1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Each year, an average of 9 billion farmed animals including mice, frogs, dogs,

cats, monkeys and birds are being killed. These shocking figures do not even include fish

and other sea creatures whose deaths are so great they are only measured in tonnes

(USDA, 2016). Animals are killed not simply for food products, but also include

laboratories for biology lessons, medical training, curiosity-driven experimentation, and

chemical, drug, and cosmetics testing.

Most of us don’t realize the fact animals also have feelings, have the capability of

thinking and individuals who want to enjoy their lives just like humans. An animal's life

is as important and irreplaceable to them, as ours is to us. But as children we are

conditioned to view cows, pigs, chickens, sheep and fish as inferior beings whose reason

for existence is to provide us with meat, milk and eggs. As stated in the Bible “And to

every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on

the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food

(Genesis 1:30). This way of seeing other species is known as speciesism. Animals have

been used as a source of food since the beginning of the humanity. It's perfectly natural

to eat animal meat, and it is part of a healthy, balanced diet (Noam Mohr, 2012).
 2

One the other hand, animals undergo extremely painful and harsh experiments

that affect them physically and psychologically. The amount of pain they are put in is

indescribable. The use of live animals in research has been practiced since at least 500

BC. Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research and in

vivo testing, is the use of non-human animals in experiments that seek to control the

variables that affect the behavior or biological system under study. This approach can be

contrasted with field studies in which animals are observed in their natural environments.

Experimental research with animals is usually conducted in universities, medical schools,

pharmaceutical companies, defense establishments and commercial facilities that provide

animal-testing services to industry. The harmful use of animals in experiments is not only

cruel but also often ineffective. Animals do not get many of the human diseases that

people do, such as major types of heart disease, many types of cancer, HIV, Parkinson’s

disease, or schizophrenia. Instead, signs of these diseases are artificially induced in

animals in laboratories in an attempt to mimic the human disease. Yet, such experiments

belittle the complexity of human conditions which are affected by wide-ranging variables

such as genetics, socio-economic factors, deeply-rooted psychological issues and

different personal experiences.

Statement of the problem

This research attempts to determine whether or not the animals killed for medical

testing and research are acceptable in the society, and whether these experimentations on

living animals have any effect on the human’s medical developments.

 3

Research goals

The purpose of this study is to:

1. Determine the positive and negative outcome of medical research on animals.

2. Determine the effects of animal experimentation on human’s medical

development.

3. Determine how effective the animal rights to secure them against abuse.

Significance of the Study

Some species of animals are near to extinction because of they are being hunt to

become medical subject of scientists. This study can be used to determine if medical

research are violating animal rights or if animals are suitable to undergo medical testing.

Hypothesis

1. The medical research on animals have positive and negative outcome.

2. There are alternative replacements for animals in medical researches.

 4

INFOS:

This issue has been argued countless times from every imaginable standpoint.

Supporters of animal testing know that the medical advancement these tests have brought

us have been invaluable, while proponents of animals rights know that the ethical issues

of this kind of research are alarming and troublesome. The debate over animal testing is a

long one and will likely continue to be battled out until an infallible alternative is made

available.

Before their deaths, some are forced to inhale toxic fumes, others are immobilized in

restraint devices for hours, some have holes drilled into their skulls, and others have their

skin burned off or their spinal cords crushed. In addition to the torment of the actual

experiments, animals in laboratories are deprived of everything that is natural and

important to them—they are confined to barren cages, socially isolated, and

psychologically traumatized. The thinking, feeling animals who are used in experiments

are treated like nothing more than disposable laboratory equipment.

While proponents of animal testing assert that the use of animals in research has led to

the development of countless life-saving treatments, for humans and animals alike,

animal rights activists highlight the cruelty and inhumanity of testing on animals. They
 5

argue that the outcome does not outweigh the suffering of the subjects. While some feel

that there is no other suitable substitute for these experiments and that animal welfare

laws protect the animal subjects from unnecessary pain, others feel that alternatives can

be found and that the laws in place to not do enough.

The use of live animals in research has been practiced since at least 500 BC and the

argument against it is just as old.

One of the benefits of animal testing is that it can, and already has contributed to live-

saving medical developments. According to the California Biomedical Research

Association, every medical breakthrough of the past century has been the direct result of

research using animals. For example, the polio vaccine was tested on animals and

reduced the number of occurrences to less than one tenth of a percent in less than a

quarter-century. The discovery of insulin occurred during experiments in which dogs had

their pancreases removed.

