|
A Brief Report on Animal Testing in Scientific Development 
1. Introduction
2. Testing Regulations
A. The Law
B. The definition of “animal”
C. Statistics 3. The Ethical Debate
Basis For Animal Testing
A. Models of human illness
B. Drugs and Cosmetic Testing
C. Surgery Techniques and Development Basis Against Animal Testing
A. Animals and Humans are physically different
B. Animals are complex living organisms and have rights 4. Alternatives to Animal Testing
A. Human based observation
B. Replaced or refined procedures
C. Alternatives to educational animal testing 5. Conclusion Animal Testing in Scientific Development 1. Introduction
Many generations have been brought up through life eating meat, wearing leather and enjoying circuses and zoos. Most of the American populace has and will continue to purchase kittens or adoring puppies. They have kept guinea pigs and beautiful birds as pets, exotic creatures from all over the world captured for wealthy consumers. Wool and silk are worn, burgers eaten, and fishing is common for food and sport. Animals are used for human benefit constantly.
What is just as common but generally unknown is the result of one of many questions people do not bother ask; the answer being that every day different species of animals are experimented on for the results of scientific research. Many popular manufacturers, including pet companies test their products on animals. However what is almost never considered is impact of these actions on the animals involved, and the possible agony inflicted.
“The question is neither ‘Can they reason?’ nor ‘Can they talk?’ but ‘Can they suffer?’” says Jeremy Bentham, the founder of the reforming utilitarian school of moral philosophy, which is a good case study towards the cause of the colossal dispute over current safety testing methods.
The following report examines the laws and alternatives to animal testing, and in addition discusses the basis for and against live-animal experimentation.
2. Testing Regulations
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for assuring that food, drugs and cosmetics are safe and properly labelled. This is accomplished by enforcing the Federal government Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&A Act) and related laws. The FDA does not specifically require the use of animals in testing new products, but does require evidence for the safety of the product from the manufacturers. The FDA however, advises unfailingly for the manufacturers to proceed with the most effective and appropriate tests for ensuring the safety of a product or ingredient within applicable laws. This often results in the use of animals for varied research experimentation.
The Food and Drug Administration supports the research, development and use of alternatives to animal testing as to determine the most humane methods that will improve the reliability of toxicity characterization, and save an immense amount of money, time, and most significant - animal pain and distress. The environmental organization PETA actively works on funding the development and validation of non-animal test methods.
In the United States the U.S Department of Agriculture has primary responsibility for regulating the treatment of laboratory animals. The DA in turn enforces the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to protect animals from inhumane treatment. AWA was established in 1966 because the public was concerned with stolen household pets being used in laboratory experimentation.
A. The Law
“The AWA requires that minimum standards of care and treatment be provided for certain animals bred for commercial sale, used in research, transported commercially, or exhibited to the public. Individuals who operate facilities using animals in these ways must provide their animals with adequate housing, handling, sanitation, nutrition, water, veterinary care, and protection from extreme weather and temperatures.” (AWA) B. The Definition of “Animal”
“The AWA defines “animal” as any live or dead dog, cat, nonhuman primate, guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or any warm blooded animal used for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet. By definition, coldblooded species (amphibians and reptiles) are exempt from coverage under the AWA.
The AWA further excludes the following:
Birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, bred for use in research; Horses not used for research purposes; farm animals, including livestock and poultry, used or intended for use as food or fibre or in agricultural research; fish; and Invertebrates (crustaceans, insects).” (AWA) C. Statistics of the Number of Animals Used
Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never are.
When asked if they agreed that animal experimentation can be misleading because of anatomical and physiological differences between animals and humans, 88% of doctors agreed.
Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer in humans. Flipping a coin would be more accurate.
According to animal tests lemon juice is deadly poison, but arsenic, hemlock and botulin are safe.
Over 200,000 medicines have been released most of which are now withdrawn. According to the World Health Organisation, 240 medicines are ‘essential’.
Aspirin fails animal tests, as do digitalis (heart drug), cancer treatments, insulin (causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicines. They would be banned if results from animal experimentation were accurate.
At least 450 methods exist with which we can replace animal experiments.
Morphine puts humans asleep but excites cats.
95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately disgarded as useless or dangerous to humans.
One in six patients in hospital are there because the drug they have taken had been passed safe for us on humans after animal tests.
