• Uncategorized

Animal Research should be Illegal

Client’s surname2

AnimalResearch should be Illegal

Diseases have led to millions death, and the loss has led to thescientists using multiple approaches to find cures. In somescenarios, the scientists have been forced to use animals such aschimpanzees in testing the efficiency of certain drugs they havecreated. In fact, the vaccines for polio and hepatitis B were testedthrough the animal experiments. However, the approach has beenassociated with the torture of the animals and other inhumaneactivities. Hence, some people have even suggested that the animaltesting should be declared illegal. This essay will illustrate howthe animal experiments are inhumane and insecure and that shows theneed for the In vitro testing that will result in effectivecures since the scientists often use the human cells.

Most scientists tend to insist that the use of animals in researchshould be allowed. More specifically, they have showed that theanimal research has a number of laws that prevent the mistreatmentand ensures the scientists comply with the ethical requirements. Forinstance, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) is one of the bodies known tofight for their rights. The Institutional Animal Care and UseCommittee (IACUC) and the Association for Assessment andAccreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC) arethe other institutions that assess the validity of the experiments(Ohl &amp Der Staay, 15). Besides that, the scientists have alsoargued that some of the animals such as the chimpanzees are similarto humans and they have matching DNA as well. In fact, thefunctioning of the heart, intestines, and the lungs tend to be thesame and that shows how they are used. As a result, the reaction ofthe central nervous system to the drugs created might have the sameimpact on the human beings too. Hence, the similarities in DNA andphysiology have resulted in the cures and treatments that have saveda lot of lives. For instance, it has resulted in the creation of avaccine for polio and hepatitis B (Ohl &amp Der Staay, 16). Moreimportant, they suggest that the animal research has helped inunderstanding malaria, breast cancer, tuberculosis, and childhoodleukemia too. In this case, the current animal experiments are alsomore likely to result in more advancement in the field. All in all,most of the scientists believe that the animal testing has increasedtheir chances of finding medication for multiple infections that hadcaused a high morbidity and mortality rate.

On the other hand, religious people and animal activists have arguedthat the testing is inhumane and barbaric. Most of the experimentsare associated with water deprivation and involuntary feeding whenthe scientists want to achieve certain goals. The physical restraint,the absence of the freedom, burns or even decapitation is just someof the aspects that are reported from the laboratories used. Forinstance, the Draize eye test often leads to the cosmetic firmsplacing various products of the eyelids of the rabbits to determineif they can irritate their eyes (Pippin, 569). Apart from that, someof the animals are not the same to the human beings and thatundermines the outcome of their tests. In the process, they might geta particular outcome yet, when they test the same drug on humanbeings, they end up achieving totally different results. In fact,some of the drugs that had been successful on the animals can beunsafe for the human consumption. The sleeping pill thalidomide thatwas created in the 1950s had positive results when it was tested onthe animals, but, it caused severe deformities on nearly 10,000babies (Akhtar, 550). Besides that, Vioxx that was a medicine used intreating arthritis showed favorable outcomes when tested on mice(Rollin, 5). However, it caused heart attacks as well as cardiacdeaths on nearly 27,000 people that had used the medicine.

Even if the animal activists argue that the experiments are cruel andinsecure, most people will agree that they have created some curesthat have prevented deaths of people. For instance, the vaccines forpolio and hepatitis B are just some of the ones created as a resultof the animal testing. Hence, the experiments are not ineffective anddangerous as the activists reveal. However, the scientists shouldadopt other alternative approaches that seem more effective than theanimal tests. More important, the In vitro (in glass) testinghelps the researchers in analyzing cell cultures and identifyingvarious ways in which they might handle multiple infections (Clift etal., 723). In fact, the approach is more likely to give relevant andfavorable results than the outcomes that the animal testing providessince the researchers tend to use the human cells. Some of theartificial skins sold commercially include EpiDerm as well as theThinCert (Soldatow et al., 28). The Microfluidic chips also performjust like the human cells and organs perform, and that makes themappropriate for the experiments that often rely on the animal testing(Soldatow et al., 28). The use of the In vitro testing willcreate cures, save lives and create the drugs that will cure thespecific problem that the patient might be facing as well. Hence, thealternative approach will also create a common ground between theopposition and the supporters of the animal experiments.