Through animal testing, we have gained further understanding and development in

treatment of, but certainly not limited to, breast cancer, cystic fibrosis, and tuberculosis. It

also greatly attributed to the development of anesthetics, cardiac valve substitutes, and

pacemakers. Animal testing has given us vaccines for hepatitis B and looks promising in

the advancement of a vaccine for hepatitis C. These conditions have the potential to kill

countless people across the world, and animal testing offers a way to change that.
 6

While many agree that the ethical issues of animal testing are indeed a drawback, there is

presently no adequate alternative to testing the living, whole-body system of animals. The

anatomy of animals, including humans, is incredibly complex, so while the study of cell

cultures in a dish can provide some insights, it does not allow for the testing of a nervous

system, immune system, or endocrine system.

Unpredictable outcomes of animal testing

Another common argument against the use of animals in medical research is that the

information gleaned is not always accurate. Vioxx, an arthritis drug, showed to have a

protective effect on the hearts of the mice used in the experiments. However, when it was

released for human use, it caused more than 27,000 heart attacks and cardiac deaths

before being removed from the public market. The animals testing done did not predict

this terrible outcome.

Other examples include aspirin, which is dangerous for certain animal species, and

tacrolimus, a drug used to lower the risk of organ transplant rejection that was almost

banned from human use because of the results of animal research. It is estimated that

94% of drugs that make it past animal tests fail in clinical human trials. There have been

more than 100 stroke medications that were effective in animal trials but failed in

humans, and over 85 vaccines for HIV have failed after being successful in tests on non-

human primates.

Treatments for inflammation are also notorious for passing animal trials but being proven

to be ineffective in human subjects. Another example of the live-saving contributions of

 7

animal testing is the sleeping pill, thalidomide. Had it not been testing on pregnant

animals, its ability to cause severe birth defects would not have been discovered before it

was allowed for human use. This low predictability makes some animal research

irrelevant and proves that it cannot guarantee the safety of humans.

Many experiments involving animals are flawed, which means that the lives of the animal

subjects are often wasted.

In 2009, a study found that in the majority of animal studies publicly funded in the

United States and United Kingdom using rodents fell into one of the below categories.

87% of the experiments failed to randomize their animal selections

86% did not use blinding to reduce bias

59% of them stated an objective or hypothesis and the number and characteristics of

animal subjects used

These experiments were not even done correctly, making them invalid and unreliable.

Animals used in these experiments that suffered or died did so for nothing, as the

experiments did not provide concrete, dependable results.

While there are laws in place to protect animals used in medical experiments, proponents

of animal rights know that this does not protect all of them. The Animal Welfare Act,

though well-intended, does not cover rats, mice, fish, and birds, which make up

approximately 95% of animals used in research. This leaves millions of animals that are

vulnerable to mistreatment without any sort of legal protections at all.

 8

Even animals that are protected under the Animal Welfare Act can be abused anyway. It

was found in 2009 that over 300 violations of the AWA occurred at the federally funded

New Iberia Research Center. Primates used for research there were under such

psychological stress that they began mutilating themselves. Infant primates were shown

on video to be awake and alert during painful experiments. In a 2011 incident at the

California David Center for Neuroscience, three baby mice were sealed alive in a plastic

baggies and left unattended where they suffocated and died.

Even with these laws in place, clearly not everyone takes them seriously and ‘protected’

animals continue to suffer. Again, while the Animal Welfare Act does make a positive

difference, the vast majority of animals used remains uncovered by these protective

regulations and many fall through the cracks, leaving them exposed to abuse.

Conclusion

This issue has been argued countless times from every imaginable standpoint. Supporters

of animal testing know that the medical advancement these tests have brought us have

been invaluable, while proponents of animals rights know that the ethical issues of this

kind of research are alarming and troublesome. The debate over animal testing is a long

one and will likely continue to be battled out until an infallible alternative is made

available.

Scientists fear the consequences of the extremism of the Animal Rights movement. They

believe that this movement will negatively affect the field of medicine, as medical

researching is crucial for testing treatment methods on living organisms. Many deadly
 9

diseases as cancer and heart diseases will increase if medical researching becomes

restricted. Also scientists believe that Animal rights activists are not seeing the bigger

picture and how the prohibiting of medical research can affect the welfare of human

beings. Add to this, the use of medical research benefits pets as it can be used in

veterinary medicine as well as human medicine.