Worldwide, at least 22 animals die every second in labs. In the UK one animal dies every five seconds.
The contraceptive pill causes blood clots in humans but it had the opposite effect in dogs.
We use aspirin for aches and pains. It causes birth defects in mice, rabbits and rats.
Researchers refused to believe that benzene could cause cancer in humans because it failed to in animal tests.
Heart bypass surgery was put on hold for years because it didn’t work on dogs.
It was denied for decades that asbestos caused disease in humans because it didn’t in animals. 3. The Ethical Debate
A. Basis FOR Animal Experimentation
Humans and animals share hundreds of common illnesses, consequently causing many animals to be valid candidates as models for the study of human sickness. For example, rabbits naturally suffer from atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries), as well as diseases such as spina bifida, hydrocephalus and cleft palate. Dogs suffer from cancer, diabetes, cataracts, ulcers and bleeding disorders such as haemophilia. Cats have also been said to suffer from some of the same visual impairments as humans. From animals, scientists can learn how disease works within the body, how the immune system responds and test possible medications that could in many diverse ways, otherwise cause humans to be inflicted with pain and distress.
Once researchers have knowledge of a particular disease, whether the information was gained by dissecting mammal corpses, or live animal testing, treatment plans are then devised and animals are used to test these potential therapies. Data from the studies conducted on animals are usually required before new medical treatment and surgical procedures can be performed on human patients. Examples to be said that are only safe and effective because they were first tested on animals include X-Ray machines and implants such as heart pacemakers and artificial hips.
It is often said that people who support and practice animal testing consider it better to test dangerous situations on animals rather than humans, because they consider “lower” species to be less of an entity then themselves. They establish the idea that the “lower mammals” commonly used in experimentation cannot experience equal possible pain, suffering and anguish compared to the Homo Sapien race. For people with this belief it is a superior moral decision to test the therapeutic techniques and innovative surgery for the possibility of dangerous affects on animals, before it is even considered for public release.
Many scientists agree that although the results generated from animal testing have generally been effective in protecting the general public from immediate as well long-term chemical exposure; they have by no means proven to be humane or sufficient as predictors of human risk.
B. Basis AGAINST Animal Experimentation
“An estimated 100 million animals are used in laboratory tests every year on mice, rats, rabbits, apes, dogs and cats.” (Ethical Treatment of Animals 3.3) One of the most scientific reasons for arguing against animal testing is the established fact that an animal’s response to a medicine or cosmetic ingredient can be drastically different then a human’s reaction for many reasons. The fact is, a ridiculous quantity of animals experience much misery for the sake of human security of health.
Foremost, animals are quite obviously physically dissimilar to the human species. An example of a test that is known to be appalling is the Draize test, which is used on rabbits to assess the damage certain products can cause to their eyes. The scientists and/or other individuals involved perform this examination by rubbing chemicals into the rodent’s eyes and recording the injury it would cause. This test should be considered extremely unpractical for the following reasons:
• The rabbit’s epithelial (surface) layer is 10 times more permeable to hydrophilic molecules than a healthy human’s.
• The second membrane of a human’s eye is 6 times thicker than a rabbit’s.
• Unlike humans, rabbits’ have nictitating membrane (third eyelid), which is not considered in the results of the test.
These facts, which can be easily found by researching past work on the subject, clearly show that it is not intelligent to consider the Draize test to be a good insight on the possible damage a product can cause human eyes. “Even if a chemical is found to be non-toxic in animal studies, the safety of that chemical cannot be assured.” (Dr. Barbara Shane, U.S Toxicology Program)
Secondly, animals used for research are sometimes used by companies who claim that the subject does not undergo any treatments that cause physical pain. What is hidden or disguised by corporations more than occasionally is that the creature in the laboratory may be experiencing tremendous mental grief from possibly being severely neglected, frightened and being refused the essential requirements for a healthy life. This can be a major factor towards determining the cause of damage in experiments. A good illustration for this is the popular pet company IAMS, who situate cats and dogs in small cages their whole life, without social interaction. The household pets are than fed different types of food to see if they are harmful. The well being of these isolated animal’s lives are unthought-of of during these pointless experiments, and it is shameful that such a well known and once respected pet company could perform such actions.