In conclusion, the animal testing is inhumane, and that has shown theneed to replace them with the In vitro (in glass) researchthat will also help in finding cures for the various infections. Theanimal experiments are dangerous, and a few cases illustrate howinsecure and wasteful some of the testing might be. Hence, most ofthe religious groups and the animal activists believe that thecurrent bodies have been weaker in looking at the experiments.Instead, they have allowed some cruel and barbaric tests to becarried out in the name of providing the best drugs. Hence, the Invitro testing will save the lives of the animals and still helpin finding the cures needed.

Annotated Bibliography

Akhtar, Aysha. &quotThe need to include animal protection in publichealth policies.&quot Journal of public health policy 34.4(2013): 549-559.

The author argues against the act of using the animals for thescientific researches. Instead, he wants the legal bodies tointensify their scrutiny and requirements to prevent theimplementation of any inhumane research proposals that involve animaltesting. The information will help in criticizing the experimentsdone on the animals.

Clift, Martin JD, Peter Gehr, and Barbara Rothen-Rutishauser.&quotNanotoxicology: a perspective and discussion of whether or notin vitro testing is a valid alternative.&quot Archives oftoxicology 85.7 (2011): 723-731.

The researchershighlight the benefits of using the in vitro testing as opposed toanimal testing. In fact, they reveal the limitations associated withanimal experiments such as the inaccurate data and the inefficiencyof the drugs. They even cite several deaths of people that had beencaused by the animal testing procedures.

Ohl, F., and F. J. Van der Staay. &quotAnimal welfare: At theinterface between science and society.&quot The VeterinaryJournal 192.1 (2012): 13-19.

The two authorsillustrate the benefits of animal testing and the way that the peoplehave been able to get the polio and the arthritis B vaccine becauseof the procedures. They also insist that the presence of the legalbodies often makes sure that they have observed all the requiredguidelines.

Pippin, John J. &quotAnimal research in medical sciences: seeking aconvergence of science, medicine, and animal law.&quot S. Tex. L.Rev. 54 (2012): 469.

Pippin talks aboutthe controversy between the scientists, animal activists and thereligious bodies too. For instance, Pippin highlights the moralarguments that the animal activists use in opposing the procedures.In this case, he argues that human have benefitted from the activityand they should appreciate the extent that the scientists have gonewith the hope of saving humankind.

Rollin, Bernard E. &quotThe moral status of invasive animalresearch.&quot Hastings Center Report 42.s1 (2012): S4-S6.

Rollin focuses onthe moral arguments that evaluate the controversy. More important, heprovides some valid arguments and even reveals that some of theseexperiments are barbaric since the animals are tortured. He alsoinsists that some experiments end up being wasteful since they amountto nothing significant.

Soldatow, Valerie Y., et al. &quotIn vitro models for liver toxicitytesting.&quot Toxicology research 2.1 (2013): 23-39.

The author showsthat the in vitro testing is more practical and helps the scientistsin getting the accurate data to use in their experiments. Valeriealso highlights how the products are commercially available and thatincreases their chances of saving humankind.

Works Cited

Akhtar, Aysha. &quotThe need to include animal protection in publichealth policies.&quot Journal of public health policy 34.4(2013): 549-559.

Clift, Martin JD, Peter Gehr, and Barbara Rothen-Rutishauser.&quotNanotoxicology: a perspective and discussion of whether or notin vitro testing is a valid alternative.&quot Archives oftoxicology 85.7 (2011): 723-731.

Ohl, F., and F. J. Van der Staay. &quotAnimal welfare: At theinterface between science and society.&quot The VeterinaryJournal 192.1 (2012): 13-19.

Pippin, John J. &quotAnimal research in medical sciences: seeking aconvergence of science, medicine, and animal law.&quot S. Tex. L.Rev. 54 (2012): 469.

Rollin, Bernard E. &quotThe moral status of invasive animalresearch.&quot Hastings Center Report 42.s1 (2012): S4-S6.

Soldatow, Valerie Y., et al. &quotIn vitro models for liver toxicitytesting.&quot Toxicology research 2.1 (2013): 23-39.