets of Oxford to march in favor of the city’s new biomedical lab, where animals are currently being tested on (Hopkin). This drew the line for researchers because this march done by the students and scientists was an act to show they weren’t intimidated by threats put towards them because they are animal testing supporters. About three cents of every dollar spent for health care is actually spent on research of all types. This means that there isn’t nearly as much money being put into animal testing as there is health care, and many believe that animal testing is costing millions and millions of dollars with no good coming from it. Many who argue in favor of animal testing also argue that animal testing isn’t always based on animals’ similarities to humans, but sometimes it’s the differences that matter. For example, animal testing is oftentimes performed to learn such secrets as why sharks are resistant to cancer, how amphibians regulate their own blood pressure, and the mechanism used by cockroaches to regenerate severed nerves that run from the insects body to its leg (Judosn,36). By studying these particular situations and becoming more knowledgeable in areas like this and with many more animal cases like the ones listed above, could prevent much human disease and suffering that sways many to be for animal testing. Animal testing also can help drug addiction as well. In a case of new or already marketed medications, animal testing can often compliment and extend abuse liability evaluation in human subjects. The results of abused potential evaluation studies an be useful in making decisions about the possible need for regulation under national and international drug laws, and therefore play an important role in drug abuse prevention (Balster). This is basically saying that by doing tests on animals beforehand, will provide facts about how much drugs a person should receive at one time so there wouldn’t be an over dosage of drugs taken, and ultimately reduces the possibility of a subject to get addicted to a certain drug.

Although there are some potentially good things that come out of animal testing, I still feel strongly in my position that animal testing is wrong, and is painful for the animals. Most people, like me, who object to animal testing, cite ethical and moral grounds. Many feel that animal testing can even be dangerous to humans an example being cross –species treatments, such as using pig valves in human hearts, could cause deadly autoimmune reactions (Judson, 31). I believe this is a very important thing to worry about because although outcomes of using pig heart valves can be beneficial and life saving, the risks can be detrimental and cancel out the benefits that come along with it. Some animal rights extremists believe so strongly against animal testing that they believe things such as circuses, rodeos, and even owning pets is considered animal abuse. In addition to that, many claim that because animals are living creatures and are sentient they should have rights, just as humans have rights. Animals should not be exploited for any purpose, they say, including biomedical studies (Judson, 31). I feel this statement fits the standards of what arguers against animal testing are trying to prove. I believe that animals, just like us, have feelings and although they can’t speak them in a way we can understand, just the look they can give you a sense of the pain and misery they are actually going through if one takes the time to be compassionate and notice. An animal’s can tell a person so much about what they are thinking. Many who are against animal testing argue that it’s wasteful- both in dollars and of animals’ lives. Consequently, the funding that is supplied for animal testing comes from tax payer’s wallets, and many of these tax payers get angered when they hear their money goes towards something they don’t even support. I would also be angered by this because I am definitely not a supporter of animal testing and I don’t want my hard earned money going to a cause that puts animals through pain.

Another proven fact that supports animal rights activist against animal testing is that handling and caging animals for testing causes so much stress in the animal that test results are unreliable (Judson, 32). It’s proven that humans, when put under stress, don’t react in the best way they possibly can. There is no difference in animals who are likely put in way more stress then humans are likely to encounter through these cruel and unusual testing that takes place. In The Acute Toxicity Test- in which the animal is forced to swallow the substance, or has it administered under its skin, to test for signs of poisoning, and many animals die as a result of this test (freewebs.com). If researchers are going to try to accomplish something in a positive way by testing things on animals, how can the results be reliable if the animals they are testing on are full of stress, which ultimately skews the results? This is ultimately going against the very purpose of this research as the results are not as accurately as they should be because of the heightened awareness and emotional strains of these animals. In addition to the stress put on the animals many believe it is only acceptable to test human medicines on human beings if they give their consent. Non-human animals are never able to give such consent (Dixon). Animals are capable of expressing their feelings through the emotions given by their eyes and their sounds but never by actual words people can understand. This never gives any human a clue of what they are thinking, although humans obviously aren’t dumb enough to know they are hurting the animals, yet they still persist on doing it. 90 percent of medications approved for human use after animal testing later proved ineffective or harmful to humans in clinical trials (Overton). This fact shows the ignorance animal researchers display in their ongoing studies on innocent animals is still being performed, and isn’t benefiting either animals or humans.

In addition the numerous problems raised through this topic, those who oppose animal testing would argue that some other experimental methods are available to scientists that do not require the use of animals. Some of these alternative testing methods are computer models and tissue cultures, which may supplement existing live animal techniques. Scientists have significantly reduced the amount of animals used in product safety testing in recent times (Judson, 112). An example that shows the reduction of laboratory animals is the testing of cosmetic ingredients in animals for their potential to induce skin sensation that will be subject to an EU marketing ban, from March 2013 onwards (Aleksic). This will reduce the amount of animals being tested on immensely. Because of the significant reduction in animal usage, those who oppose animal testing are excited about this fact because if it is possible to reduce animal usage significantly in testing, shouldn’t it also be possible with time to eliminate animals from testing completely? This brings us back to the method of tissue cultures as an alternative to animal testing. With all of the excitement with recent stem cell research it’s exciting to think that we can replicate these plutonic stem cells and be able to test them rather than animals. This is ultimately the best of both worlds as the use of stem cell research, which is progressing more and more with time, provides a way to eliminate animals from testing while also providing a more accurate means of testing, as stem cells can be derived from humans and it is clearly better to test human diseases on human cells themselves, even over closely related animals.

In conclusion, although there are numerous arguments for both sides whether it be that animal testing is cruel and unusual punishment towards animals or the supportive argument that animal testing is the best means of adequately providing researchers with an affective means of studying human ail nesses, I believe animal testing should not be performed. Though I understand and respect the argument that in studying animals it has provided the best way of studying diseases in hopes to eradicate or alleviate human diseases, I feel it’s important to notice that as time change so does technology, and with this change in technology has also come a more effective means of testing diseases and other such issues for researchers to experiment with. Stem cell research is a viable alternative to animal testing and I feel the efforts should be focused less on animal testing and put more into the field of stem cell research and the potential it has for exciting and effective research. Through the alternatives listed and pros and cons given throughout this paper along with the abundance of research performed, I found my stance on this issue remained the same. Animal testing is cruel and unusual and no way to treat our lovable pets and animal kingdoms, especially since alternatives are present which can replace any scientific knowledge obtained from such animalistic testing.

]]> http://kyoder1112.wordpress.com/2009/05/07/research-paper/feed/ 0 kyoder1112