The Good, the Bad and Ugly of Animal Experimentation

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Animal Experimentation Animal experimentation plays an important role in today’s medical and pharmaceutical advances, but many question the morality of such a use of animal life. Whether one argues that testing different products and drugs on animals is necessary or not, this has become an integral part of developing products. From that Tylenol we pop to get rid of our headache to that perfect shade of pink lip gloss, animal testing is used in order to produce the simplest household items.

Today, in the United States, it is federal law that requires all pharmaceuticals, food additives, cosmetics, and garden chemicals to undergo a series of tests including animal testing, before being available to the general public. It is estimated that between fifty and a hundred million vertebrate animals worldwide are being used for animal experiments. While many believe that animal experimentation is a crucial part of research and product safety, others argue the morality of this issue.

Another point of view some share is a mixture of both opposing views, where one believes that animal experimentation should only be condoned in the field of medical research but not for the production of personal care or superficial items. Those for animal experimentation view it as a fundamental part of innovation and believe that this will help not only biomedical research and technology, but surgical advancements as well. Ninety-five percent of animals being used for experimentation are mice and rats, and the other five consist mainly of guinea pigs, rabbits, birds, dogs, and non-human primates.

Within the United States, animals used in testing are protected by the Animal Welfare Act of 1966. This law states that animals used in testing be housed properly, given veterinarian care, and be relieved of their pain, or kept to a minimum if it is necessary. Animals have shorter life spans than humans so it is easier to conduct experiments involving generational information. Also, scientists can control the environment and different variables the animal is exposed to in order to create a certain result. According to George and Wagner, “…would it be better instead to ubject all species, present and future, with the suffering and death caused by diseases that may go untreated because vital medical research is cut off? ”

Their point is that animal testing is a crucial part of medical advancements and without it we would not just hurt animals, but all species as well as humans in general. People who are against animal testing perceive this as an avoidable form of research. The anti-animal testing advocates tend to take on the argument of the ethical boundaries that animal experimentation is crossing, and they believe that the actions caused by experimentation are cruel and unnecessary.

However, there are numerous non-emotional stands against this issue as well like the differences in a human’s anatomy compared to a rat or guinea pig, or any other species. An example of this took place during the research of lung cancer; the differences that were present prevented scientists from further understanding the disease better. Anti-animal testing activists would argue that there are other means of research like computer modeling of in-vitro cells. This is where cultures of human or animal cells are tested instead of a whole animal.

While The Animal Welfare Act does enforce rules of how animals should be taken care of properly, this does not apply to mice and rats, which account for ninety-five percent of the animals used in testing. It also fails to specify the types of experiments scientist can research. Typically, after an animal is not of use in experimentation anymore, they go through a procedure known as a painless death, where the animal is dosed with anaesthetic to bring about a “humane endpoint. ” Wolff argues, “at least as far as regulations go animal pain is taboo; animal death is all in a day’s work.

With this he means that a painless death is not causing any pain, which would go against the Animal Welfare because the animal is knocked out and does not feel anything; however in the end the animal is still dead. Another common view people have is that animal testing should only be allowed when it is contributing to the improvement of quality of life, and not towards cosmetics and superficial items. Through this view animal testing is considered an integral part of medical research.

Medicines determined because of animal experimentation to diseases like Polio, TB, and Small Pox are a reason why these people share this perspective of accepting animal testing. While one who hold this position does agree with animal experimentation they do not agree in the taking advantage of it for superficial items such as cosmetics. Respected educator and champion athlete, Murray Banks once said, “No one in the world needs a mink coat but a mink. ” His point is that it is not a necessity to kill an animal for such a shallow item as a fashionable coat when the only one who should need it is the mink itself.

Cosmetics testing involve such experiments as the Draize Test, where the eyes of subject animal are plied open and exposed to a substance in order to evaluate any harm done. Many insist that it does not measure human hazard but only the toxicity towards the animal it was tested on. Our environmental surroundings have a great influence on our opinions and which stance we might be more willing to take. People who have pets might be more sympathetic towards animals than those who do not have pets. Similarly, location plays a big part on people’s perspective of this issue as well.

In more urban type environments where pets and animals aren’t as common, people may not appreciate their value. This issue caught my interest because as a pet owner I would never want my precious dog to go through any pain, but at the same time I had never fully thought out what would happen without animal experimentation. After researching this issue my personal opinion of this coincides with the third point of view, which is that animal experimentation should only be permitted to improve human life and not for other superficial products. I also think that as we grow more and more into this technological age, the whole concept of animal testing will become nonexistent.