ANIMAL TESTING 6
AnimalTesting and Research
AnimalTesting and Research
Animalsserve as ‘models’ in biomedical research and the development ofdisease-curing drugs. Fields such as psychology and agriculture alsoutilize living things in the behavioral studies. In the U.S, theNationalInstitutes of Health(NIH) is responsible for undertaking medical studies to aid in thedevelopment of drugs. With various satellite centers around thecountry, NIH utilizes animals during trials of the medication. Animaltesting and research generate serious concerns from investigators andactivists. The concern is mostly in the animal rights and adherenceto bioethics in therapeutic exploration. The opponents of usingbeasts for experimentation argue that they have rights, which oughtto be appreciated. Animal welfare is a serious concern that has ledresearchers into devising new approaches for clinical trials.
Ethicalconsiderations are necessary for medical assessments. In fact,investigators are required to submit details about their trials orexperiments to the ethics committee. In biomedical study and clinicalexperiments, researchers have been blamed for subjecting livecreatures to harsh conditions that disregard the animal rights. Manybiomedical evaluators have traditionally used living things inclinical trials. The matter generates debate regarding the justconsiderations on the part of animals. These unethical actions takeplace despite various campaigns and crusades against animalbrutality. Apparently, it is not possible to eliminate fully thepractice in clinical tryouts. It is appropriate for researchers toconsider alternative measures that use non-human subjects during thescientific experiments. Options to replace or reduce pain on animalsduring trials and experimentation will eliminate the unethicaltreatment of living things.
Thesisstatement.While some people argue that pain and suffering are subjective inanimals, further studies negate the notion, indicating that animalsexperience pain just like human beings because they portraycoordinated response to twinge and torture, and they also they sharegenetic and psychological similarities with people.
Intheir 1959 publication, ThePrinciples of Humane Experimental Technique,William Russell and Rex Burch stressed the importance of reducing andreplacing animal usage during clinical trials and experimentation.The publication sought to encourage researchers to limit their usageof live creatures in medical tryouts. It also identified the need tominimize the pain and torture inflicted on the subjects (Tannenbaum,& Bennett, 2015). The two authors argued scientists could explorenon-animal alternatives that had better adherence to ethicalobligations. Nonetheless, animal usage in evaluation processescontinues to increase hence, raising considerable moral andscientific concerns. It is instrumental to identify the cognitive andemotional capacity of animals to warrant the expected results or harmexposure. The concerns highlighted have augmented the need to protectlive subjects during research activities through adherence toprinciples such as respect, justice, and beneficence (Tannenbaum, &Bennett, 2015). Over time, different legislations have beenestablished to protect animals in research. In the 19th century, theBritish Parliament passed the Cruelty to Animals Act. In 1966, the USformulated the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act with similar intentionsto protect animals (Newton, 2013). Nonetheless, inconsistencies existin both national and international laws. The US laws, for instance,exempts purpose-bred animals from such regulations therefore,jeopardizing over 90 percent of creatures used in experimentation(Bekoff, 2016).
Animaltesting and experimentation have been used for a long time in thewake of infectious diseases. Ordinarily, animals used in the clinicaltrials were subjected to certain infections and cures. The success orfailure of the drug was used to ascertain its usage among humanbeings. The reasoning was driven by the notion that the subjectsexhibit similar characteristics, response, and symptoms to peoplewhen subjected to the infections and cures (Akhondi, Boroujeni,Milanifar, Naderi, & Sarvari, 2012). Nonetheless, not all trialshave proven successful. During the development of Flosint, amedication for arthritis, the outcome was positive on monkeys butcaused deaths to human beings. Another diet drug, fen-phen, wasrecalled for causing heart damage on people although it had noadverse effects on animals. The findings indicate differences betweenhuman and non-human subjects hence we cannot fully rely on theresults from the clinical trials (Kim, Lin, Blomain, & Waldman,2014). Despite some flawed conclusions, animal experimentationremains prevalent in the contemporary research studies. It isapproximated that over 25 million living creatures are used indifferent tests annually in the U.S. Moreover, animal use has beenquestioned in the toxicology field. The specialty depends onstandardized animal trials although researchers encounter variouschallenges. Despite the flawed results, canvassers have beenskeptical in the adoption of new approaches (Bero, Krauth, &Woodruff, 2013).. A report by the US National Research Council (NRC)in 2007 underscored the need to use in vitro and computationalapproaches in gathering accurate outcomes. The move was driven by theneed to use more reliable and accurate methods to examine the levelof toxicity in human beings. The two approaches, according to thecouncil, are predictive and affordable compared to the traditionalstrategies (Tannenbaum, & Bennett, 2015).
Nevertheless,human beings are willing to exercise ethical considerations duringanimal testing. Much as it is not possible to completely avoid usingliving things in experimentation, it is probable for researchers toemploy ethical practices in the treatment of animals. Theprofessionals conducting tryouts using beasts can use alternativemethods in their laboratory evaluations (Tannenbaum, & Bennett,2015).
Moreover,they can use appropriate drugs when killing or operating thecreatures in the laboratory. Authorities and animal rights’ bodiesshould introduce awareness to educate the public on the importance ofupholding ethical approaches during tests involving living things.The principles have a broad range of benefits such as reducing biasedresults (Newton, 2013). The approach is also crucial since itsignificantly minimizes the suffering of animals as well as givesroom for alternative measures to consider when undertaking scientifictrials. Furthermore, humans need to uphold the virtuousconsiderations because they assist in the promotion of the animalrights and welfare (Newton, 2013).
Fromthe evidence above, it is evident that non-animal alternatives willsupplement the current status in research studies. The move wouldreduce the controversies surrounding the ethical considerationsduring experimentation and clinical trials. Replacement alternativeswill eliminate the conventional model hence, reduce the risks andcosts. It is believed that the move will open room for furtherresearch and innovation on better products to treat various ailments.It is also necessary for all stakeholders, both private and public,to generate improved approaches that will result in new andless-controversial models in animal testing. Scientific evidencesupports the fact that usage of living things in experimentation islimited and unnecessary to examine human diseases. There existapproaches to promote human and animal health without necessarilyexposing them to hazardous and pitiable conditions. Some of thetraditional methods are counterproductive in research and education.
Akhondi,M.M., Boroujeni, S.B., Milanifar, A., Naderi, M.M., & Sarvari, A.(2012). Regulations and ethical considerations in animal experiments:International laws and Islamic perspectives.” AvicennaJournal of Medical Biotechnology,4(3), 114–120.
Bekoff,M. (2016, Oct. 19). The animal welfare act claims rats and mice arenot animals: Why Aren’t researchers protesting this idiocy? TheHuffington Post.Retrieved fromhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-animal-welfare-act-claims-rats-and-mice-are-not_us_57e7c8b1e4b00267764fc50a
Bero,L., Krauth, D., & Woodruff, T.J. (2013). Instruments forassessing risk of bias and other methodological criteria of publishedanimal studies: A systematic review. EnvironmentalHealth Perspectives (Online),121(9), 985-92. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1206389.
Kim,G. W., Lin, J. E., Blomain, E. S., & Waldman, S. A. (2014).Anti-obesity pharmacotherapy: New drugs and emerging targets.ClinicalPharmacology and Therapeutics, 95(1),53–66. http://doi.org/10.1038/clpt.2013.204
Newton,D. E. (2013). Theanimal experimentation debate: A reference handbook.Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, LLC
Tannenbaum,J., & Bennett, B. T. (2015). Russell and Burch’s 3Rs Then andNow: The Need for Clarity in Definition and Purpose. Journalof the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science :JAALAS, 54(2),120–132.