One the other hand, animals undergo extremely painful and harsh experiments that affect

them physically and psychologically. The amount of pain they are put in is indescribable,

which if seen by human beings can cause them psychological problems. Add to this,

many believe that these experiments are useless. They don't benefit human beings, in fact,

they can actually harm them. Another major problem is that the organizations that are

legally established to protect the rights of animals fail to do so. The inspectors sent to

monitor the situations may not be trained professionally to take an action or may even

neglect abusive acts.

However, there are several organizations that try to reach a middle ground. They believe

in the importance of bio-medical research to human beings as well as the importance of

considering the rights of the poor defenseless animals used in experiments. These

organization are working on improving the experiments done on animals in a way that

will decrease as much as possible the damages to these animals. They follow certain

procedures and consider the precautions that need to be taken, in order to provide a safe

research environment for the animals.

I believe that it is possible to protect the animals' rights and perform medical research at

the same time. If we just try to avoid as much as possible the deadly experiments used on

animals and start treating them more ethically, we will be able to solve this critical issue.
 10

However, despite the difference between the three views, they all share one thing, which

is the fact that they are just perceptions. None of what we see is the actual, physical,

reality out there. The reality that we see is nothing but the effect of the physical reality on

our senses. In other words, the reality lies inside each one of us. It is created inside of our

minds. Moreover, the way we perceive things depends primarily on how our thoughts and

beliefs are constructed. Throughout our lives we experience infinitely many incidents.

These incidents will become stories which you will keep telling yourself, shaping your

character, beliefs and values. These stories are referred to as narrative stories. They

influence the way we see things around us. Also, because each one of us does not

experience the same incidents, we create different narratives stories and accordingly we

manifest different perceptions.

Animal abuse is contemptible and pets must be protected from wanton cruelty.

But some animal rights groups are calling for fundamental changes to the legal status of

animals, including giving them standing in court, a prospect that could have severe

consequences for science and medicine.

Some want the legal status of animals to be strengthened, which could have severe

consequences for science and medicine.

Biomedical researchers must study laboratory animals to discover new medicines and

therapies, and deem them safe and effective. Should courts begin to assign personhood to

animals, ceaseless litigation could bring lifesaving and life-improving research benefiting

both animals and humans to a grinding halt. Carefully and respectfully conducted
 11

research with animals has and will continue to yield treatments and cures for many of the

world’s worst illnesses.

As a case in point, mice and non-human primates are playing an essential role in the

development of a vaccine against the Ebola virus. Animal research, closely monitored at

the institutional level and regulated by the federal government, not only benefits people,

but is often translated from human medicine to veterinary medicine where it helps our

pets live longer, more comfortable, and healthier lives.

Scientists have and continue to strive to reduce the number of animals in research, but the

assistance of animals today remains essential. So while we must protect pets from

cruelty, we must also ensure research is not mistakenly handcuffed in the process.
 12

Reference

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-04-24/news/vw-1756_1_animal-experimentation

https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/comparative-essay-animal-rights-vs-medical-

testing.html

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/10/01/enforcing-the-legal-rights-of-

animals/dont-let-animal-rights-restrict-biomedical-research

http://www.neavs.org/research/harm-suffering

http://aldf.org/resources/when-you-witness-animal-cruelty/animal-testing-and-the-law/

http://www.scaw.com/about-scaw/

Animal Welfare Act, §§ 54-2131-2151 (2013). Print.

"Animal Welfare and Animal Rights." Animal Welfare and Animal Rights. States United

for Biomedical Research, 2015. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.

Briggs, Helen. "Human Skin Grown in Lab 'can Replace Animal Testing' - BBC News."

BBC News. BBC, 24 Apr. 2014. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.

"Do "Alternatives" Exist?" Speaking of Research. Word Press, 20 Mar. 2008. Web. 20

Oct. 2015.

Hajar, Rachel. “Animal Testing and Medicine.” Heart Views : The Official Journal of the

Gulf Heart Association 12.1 (2011): 42. PMC. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.

"LD50 and Lethality Testing." Animal Ethics. Animal Ethics InfoLink, 2015. Web. 20

Oct. 2015.
 13

"Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?" ProConorg Headlines.

ProCon.org, 27 Aug. 2015. Web. 19 Oct. 2015.

(2017). Animals & Human Society Research Starters. Retrieved from

https://www.enotes.com/research-starters/animals-human-society

(2017, March 03). Should Animals Be Used In Research. Retrieved from

https://www.yourgenome.org/debates/should-animal-be-used-in-research

(2017). Alternatives To Animal Testing. Retrieved from

https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-animal-

testing/