(no subject)
Although many people find the concept of animal testing and its effects cruel and unnecessary, steps have been made to find alternatives to using animals in scientific research. The concept of at least finding a more human way to do research appeared in 1959 when William Russell and Rex Burch first introduced the concept of the “3R’s”; “Reduction” describes the principle that says the number of animals used should be limited or just that the amount of information gathered from each animal even if the number of animals are not lessened should be maximized. Correct lab procedures that would increase the precision of the data as well as choosing species that would be more likely to clearly react to experiments would be certain concepts that would allow the data to be maximized or fewer animals to be used in the first place. “Refinement” takes into account the welfare of the animal and advocates utilizing procedures that will cause the animals the minimum amount of pain, suffering, and distress. This concept can include anything from providing items for rodent to get exercise with to using certain species as least often as possible because of their greater capacity to feel pain. Finally, “Replacement” refers to using non-animal methods whenever possible instead of animal methods to achieve the same result. Animal welfare groups are somewhat divided, however, in their adherence to these principles. Some stick to these principles as a whole whereas others believe solely in the theory of replacement as a valid action. Despite the division of animal welfare groups, the concept of the 3 R’s is a widely accepted concept seeking to appease those against animal testing in general.
Animal testing or at least experimentation with animals has existed in some form since the time of the ancient Greeks and Romans, with Aristotle and Erasistratus being among the first to perform experiments on living animals. It was during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, however, when animal testing moved from a relatively rare practice to something more mainstream. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, published in 1859, provided a scientific justification for using animals to learn about human physiology. Animal testing was key in such important work as Edward Jenner’s discovery of a method of innoculation against smallpox in 1796 and Louis Pasteur’s study of infectious diseases and invention of vaccines for cholera and rabies in 1885. Ivan Pavlov’s famous description of “classical conditioning” came from his observation of dogs in the 1890s and more recently in 1996 Dolly the sheep was central to the major scientific breakthrough of being the first mammal to be cloned from an adult cell.
The version of animal testing practiced during this time, however, was not nearly so precise and regulated as it is today. Movements toward protecting the welfare of animals were proposed in Great Britain as early as the mid 1800s but only caught on in the United States towards the end of the century. The British Anti-Cruelty Act passed in 1822 established a rudimentary framework for better treatment of animals in experiments, and legislation sprinkled throughout the next century aimed to further refine animal testing. In 1959 Russell and Burch stated their famous “three R’s” of animal testing which continues to be how animal testing is regulated in an attempt to make it as humane as possible. Groups such as the Animal Welfare Institute and The Humane Society of the United States were founded (1951 and 1954, respectively) to fight for the humane treatment of animals, and in 1966 Congress took action by passing the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act (amended in 1970 to become the Animal Welfare Act) to regulate the care, handling, and acquisition of non-rodents used for research. Over the past few decades battles have still raged over issues such as product safety testing and the release of shelter animals to laboratories, all centering on the issue of animal testing.
One of the most useful and perhaps most well known applications of animal testing is in the drug and pharmaceutical industry. In the past century animals have been involved in the research for the discovery of all major vaccines and are the primary tool in research for the discovery of cures against giants such as cancer and the HIV virus. With such physiologically similar body structures, animals are extremely useful in research that is trying to figure out how certain drugs will react with the human body. The animals undergo many different types of tests to gather research on many different types of drugs. They are involved in metabolic tests which are performed to figure out how the drugs are absorbed, metabolized, and excreted by the body when introduced intravenously, intraperitoneally, intramuscularly, or orally. Animals are also useful in toxicology tests, testing for acute, sub-acute, and chronic toxicity. Testing acute toxicity involves issuing rising doses of the substance until the toxicity becomes apparent. Testing for subacute toxicity is a much slower process and involves giving the drug to the animals over a longer period of time but at levels below which it becomes toxic to discover the effects of a buildup of the toxic substance in the system. Finally, chronic toxicity is the slowest process of all and observation of animals being tested for it gives information concerning the maximum tolerable dose. Thirdly, efficacy studies test whether experimental drugs work by introducing the illness into the animal and administering the drug to see its effect. Tests are often required to be done on two different species of mammals, usually non-rodent. While animal tests cannot predict with absolute certainty how different drugs will react in the human body - as concluded by a 1999 study conducted by the Health and Environmental Science Institute which found that only 43% of rodents and 63% of non-rodents used to test a drug showed similar side effects as in humans - as living systems they are one of the best predictors.
