The performance of scientific experiments and the undertaking of tests in research have ever aroused controversy on the use of animals for testing. Most of the experiments that test products which are used by human beings demand the use animals before the actual consumption. This is because such products cannot be used in human beings without first testing them. Using them without testing can be accompanied by a lot of effects to the human population. The use of animals too is dangerous. Animals are also a form of life which should be preserved. Regulations have been made by many countries, as well as, international organizations concerning the use of animals in the conduction of research. Embalming through mummification has also been tried by some people damaging the balance that exist. This essay discusses the practice of using animals in experiments aimed at testing the safety of products that should be used in human beings. The essay discusses the views for those against, those for, and the views of those who take the middle ground.

Detention has been described as the use of animals which are not human in experiments. The benefits of these experiments are not geared towards helping the animals, yet the animals are used for the experiments. This practice brings torture to the said animals, and at the same time, leads to the decline in the population of the animals. However, some experiments have been favourable to the animals as they involve the observation of the animals, for example, observing a mouse in a cage. Others that are a bit favourable and considerate to the animals are field studies involving chimp troops. According to Davis (2012), these studies involve animals that are not related to human beings.

The use of animals has also aroused controversy regarding the relatedness of the animal being used, to the human species. Scientific studies agree that there is variation among and even between species. The question that arises is whether it is beneficial to use an animal of different species to test a product that will be applied in a human being. Davis (2012) questions the legality of use of animals by the scientists, yet the average human beings are not allowed to use the animals. The query arises because use of these animals leads to their death. However, Davis (2012) agrees that the life of human beings can be very risky and even equivalent to loss of human life. Watson (2009) agrees that use of animals brings a dilemma to the scientists. He argues that what prompts the scientists to us the animals is the fact;they cannot introduce a treatment that has not been tested, to human beings.

The argument by Festing and Wilkingson (2007) about the use of animals in experiments holds water. This argument concurs with the observations made by Davis (2012), that animals are genetically different from human beings and, therefore, the use of animals does not benefit, rather this is killing animals for no reason. The authors argue that in this case, human beings should not have the right to kill animals. Despite, their stand, Wilkingson and Festing (2007) agree that animal experiments have been very vital overtime in the area of medical, scientific research advancement. They agree that animal research has enabled improved the quality of life among human beings. There are animal-rights groups and anti-vivisectionists who hold the belief that animal research is of no use to human medicine. This argument has no scientific basis, as stipulated by Wilkingson and Festing (2007). These authors agree with the view that; with the observance of ethics in research, animals can continually be used for research purposes without much harm. This is because scientists use animals with control; only when it is necessary to use them.

Countries too, have ventured into the field of preserving ethics in the use of animals for research. Wilkinson and Festing cite the ‘Animals Act 1986’ by the UK government, which is an ethical framework aimed at protecting the rights of animals. The requirement of the legislation is an undertaking of benefits-cost analysis before using animals in any research. This observation is in agreement with the observations of Faqi (2013) concerning the use of animals for research.

The objection of Wilkinson and Festing about the use of animals for research on the grounds of their genetic differences is evident in their discussion of the EMP report of 2004. The report showed that most general practitioners are contending the worth of using animals for purposes of research. However, this report was not adopted, because it failed to agree with many other researches that had been made concerning animal testing. According to Wilkingson and Festing (2007), science and technology have been developed in strategies to make sure that, as few animals as possible, are not used for research purposes. The problem with such techniques is the complexity of the procedures involved, and the need to be verified by national and international organizations, which can take many years. Another recommended method for reducing the number of animals used in experimental research, is the use of non-animal techniques in the pre-screening stages. The defect with such methods is the possibility to produce false results. On the other hand, culture-based procedures have been used to replace rodents hence reducing the number of animals used in these procedures. The application of good experimental designs and good scientific methods, is another way of making sure as few animals as possible are used in experimental research.

The argument by PETA (2013) supports the activists who are against use of animals in scientific research. PETA argues for illegalizing the killing, poisoning and burning of animals in the laboratories. The contention by PETA is that if killing animals outside laboratories is a felony, then even killing them in the laboratories should be considered as felony. There are several reasons given by PETA why use of animals for scientific research should be banned. Firstly, animals are thinking beings, and feeling beings. They should, therefore, not be subjected to the agony, and the torture of enclosing them in a laboratory cage. The argument points out that, these animals experience loneliness in such detentions. Secondly, PETA terms this practice a bad practice of science. PETA argues that 92 percent of drugs that are tried using animals fail in human beings. It, therefore, beats logic to use such large numbers of animals to test drugs which will definitely fail. Thirdly, the use of animals for testing drugs is a very wasteful exercise. The suffering of people is usually prolonged as they await the results of animal experiments. The end is that people end up dying and animals too are killed in the research. Another reason for this is the use of expensive drugs on people yet these drugs do not cure them. Fourthly, the practice appears archaic. This is because modern methods which are a bit cheaper and produce better results have been devised. Such methods include computer modelling, human-patient simulators, and in-vitro technology. The last reason why animal use in research should be banned is because there is no need for urgency in the medical field. Rushing to make discoveries at the expense of animal lives will lead to elimination of many animal species in the world.

