Post by Linn on Apr 28, 2009 22:28:02 GMT -5
We recently did a massive research paper thingy about bioethics. We had a sheet of 50 or so topics, and we had to write a paper on one. I chose "Just because we can test on animals... should we?"
The essay is below. It really changed my life dramatically. I don't touch animal tested products anymore. It makes me sad.
What do you think?
The essay is below. It really changed my life dramatically. I don't touch animal tested products anymore. It makes me sad.
Animal Experimentation:
Why it is Wrong and What We Can Do About It
Have you ever thought about how new drugs and cosmetics are tested? How does the company know that the product you are holding causes severe eye irritation? Are they positive it is safe to put on your skin? Yes, they are, because of animal experimentation. Animals are tested on for our medicines and cosmetics and that is not right because it is inhumane, the animals are not always treated fairly, and the results of the experiments are not always accurate and reliable.
The first argument against animal experimentation is that it is inhumane. In a lab, one of the tests conducted is called the Draize Eye Irritant test. Rabbits are placed in devices that hold their heads completely still while chemicals are put in their eyes (Parks, Peggy. Pages 13-14). Since our eyes are different than a rabbit’s, these animals suffer pain, irritation, itching, bleeding, ulcers, and even blindness for results that may or may not apply the same way to humans. The other Draize test is the Draize Skin Irritant test, where two patches of an animal’s fur are shaved off. Test substances are put on one patch of skin, with the other used as a control (Parks, Peggy. Pages 13-14). This test is used for shampoos and other cosmetics, as well as more harmful substances. The animals are not given painkillers or anesthetics, because this would apparently mess with the results. They are killed afterwards so that their organs can be examined (www.aavs.org/testingTypesBlinded.html). This is not in any way humane.
The second point against animal experimentation is that the animals being tested on are not always treated well despite the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which sets standards on feeding, watering, housing, and medical needs (Parks, Peggy. Page 7). One famous case of laboratory cruelty was the Silver Spring Monkeys. The monkeys were kept in small cages with nothing to keep food out of their droppings, on the occasion that they were fed at all. They sat on the bars of these small cages, with nothing to keep them entertained (www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/pacheco01.htm). Not only were they suffering the tests performed on them, but they did not even have a nice enclosure to return to afterwards. In addition to their horrid conditions, most of they monkeys had open, infected wounds and broken bones. They went without food and water for days, and were subjected to abnormally cruel and unusual tests. The lab did not even have a vet (www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/pacheco01.htm). The animals were suffering unnecessarily and given nothing to help them. How many more labs are out there doing this? Just because there is not any labs being spotlighted right now does not mean that it is not happening.
Another point against animal experimentation is that the results are not always completely accurate: a drug that is safe for a mouse to use is not necessarily safe for a human. For example, penicillin is very toxic to animals, but beneficial to humans. Benzene causes leukemia in humans, but not in mice. Of 25 which cured strokes in mice, not one worked for humans (O’Niel, Terry (editor). Pages 48-49). Not all results are reliable because humans and animals are very different. Drugs, such as Vioxx, that were safe in the lab may not be safe in the public. Is it worth the risk? Besides being genetically different, human diseases cannot be completely duplicated in animals (O’Niel, Terry (editor). Page 50). Every species’ genetic codes are different. A drug’s effects cannot be predicted with 100% accuracy unless humans are used. Countless animals have dies for drugs that are not even safe for humans, like Vioxx. They were killed for nothing.
Animal experimentation is a very controversial topic in the scientific community because even though we are sacrificing animals for our own health, it has resulted in many life-saving cures for diseases such as polio, malaria, and rabies (www.buzzle.com/articles/animal-testing-pros.html). If we continue to experiment on animals, we could continue to save lives. However, the problem with that is, many people question whether our lives are worth more than theirs, and if the fact that a drug saved a life justifies the lives sacrificed to produce it. It is also still debated whether or not animals actually feel pain, stress, anxiety, joy, depression, and other similar emotions.
One way to eliminate animal testing labs would be to use the synthetic skin, Corrositex. It can be used in place of animals during the Draize Skin Irritation tests (www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000322090943.htm). With Corrositex being used in place of animals, it could save countless lives. The way it works is that chemicals in the “skin” react to it by turning distinct colors, showing scientists how human skin would react (www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000322090943.htm). The synthetic skin is more accurate than animal tests because it displays human skin reactions, and it is also much more humane. It would work for replacing Draize Skin Irritation tests, however it will not replace many other tests. There is also the possibility of a defective batch.