While many people immediately point to the negative aspects of animal testing, it can also be argued that the many significant benefits that come from animal testing are more than enough to justify its continued practice. As much as being ethical and humane are important, the truth remains that research involving animals is essential to the success of modern medicine and the existence of modern medical procedures and drugs. Nearly every major medical advance made in the twentieth century has relied on animal research. It has been instrumental in developing vaccines against diseases such as rabies, polio, measles, mumps, smallpox, and reubella. Animal tests have also been key in the development of antiobiotics, HIV drugs, penicillin, insulin, cancer treatments, and drugs to treat stomach ulcers, astham, leukemia and more. Animals, who have nearly the same physiological structure as humans, have been used to develop organ transplant and open-heart surgery techniques and have helped refined such risky procedures. Clearly, animal research in the field of medicine has made a vast contribution to the well being of mankind and has helped save millions of lives. As if this is not significant enough, tests done with animals even return to help animals themselves. Animal testing has produced vaccines for animals against rabies, distemper, feline leukemia, tetanus, infectious hepatitis, and anthrax.
Another major component in the controversy over animal testing is the issue of whether or not it is fundamentally right. What, if any, rights should animals be entitled to? Is it ethically sound for humans to use animals for their own purposes? Though groups derailing animal testing for its immorality are abundant, there are also reasons for animal testing to be justified. In the end, were animals not used in experiments, humans would have to fill the void, and many believe that human life has greater intrinsic value than animal life. Though animal testing supporters are slammed for their part in abusing animals, 2.6 million animals used for medical research is paltry in comparison to the 800 million animals slaughtered for human consumption alone (not to mention the estimated 2 million cats and dogs abandoned as unwanted pets each year and even more destroyed as vermin). In addition, animal testing in the present day is made to be as minimally cruel to the animals as possible and is stringently regulated by legislation such as the U.S. Animal Welfare Act. The issue is not taken lightly either; the fact that only one in four grants requested from the National Institute of Health receive funding shows that the matter is not taken lightly and no superfluous research is conducted. Finally, though many animal rights advocates speak out against the terrible animals rights abuses, USDA records have shown that 94% of animals used in biomedical research feel no pain or momentary pain (as much as a pinprick). In light of how regulated and refined a process that animal testing has become, there is little reason to condemn it, especially in light of its aforementioned benefits.
http://www.amprogress.org/site/c.jrLUK0PDLoF/b.933657/k.CF79/ANIMALS_IN_RESEARCH.htm
http://www.aalas.org/association/animal_research_faqs.asp
http://www.frame.org.uk/3rs/reduction.htm
http://www.amprogress.org/site/c.jrLUK0PDLoF/b.933657/k.CF79/ANIMALS_IN_RESEARCH.htm
http://www.abpi.org.uk/amric/basic3.asp
http://www.slate.com/id/2142814/?nav=tap3
history:
http://www.zoonosesonline.org/i/img-6-july.jpg (pasteur injecting first dose of rabies vaccine)
http://history.library.ucsf.edu/imagelib/med_sci_building_animal_research_lab.gif & http://history.library.ucsf.edu/imagelib/med_sci_building_animal_research_lab.gif (animal research lab @ UCSF School of Medicine 1959)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:One_of_Pavlov%27s_dogs.jpg (one of pavlov's dogs)
drug industry:
pros:
3Rs: