A Research Paper

For Animal Testing

March 27, 2011 ENC 1101

Background and thesis

Animal experimentation has played a vital role in scientific research. Because of the similarities between human and animal physiology,

experimentation has allowed scientists have conceived numerous medical advancements, including vaccines, organ transplants, and pacemakers. From the discovery of antibiotics, analgesics, antidepressants, and anesthetics, to the successful development of organ transplants, bypass surgery, heart

catheterization, and joint replacement is in some way based on knowledge attained through research with animals (Foundation for Biomedical Research). Animal rights extremists do not want scientists to test on animals. They say that it is unjust because the creatures are needed to be protected not harvested and experimented on. Some say that animals are not that close related to humans. There have been several cases where medicines that were supposed to be beneficial to humans actually did the opposite. Animal testing is not unethical, it is essential for medical advancement, and the other alternatives that have been prevented are nowhere near as efficient as animal testing.

Opposition

Opponents of animal research argue that it is immoral and unnecessary and there are ways to gain research than by animal testing. A leading animal rights activist, philosopher Peter Singer, in his book, Animal Liberation, says that animals have the inherent right to be free from the purposeful infliction of pain and suffering and that humans have no right to exploit animals simply because they are of a different species(Animal Experimentation).

Sapontzis says it is just as wrong to test on animals as it is to experiment on humans. Although humans may benefit from the research it still does not justify injuring or killing animals. Animals may not be autonomous, but they do have interests. Humans should protect the animals not harm them.

Persons against animal experimentation suggest alternatives. One is a test tube method using cell and tissue cultures rather than whole animals. For example, skin tissues of animals could be gathered in a lab and used to test reactions to chemicals. Human cancer cells can be cultivated and used to test cancer treatments. Another possible alternative to animal experimentation is computer modeling. Animal research critics argue that computer programs can mimic biological processes and can be used to predict how a living human or animal body would react to chemicals or other experiments. But not all scientists agree that animal experimentation can be replaced. The National Association of Biomedical Research has argued that "Many of the processes that occur within the human body remain too complex to be simulated by a computer or cell culture. We face too many terrible health problemslike cancer, AIDS, heart disease, Alzheimers disease, birth defects and mental illnessto eliminate the animal research that has been responsible for so many advances in medical care."

Refutation

A doctor led his female patient into an operating room. He placed a helmet on her that was hooked up to electrical monitors. Once he had her securely fasted to his operating table he flipped his device on. The patient was knocked unconscious by a hard blow to the head from a piston. When she finally regained consciousness she went into convulsions. After the convulsions ceased the doctor san tests on her. She had been blind and had no control of her arms. She was then taken to another room and given an injection that killed her in under a minute. Once she was dead the doctor removes her head to analyze what had caused her to die (Sapontzis, S.F). Imagine if this really happened to a person, luckily this experiment was conducted on a monkey but as far as ethics are concerned there is no way a person could do such an experiment on another human which is why it is vital to use animals. Ordinary ethics does not protect animals against exploitations. Human life is worth more than animal life; this justifies our sacrificing animals for our benefit. As humans we have the ability to use reason to control our lives and surroundings. We have souls whereas animals do not. Since animals are not rational or autonomous beings, as long as experiments are humane, there cannot be anything unethical about using animals in research.

The Foundation for Biomedical Research says animal rights extremists say that the results of animal studies can't be applied to human health; doctors recognize that animal systems provide much understanding into human systems because there are striking similarities between the physiological and genetic systems of animals and humans. Since the beginning of medical science, perceptivity drawn from studies with lab animals has been vital in the precise interpretation of human studies. The studies of human populations and clinical cases could not

have been interpreted without the scientific understanding that came from the research with animals. It is more than necessary for scientists to experiment on animals because there is nothing else that is so close to our genetic makeup. To just not test on animals would pretty much cease medical advancement. How are we supposed to take a drug that is supposed to make us better without a test trial?

Animal rights activists suggest that scientists find alternatives to make advancements. They suggest replacing animals for tissue samples or computer simulations of the disease. With such material there is no way of knowing the side effects of the drug or vaccine without a test trial on humans or something closely related to humans like animals (Cohen, Carl). Without animal testing we would have not made such advancements in medicine. We nearly cured polio, made several vaccines to prevent us from getting sick, the anesthia to numb us during surgery was originally tested on animals. Because of animal testing there have been experiments that have found ways to keep our pets healthier and live longer. The sacrifice of animals has helped lower the premature death rate.

Work Cited

"Animal Experimentation." Current Issues: Macmillian Social Science Library. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 28 Mar. 2011.

Cohen, Carl. "Animal Experimentation Is Necessary." Animal Rights. Ed. Shasta Gaughen. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Contemporary Issues Companion. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. Foundation for Biomedical Research. "Animal Experimentation Is Vital for Medical Research." Animal Experimentation. Ed. Cindy Mur. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2009. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. Sapontzis, S.F. "Animal Experimentation Is Unethical." Do Animals Have Rights? Ed. Jamuna Carroll. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 28 Mar. 2011