Another alternative to animal testing is micro dosing. Human volunteers are given a small amount of the test substance and their reactions are observed (www.vegetariantimes.com/ask/12). This is more accurate because the human body’s reactions are observed, and the likelihood of other major mistakes like Vioxx is slimmer. The volunteers are given just enough of the test substance that it only effects them on a cellular level, so there is virtually no risk (www.brighthub.com/science/medical/articles/26240.aspx). Since there is almost no risk to the volunteer, we can get accurate results without putting humans through the tests animals are put through, or continuing to sacrifice the lives of the animals. Though micro dosing can replace toxicology tests, it cannot replace the Draize tests, but it is a good start.
The best alternative to animal experimentation is to use human skin cultures. Will permission, cultures are taken from patients having breast reduction, and similar, surgeries (www.vegetariantimes.com/ask/12). This allows scientists to test on actual human skin without harming animals for possibly inaccurate results. There is two versions of the skin cultures. EpiSkin is grown in a test tube and layered like human skin, while EpiOcular cells are grown to look and behave like human corneas (www.vegetariantimes.com/ask/12). These two cultures could completely wipe out the Draize tests, and if they can be grown to mimic skin and eyes, someday they could be grown to mimic human organs. That would replace drug tests and could eventually eliminate animal experimentation.
A recommendation for the public is to protest animal testing be supporting companies that test their products using “cruelty free” methods. The companies that test will eventually feel the pressure and convert their labs to use friendlier methods of testing. Animal experimentation is a cruel practice that is not really necessary because of the other, humane, options that exist today. These animals should not be sacrificed and put through tests like the Draize Eye Irritant test when alternatives like Corrositex and EpiOcular could, and should, be used instead. Some companies actually refuse to use these methods. While animal experimentation may have been beneficial in the past, this act of cruelty need to be stopped. Why is it okay to experiment on an animal, but not on a human? Every day humans develop new technologies to improve our lives. So why aren’t we using technology to save animals’ lives?
Resources
O’Niel, Terry (editor). Animal Rights. Greenhaven Press, 2006. Pages 48-49
Parks, Peggy. Animal Experimentation. San Diego, Ca: Reference Point Press, 2008.
www.aavs.org/testingTypesBlinded.html
www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/pacheco01.htm
www.brighthub.com/science/medical/articles/26240.aspx
www.buzzle.com/articles/animal-testing-pros.html
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000322090943.htm
www.vegetariantimes.com/ask/12
Why it is Wrong and What We Can Do About It
Have you ever thought about how new drugs and cosmetics are tested? How does the company know that the product you are holding causes severe eye irritation? Are they positive it is safe to put on your skin? Yes, they are, because of animal experimentation. Animals are tested on for our medicines and cosmetics and that is not right because it is inhumane, the animals are not always treated fairly, and the results of the experiments are not always accurate and reliable.
The first argument against animal experimentation is that it is inhumane. In a lab, one of the tests conducted is called the Draize Eye Irritant test. Rabbits are placed in devices that hold their heads completely still while chemicals are put in their eyes (Parks, Peggy. Pages 13-14). Since our eyes are different than a rabbit’s, these animals suffer pain, irritation, itching, bleeding, ulcers, and even blindness for results that may or may not apply the same way to humans. The other Draize test is the Draize Skin Irritant test, where two patches of an animal’s fur are shaved off. Test substances are put on one patch of skin, with the other used as a control (Parks, Peggy. Pages 13-14). This test is used for shampoos and other cosmetics, as well as more harmful substances. The animals are not given painkillers or anesthetics, because this would apparently mess with the results. They are killed afterwards so that their organs can be examined (www.aavs.org/testingTypesBlinded.html). This is not in any way humane.
The second point against animal experimentation is that the animals being tested on are not always treated well despite the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which sets standards on feeding, watering, housing, and medical needs (Parks, Peggy. Page 7). One famous case of laboratory cruelty was the Silver Spring Monkeys. The monkeys were kept in small cages with nothing to keep food out of their droppings, on the occasion that they were fed at all. They sat on the bars of these small cages, with nothing to keep them entertained (www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/pacheco01.htm). Not only were they suffering the tests performed on them, but they did not even have a nice enclosure to return to afterwards. In addition to their horrid conditions, most of they monkeys had open, infected wounds and broken bones. They went without food and water for days, and were subjected to abnormally cruel and unusual tests. The lab did not even have a vet (www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/pacheco01.htm). The animals were suffering unnecessarily and given nothing to help them. How many more labs are out there doing this? Just because there is not any labs being spotlighted right now does not mean that it is not happening.
