Animals are used in research to help scientists to understand how human bodies work. Animals used in scientific research dates back in the history of biomedical research during the Ancient Gree writings. İt is estimated that American scientists use about 26 million animals testing annually. Studies also reveal that about 85 percent of all animals used in research are rats and mice. Other commonly used animals in research include birds, rabbits, hamsters, dogs, and cats. The use of animal in research facilitates the development of treatments, toxicity of medications, and testing products’ safety before being used for humans. However, animal testing opponents claim that using the use of animals in research is cruel and inhumane because alternatives exist. They also believe that animals are different from human beings and often yield inconsistent results. This paper argues that animals should be used for scientific testing because the law requires scientists to test drugs on animals before they can be used in humans. Animals use in scientific studies;
Thesis statement: Animals should be used for scientific testing.
Pro Argument 1
Animals should be used in scientific testing because they aid in the development of safe medication and cures. Research done by the California Biomedical Research Association claim that the success of medical development in the last 100 years is associated with the use of animals in research (Britannica, Pro 1). İn other words, the use of animals in research testing has facilitated the development of medication used in the treatment of cystic fibrosis, breast cancer, brain injury, and childhood leukemia (Britannica, Pro 1). Notably, animal testing played a critical role in developing medical instruments such as cardiac valve substitutes and anesthetics. Prof. John Stein of Oxford Functional Neurosurgery Group claims that animal testing is justified because it improves medicines and treatments (TheAikenHead, 0.54-1.46). For example, the professor cooled a part of the monkey’s brain to seize the functioning temporary of a part of the brain responsible for reading in humans. This helped him to understand the struggle for children with reading disorders.
Counter Argument
However, the fact that drugs function effectively in animal does not mean that they can work in humans. For example, the sleeping pill thalidomide developed in the 1950s had passed the animal test but saw about 10,000 children who were born with congenital disabilities. The test was done in pregnant animals such as mice, cats, and guinea pigs earlier on, the sleeping pill thalidomide resulted in no congenital disabilities. Similarly, an animal test of arthritis drug Vioxx showed that the drug protected the heart of mice. However, when the drug was used on human beings, it resulted in heart attacks close to 27,000 (Brittanica, Con 5). Animals use in scientific studies;
Refutation
İt is true that some drugs that pass animal tests do not qualify to be safe for human use. However, only a few cases of such drugs have been reported. This means that most drugs that pass animal tests, particularly mammals, are more likely to pass the human test. Animal tests played a key role in developing drugs used in the treatment of various health conditions including breast cancer. It is, therefore, wise to conclude that animals should be used in scientific testing.
Pro Argument 2:
Animals are the best substitutes for experiments that cannot use human subjects (Britannica, Pro 5). İn other words, human volunteers’ lives should not be exposed to danger unnecessarily, especially when testing toxic medications. The law requires that scientists use animal subjects in experiments before using them in humans. This is consistent with the belief of the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki, which claim that use of animal in research should precede human trials at any given time (Britannica, Pro 5). According to Nikolai Petrovsky, a professor affiliated to Flinders University’s College of Medicine and Public Health, it is essential to test a coronavirus vaccine in animals before it is administered to human beings (Britannica, Pro 2). İn other words, researchers developing a vaccine for coronavirus should first test the vaccine on genetically modified mice to ensure that it is safe to be used for humans. In the words of Peter Hotez, Dean School of Tropical Medicine, the most effective way of reducing the risk of anything is first to prove that it does not harm laboratory animals (Britannica, Pro 2).
Counter Argument
The use of animal subjects is inhumane and unacceptable. This is because other alternatives can be used in place of animal subjects. An example of the available alternatives to animal testing is “in vitro”. Artificial human skin is an alternative to animal testing and allows scientists to use the cells of a human skin that are grown in tubes (Britannica, Con 2). İnterestingly, the Environmental Protection Agency has certified some of these alternatives, a clear indication that they can produce similar or greater results (Britannica, Con 2). Studies conducted by the Humane Society International noted that the use of animals in research is more expensive than tha alternatives such as “in vitro” (Britannica, Con 2). Animals use in scientific studies;
Refutation
Although there are alternatives to human testing, scientists prefer animal testing because it is more likely to produce reliable results. The use of in vitro testing and artificial human skin, for instance, may produce inconsistent results as they have no known similarities with humans. Mammals commonly used in experiments are biologically similar to human beings concerning organs such as hearts, kidneys, and lungs. The animals are also susceptible to many health problems affecting human beings, including diabetes, heart disease, and cancer (Stanford Medicine, para 3). Animal testings should, therefore, be used when developing treatments to be used in human beings.
Pro Argument 3:
Animals should be used for scientific testing as laws and regulations are protecting them from mistreatment. The federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) is the agency mandated to regulate the use of animals in research since 1966 (Britannica, Pro 2). Researchers working with animals must meet minimal standards, including clean food and water, good temperatures, and enclosed spaces. Additionally, the use of animals in research is regulated by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) (Britannica, Pro 2). This means that researchers using animals for experiments propose the IACUC to ensure that animals are not mistreated during research experiments (Britannica, Pro 2). Tom Holder states that researchers are responsible for ensuring that animals’ suffering is minimized during animal testing (TheAikenHead, 5.50-6.26). Read more
Counter Argument
Although scientists claim to protect animals from mistreatment, they often do not and end up exposing innocent animals to excess pain and distress. Scientists also expose animals to forced feeding and water deprivation against the Federal Animal Welfare Act requirements (Britannica, Con 2). They also inflict wounds and burns on the animal subjects in the study of the healing process. As of January 2020, a study conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture revealed that over 300,000 animals were subjected to pain during experiments in only one year (Britannica, Con 2). Animals use in scientific studies;
Refutation
Although animals are exposed to pain, the degree of pain is minimal. Additionally, the AWA officers are usually on-site during animal testing to ensure that animal subjects used are not mistreated. Animals have no constitutional rights. It is justifiable to experiment on them (Britannica, Pro 10). Additionally, most of the animals used in experiments have a very short life span of about three years. In other words, it would be infeasible to use human subjects. This is enough proof that animals should be used for testing.
Pro Argument 4:
Animals should be used in research as they are similar to human beings in many aspects. A chimpanzee, for instance, shares approximately 99 percent DNA with human beings (Britannica, Pro 4). Similarly, mice are about 98 percent genetically similar to human beings (Stanford Medicine, para 2). This is partly because all mammals have a common ancestry and have similar organis such as lungs, kidneys, and hearts in mammals function the same way. Additionally, both human beings and animals are at risk of developing diseases such as cancer, diabetes, and heart diseases (Britannica, Pro 4).
Counter Argument
It is false to say that animals similar to human beings. Studies reveal that animals and human beings have anatomic, cellular, and metabolic differences. İn other words, animals are cannot represent humans in any way. According to Paul Furlong, it is almost impossible to create an animal model that perfectly relates to humans (Britannica, Con 4). The alternatives to animal testing might also be ineffective despite them being available and less expensive.
Refutation
İt is true that animals differ greatly from human subjects. However, past studies show that the results of animal testing are consistent with human testing. This means that medications that work in animals are more likely to work in human beings and vise versa. Animals are not used just for the sake of completing experiments but instead to find solutions to human problems (TheAikenHead, 7.25-8.22). Animals use in scientific studies;
In conclusion, animals should be used for scientific testing. One of the reasons animals should be used for testing is that they facilitate the development of life-saving cures and treatments. Secondly, animals should be used in research in cases when human subjects cannot be used. Thirdly, animals should be used in testing because protected by the law from mistreatment. Fourthly, animals need to be used to study human beings because they are similar in many ways.