In conclusion to the debate, animals have as much right to life as human beings, and government controls have not adequately prevented researchers from abusing animals during their experiments. “Supporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth - a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans.” (PETA) Many animals subject to experimentation suffer incalculable pain and torture, and the tests executed are over used and unnecessary because they are tests for their safety of cosmetics and Botox. Someone who considers make-up to have a greater importance than an animal’s life is heartless and greatly unappreciative of “Mother Nature” and her creatures. Every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering.
4. Alternatives to Animal Testing
Alternative testing refers to any change from the present animal testing procedures that will result in the replacement of animals, a reduction in the numbers used, or a change of techniques that will minimize potential pain and distress inflicted on the animal being subjected.
A. Comparative studies of humans allow doctors and scientists to understand and discover the causes of human disease and disorder by collecting so that preventative measures can be taken, and medicine prepared to aid the sick. With tools from molecular biology, biochemistry, and analytical pharmacology, companies can conduct extensive research of human genes and how drugs affect those genes or the proteins they make. It is believed that research into alternative methods to animal testing is more efficient with human tissues.
“If you have information on human genes, what’s the point of going back to animals?” (Pharmagene Cofounder Gordon Baxter)
B. The following tests have found to be replaced or refined for the sake of being humane and more accurate:
An embryonic stem cell test, using mouse-derived cells to assess potential toxicity to developing embryos, has been validated as a partial replacement for birth-defect testing in rats and rabbits.
The 3T3 Neutral Red Uptake Phototoxicity Test, which uses cells grown in culture to assess the potential for sunlight-induced (“photo”) irritation to the skin.
Human skin model tests such as the validated EpiDerm™ test, which has been accepted almost universally as a total replacement for skin corrosion studies in rabbits.
The use of human skin leftover from surgical procedures or donated cadavers can be used to measure the rate at which a chemical is able to penetrate the skin.
The use of a clinical patch test in human volunteers, which can confirm that a chemical will not cause irritation or allergic skin reactions.
5 human blood-based tests for fever-inducing "pyrogens" in intravenous drugs
Fixed dose, acute toxic class, and up-and-down procedures for acute mammalian toxicity (50% reduction relative to classical "lethal dose" tests)
C. Alternatives for Education
Many medical schools have replaced their use of live animals in physiology, pharmacology and surgical training laboratories with effective and most importantly humane, non-live animal teaching methods. These include observation of human cardiac bypass surgery, cadavers, patient simulators, sophisticated computer programs, and much more. Two comparative examples are:
• A study of first-year biology undergraduates found that examination results of those students who used model rats were equivalent to those who had performed rat dissections.
• A similar study examined a class of first-year biology students, half of whom used traditional “hands-on” laboratories while the remainder used computer software. The biology knowledge of the computer-taught students increased significantly more than did that of the traditional group.
5. Conclusion
To conclude, it can be extremely difficult to take an educated stand on the issue of animal testing when there is much conflicting data and bias on both sides. Some argue that animal testing is inefficient and that scientists find it more convenient to stay with what has been done before, instead of searching for new and better alternatives. Others argue that human risk is more important than animal exploitation. Many organizations and government associations are actively researching alternative and precise methods, because the general populace agrees that in an ideal world, there is no animal testing.
Reference Internet sources
Brecher, Arie M.D (n.d) The Scientific Argument Against Animal Testing. Retrieved March 08, 2009 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.whitecoatwelfare.org/aat-text.shtml
U.S Humane Society (n.d) Animal Testing. Retrieved March 08, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.hsus.org/animals_in_research/animal_testing/
Professor Charles R. Magel (n.d) Animal Testing 101. Retrieved March 07, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.stopanimaltests.com/animalTesting101.asp
Animal Liberation Activists. Statistics. Retrieved April 01, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Animal%20Testing/Vivisection/vivisectionfacts.htm. FDA. Animal testing. Revised April 2006. Retrieved March 30, 3009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-205.html Books
Gilman, J.P.W Health and Welfare Canada. Report on Status and Trends in In Vitro Toxicology an Methodology Modifications for Reducing Animal Use. Ottawa, Ontario. Minister and Supply services Canada 1990.
Hester, R E and Harrison, R M. Alternatives to Animal Testing. Cambridge, UK. RCS Publishing.
|