Another point against animal experimentation is that the results are not always completely accurate: a drug that is safe for a mouse to use is not necessarily safe for a human. For example, penicillin is very toxic to animals, but beneficial to humans. Benzene causes leukemia in humans, but not in mice. Of 25 which cured strokes in mice, not one worked for humans (O’Niel, Terry (editor). Pages 48-49). Not all results are reliable because humans and animals are very different. Drugs, such as Vioxx, that were safe in the lab may not be safe in the public. Is it worth the risk? Besides being genetically different, human diseases cannot be completely duplicated in animals (O’Niel, Terry (editor). Page 50). Every species’ genetic codes are different. A drug’s effects cannot be predicted with 100% accuracy unless humans are used. Countless animals have dies for drugs that are not even safe for humans, like Vioxx. They were killed for nothing.
Animal experimentation is a very controversial topic in the scientific community because even though we are sacrificing animals for our own health, it has resulted in many life-saving cures for diseases such as polio, malaria, and rabies (www.buzzle.com/articles/animal-testing-pros.html). If we continue to experiment on animals, we could continue to save lives. However, the problem with that is, many people question whether our lives are worth more than theirs, and if the fact that a drug saved a life justifies the lives sacrificed to produce it. It is also still debated whether or not animals actually feel pain, stress, anxiety, joy, depression, and other similar emotions.
One way to eliminate animal testing labs would be to use the synthetic skin, Corrositex. It can be used in place of animals during the Draize Skin Irritation tests (www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000322090943.htm). With Corrositex being used in place of animals, it could save countless lives. The way it works is that chemicals in the “skin” react to it by turning distinct colors, showing scientists how human skin would react (www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000322090943.htm). The synthetic skin is more accurate than animal tests because it displays human skin reactions, and it is also much more humane. It would work for replacing Draize Skin Irritation tests, however it will not replace many other tests. There is also the possibility of a defective batch.
Another alternative to animal testing is micro dosing. Human volunteers are given a small amount of the test substance and their reactions are observed (www.vegetariantimes.com/ask/12). This is more accurate because the human body’s reactions are observed, and the likelihood of other major mistakes like Vioxx is slimmer. The volunteers are given just enough of the test substance that it only effects them on a cellular level, so there is virtually no risk (www.brighthub.com/science/medical/articles/26240.aspx). Since there is almost no risk to the volunteer, we can get accurate results without putting humans through the tests animals are put through, or continuing to sacrifice the lives of the animals. Though micro dosing can replace toxicology tests, it cannot replace the Draize tests, but it is a good start.
The best alternative to animal experimentation is to use human skin cultures. Will permission, cultures are taken from patients having breast reduction, and similar, surgeries (www.vegetariantimes.com/ask/12). This allows scientists to test on actual human skin without harming animals for possibly inaccurate results. There is two versions of the skin cultures. EpiSkin is grown in a test tube and layered like human skin, while EpiOcular cells are grown to look and behave like human corneas (www.vegetariantimes.com/ask/12). These two cultures could completely wipe out the Draize tests, and if they can be grown to mimic skin and eyes, someday they could be grown to mimic human organs. That would replace drug tests and could eventually eliminate animal experimentation.
A recommendation for the public is to protest animal testing be supporting companies that test their products using “cruelty free” methods. The companies that test will eventually feel the pressure and convert their labs to use friendlier methods of testing. Animal experimentation is a cruel practice that is not really necessary because of the other, humane, options that exist today. These animals should not be sacrificed and put through tests like the Draize Eye Irritant test when alternatives like Corrositex and EpiOcular could, and should, be used instead. Some companies actually refuse to use these methods. While animal experimentation may have been beneficial in the past, this act of cruelty need to be stopped. Why is it okay to experiment on an animal, but not on a human? Every day humans develop new technologies to improve our lives. So why aren’t we using technology to save animals’ lives?
Resources
O’Niel, Terry (editor). Animal Rights. Greenhaven Press, 2006. Pages 48-49
Parks, Peggy. Animal Experimentation. San Diego, Ca: Reference Point Press, 2008.
www.aavs.org/testingTypesBlinded.html
www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/pacheco01.htm
www.brighthub.com/science/medical/articles/26240.aspx
www.buzzle.com/articles/animal-testing-pros.html
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000322090943.htm
www.vegetariantimes.com/ask/12
What do you think?
.
