Medical research using animals has helped to improve dramatically the health of the human race. Without animal testing, the cure for polio and diabetes would not have been invented. Despite these benefits, I believe that animals should not be used for testing medical techniques and drugs. It is justifiable as long as we it does minimal damage to the animal. On the one hand, animal testing allows scientists to test and create new drugs.
Why are scientists given such a high rank if they are the ones making animals suffer? This question may come across the mind of a person who is against testing animals in Biomedical Research. You see the reason that scientists use animals for this research is because of all the previous achievements, such as the solving of medical problems, development of new techniques, treatments, and cures for diseases. Biomedical research has led to life-saving surgical procedures, cancer therapies, organ transplantation, vaccines, safer consumer products and etc. The organs and the body systems of animals are similar to humans and to other animals, which is the basic reason why scientists use animals for this research.
As the statistics indicate animal testing is dangerous and harmful, but medical research must continue. Supporters of animal testing argue that if animal testing never existed or was eliminated, that many of the medications and medical procedures used today would not be available and the development of future medicine and treatments would be extremely limited. These supporters argue that humans have benefited from the developments that stem from animal testing for many years. Also, Researchers and Scientist claim that testing is justified because it assists in discovering ways to help people and animals for the future. Surgery on animals has assisted in developing organ transplant and open-heart surgery techniques.
I believe my for argument for animal testing is more reliable than my argument against animal testing, this is because I have scientific information about for animal testing that tells us that by testing on animals, we have found many cures for diseases and helped to develop vaccines against; rabies, polio, measles, mumps, rubella and Tuberculosis. So without animal testing we would not have found any antidote’s to those diseases. However I do have some scientific information for my against animal testing side; I have proven statistics from the year 2000 that in total 2,714,800 animals were tested in just that year. But despite those statistics, if we did not test on animals then we would not have the improved quality of human life. Overall I believe that my ‘for’ argument stacks up the strongest because animal testing is the most accurate way to learn the effects of substances in a living body.
This is a legitimate concern in some species and uses, such as in dairy cattle, in which one bull may sire thousands of offspring. However, this is more related to the technology of semen freezing and distribution than to the fact that a bull itself was cloned. In companion animals, it is improbable that the very few pets likely to be cloned will have an effect on the population in general. In horses, cloning may in fact increase genetic variation, because a major proposed use is to clone geldings that have been found to be superior competitors, thus rescuing genetic types that would otherwise have been
Animals are a very unreliable way of testing whether something is safe or not, and there are other options available to researchers. Using blood from human volunteers to test for the presence of fever-causing contaminants in intravenous medicines can save hundreds of thousands of rabbits each year from traditional "pyrogen" tests. EpiSkin, EpiDerm and SkinEthic—each composed of artificial human skin—can save rabbits from painful skin corrosion and irritation tests. The Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability Test and Isolated Chicken Eye Test are techniques that use eyes from animals slaughtered for the meat industry instead of live rabbits to detect chemicals and products that are severely irritating to the eyes. The Reduced Local Lymph Node Assay for skin allergy testing makes it possible to reduce live animal usage by up to 75 percent compared with traditional guinea pig and mouse tests.
Firstly, yes, the curing of diseases can be beneficial to multiple people. This however, will have a negative impact in the long run. The human population is already far above the carrying capacity of the earth and by curing even more diseases, the human population will carry on increasing, which will be beneficial for no one. The curing of these genetic diseases will prevent survival among the fittest in humans (which already takes place due to modern medicine and things like life support). The threat of new mutations is not focused on the chances of super powers forming, but more along the lines of damaging the overall human genome.
Volunteers who have agreed to be a part of the test are given an extremely small drug dose and are monitored by highly advanced imaging techniques to observe how the drug behaves in the body. This test would have the most precise result since the experiment is being tested on humans and how the human body reacts. It won’t kill or give any big impacts to the volunteers since only small quantities of drugs are being tested. There are lots more ways that are able to replace animal testing that are way more dependable than the results of animal
I was surprised by how orderly everything looked. I saw much less pain and suffering than I was expecting. “ a. Background information/ Connection- Animal experimentation is experiments and development projects that use animals to determine efficiency, toxicity, and dosing of drugs before they are used on humans in clinical trials. Some people say these experiments are cruel, and animals should not be used.
According to the Christian Medical Files book, ‘Animal Welfare’: “All experiments should be designed so that they are capable of giving useful results. If this has not happened the experiment is neither scientifically or morally acceptable.” If not all of the experiments will give scientists clear results, then many might see this as a waste of time and not a sufficient excuse to put animals through the pain of animal testing. In addition, there are many people who believe that there are so many animals involved and harmed in the process that the benefits to humanity are not justified. The BBC reveals that: “2.8 million procedures using animals were recorded in 2003,” (www.bbc.co.uk) There are evidently a large number of animals tested on, and many feel that this figure is far too high. After all, if the number of human beings that are benefiting is significantly smaller than the number of animals being harmed, surely the action of animal testing becomes morally wrong?