The argument presented by Peta (2013), is concludes that, animals and human beings should have equal rights because they are all living beings. The proposition is that an animal, through the course of its life, should not be subjected to any form of suffering, pain and injury, because doing this is in violation of its rights.

On the one hand, Rowman (2011) sees good reasons for holding the belief that experimentation using animals is ethically wrong, because of the torture that is subjected to these creatures. He argues that using animals for furthering knowledge is ethically wrong and should be discouraged. Rowman advocates for non-animal research methods and the consolidation of international efforts by international agencies to help implement the report that was made by the US academy of sciences in the year 2007. Development of new technological methods that can replace animals can go a long way in preserving the species of animals that die due to poisoning in the laboratories. This is an undertaking which has been greatly supported by industrial partners, as well as, government agencies. Brown argues that the advantages of using the non-animal methods are far beyond the use of animals. However, most scientists have not yet realized the importance of using non-animal methods. The fall by fifty percent of the use of animals for experiments is a positive indication of goodwill for researchers to stop using animals for research purposes, in order to preserve the species of animals that exist in the world. Research shows that the number of animals used in research development from the early years of the 1990s has been decreasing greatly, a report which is encouraging, according to Brown (2011). A plateau in the graphical representation of the use of animals is evident from the decades of the recent times. Brown cites new technological methods as the major contribution to the decline in the use of animals for research.

The argument by Brown (2011) ignites a very heated debate in the field of medical sciences. His argument has not gone well with the proponents of using animals to further knowledge. These scientists find it hard to agree with the propositions of Brown, because from the time immemorial, medical research has benefited solely from animal research. They argue that, were it not for the use of animals, many drugs and chemicals that have been discovered wouldn’t have been helpful.

Some are of the view that the new technological methods are not reliable, and in this case, animal use cannot be stopped, and it cannot be avoided. The debate (2013) about animal testing supported this view. Computer modelling, for example, has been identified as one of the ways that cannot be reliable in production of results for experiments. The advantage of animals in testing drugs and other chemicals is that animals have life, and some of their genetic characteristics match those of human beings. Research suggests that many medical institutions have continued using animals for experimentation, because animals have been producing good results compared to non-animal methods (Norman, Palmar and Rosenbaum, 2011). The other reason they give, is the fact that only in unavoidable circumstances they use animals. The furtherance of medical science and the making of discoveries in the area of sciences have been benefited to a great deal by the use of animals. Norman, Palmar and Rosenbaum (2011) cite mice, for example, whose physiological process matches that of human beings to a very great extent. Using mice in experiments to test products that will be used by human beings can go a long way in improving the inventions required in the field of medicine. The argument by this group of scientists is that, the scientific knowledge base that animal models contribute to, cannot be compared with the expense of the loss of life of a single, or even a few animals. The proposition made by the proponents of continual us of animals is enhancement of laboratory conditions for the animals. This includes, but is not limited to employing qualified staff to handle the animals, as well as, appropriate use of techniques and anesthesia.

Due to antagonistic forces on the use of animals in scientific experiments, there has emerged a group that is arguing from a neutral point of view concerning the subject. This group, according to Animal Testing Debate (2013), argues that it is allowed to use some animals but not others. The group also agrees with avoidance of use of animals in avoidable situations, favoring the use of alternative methods such as computer modelling and culturing. They consider the model of the moral worth of life, and suggest that complicated organisms like the bacteria should be used at the expense of simple mammals like mice. The group also advocates for application of the methods possible to reduce suffering and pain to the animals that will be used.

In conclusion, animal use in testing has contributed to a wide base of knowledge in sciences. It has led to the improvement of lives of both animals and human beings. However, the use of animals for testing exposes them to torture and a lot of pain. Also, use of animals for experiments without caution can lead to elimination of some species in the world. It is, therefore, recommendable to adopt alternative methods and non-animal methods where applicable, as well as ethical treatment of animals when they have to be used.

References

Animal Testing Debate. (2013). Should scientists animal testing? Retrieved from www.debates.com

David, A. (2012). The debate: Should testing animals be banned? Retrieved from ttp://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/08/15/

Faqi, S.A. (2013). A comprehensive guide to toxicology in pre-clinical drug development. Waltham, MA: Elsevier.

Norman, V.A., Palmer, K.S., Rosenbaum, H.S. & Jackson, S. (2011). Clinical ethics in anesthesiology: A case based textbook. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

PETA. (2013). Top five reasons to stop testing of animals. Retrieved from http://www.peta.org

Watson, S. (2009). Animal testing: Issues and ethics. New York, NY: Rosen Publishing Group, Inc.

Understanding Animal Research Website. (2014). Understanding animal research. Retrieved from http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/

Wilkingson, R. & Festing, S. (2007). The ethics of animal research: Talking point on the use of animals in scientific research. EMBO Reports, 8 (6): 526-530.

Rowman, A. (2011). Avoiding animal testing. The Scientist, December 1^st 2011. Retrieved from www.thescientist.com.

CLICK BUTTON TO ORDER NOW