Advantages of Reducing Animal Testing in Medical Research

Animal Experimentation has been a very common and natural practice since 2nd century BC, the testing and experimentation of animals has usually been able to find cures for both humans and animals. Scientists and researchers have been able to “study [various] genetic disorders” in models that share relatively high percentages of DNA with humans such as: “mouse models which [share] 94%”, “chimpanzees share 987%”, “zebrafish share 75-80%”, and even “bananas share 50%” (Medical Research). These models are usually able to “provide great insights” (Medical Research) for what animals have or don’t have that humans have or don’t have Researching and testing and “studying these animals [can usually help us] learn how they accomplish these remarkable feats” (Medical Research) and can hopefully be used to “apply the principles to human medicine” (Medical Research) so that good change will come for all.

The experimentation and research of animals does have its benefits, a scientist of biomedical research is able to see more of the hidden details like “the underlying basis of diseases” (Preface) through the use of an actual animal rather than of trying to explore those details with computers and software that scientists wish were the real thing.

Get quality help now

Marrie pro writer

Verified

Proficient in: Animal Testing

5 (204)

“ She followed all my directions. It was really easy to contact her and respond very fast as well. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

For example, “the medicine Herceptinm discovered and tested in mice“, saves the lives of many women with breast cancer” (Preface). While the use of these animals in research is highly convenient, many researchers really want to stop this habit of using too many in their studies, but it can sometimes be impossible or too risky to try to put too much effort into machinery when they can just buckle down and stay with the real thing.

When researchers try to make the switch, they notice that computers are limited by their processing power”, like how they “[lack] the structures seen in real [animal] brains” (New Technologies), and what‘s the purpose for trying and experimenting with a whole bunch of alternative options when scientists can just learn “to improve how [they] care for and use animals” (Preface)? Animal Experimentation can also be beneficial by how it can usually help find cures through animals for diseases and infections in both animals and humans Also, seeing the real thing, whether it’s the brain of a mouse or the heart of a pig or a whole chimpanzee, is not only incredible but can sometimes be less difficult to extract from and in all actuality, can every animal eventually be replaced by the new advances in technology? Even “us[ing] the world’s fastest supercomputers“ was far from a perfect representation [when trying to] simulat[e] just half a mouse’s brain” (It is Not Possible).

This could definitely be a huge reason why many scientists and researchers and professors like Professor Higgins say how “we need to use animals“, if we are going to develop more effective therapies” and others will say how “there are no alternatives to the use of animals” and “[animal experimentation] cannot [be] replace[d] altogether” (It is Not Possible). So we, not only as America, but as the world, need to find ways to keep moving forward in exploring cures for all. With animal experimentation being used for such a long time, why would a scientist want to be told that it is now seen as immoral and that it needs to be stopped? Why would a scientist want to be told that him and the rest of his team need to “replace the use of animals with alternatives“ (Preface) or the laboratory will be shut down? Well, I do believe that using animals for the people is immoral because these animals don‘t know what’s going on, and to be kept for life and “bred specifically for research purposes” (Medical Research) is wrong.

These animals usually never get to see their natural habitat because they are “confined” (Medical Testing) to the little caged space they’re given in a lab full of other animals or because they’re “killed” (Medical Testing) from experimentation. Then there are the animals that survive the experimentation and get to “[retire] from research” (Animal Experimentation) they are lucky, if humans want to know the risks of a certain drug or disease, then why don’t they experiment on themselves? What’s the difference from taking the life of a human and taking the life of an animal? It’s almost like society has made it a fact that humans are valued more, and animals are not, so experimentation on animals is okay. But I don’t think so, many have claimed that most experimentation and “testing on animals is cruel and unnecessary” (Medical Testing). But why is that? Firstly, “the majority of animal experiments [and tests] do not [even] contribute to improving human health”, but some actually make things worse and even “ma[ke] people more susceptible [to diseases]”, and results are “questionable” (Medical Testing).

So what would these experiments contribute to? And who would they contribute to? For example, “[one] AIDS vaccine that was shown to be effective in monkeys, failed in human clinical trials”, and when something like this happens, people begin to wonder why experimenters want to keep wasting time trying over and over again. The “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals”, or the “PETA argue that animal experimentation does not advance human health because of important differences between animals and humans” (Medical Testing). So why are experimenters still trying to close these significant gaps with insignificant numbers and statistics? Why are “universities exaggeratfing] findings from animal experiments conducted in their laboratories.,. that [are irrelevant] to human health” just so that they can make themselves look good (Medical Testing)?

Could it also be considered some form of censorship when these labs “rarely publish results of failed animal studies” (Medical Testing)? I feel that if these tests and trials aren’t always going as planned, then why keep doing them and faking their results? Why not settle for cheaper and more useful alternatives, like computers and machinery, instead of wasting so much time and money on animals? I have always wondered why experimenters don‘t just use humans as test subjects since they want [0 know what‘s going to happen to humans when a certain disease or drug is put into humans. The reason is that “animal experimenters want [access to] disposable ‘research subject[s]’ [that] can be manipulated as desired and killed when convenient” (Medical Testing). So when it comes to medical experimentation, an animal’s life isn’t as valued as a human’s.

This judgment is definitely considered along the lines of immoral and also very true, Even when it comes to just animals, “mice, rats, birds, reptiles, and, amphibians“ aren‘t even protected by “the federal Animal Welfare Act” or the “AWA” (Medical Testing). These types of animals “are specifically exempted from even the minimal protections” of the act, and this law doesn’t even “require” labs “to provide [these] animals with pain relief or veterinary care” (Medical Testing). This makes me question the act because these labs not having this requirement are basically being told that it’s okay to do as they please, but aren’t these smaller animals, though used more often in experimentation, just as important as the animals that aren’t? In reality, who really knows? Because it also seems that “even the animals that are covered by the law” are just as insignificant as the ones listed above because they “can [still] be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged” (Medical Testing).

So why is the law used if it doesn’t protect the animals at all? Are these experimenters saying one thing to the government bttt doing another thing in their labs? It’s almost as if this law is just used as a safeguard to protect these labs and experimenters from any further questioning. Researchers all over should definitely understand the benefits that minimizing and, hopefully one day, eliminating the use of animals in experimentation would, not only help animals, but help researchers as well. It seems to be that there is some type of “inescapable truth” (Preface) when it comes to using animals in research and that “the number of animals used in research is going up” (Preface). But many have proved this wrong. in one particular way, “the UK government has responded sensibly to the debate about animal research [by] set[ting] up a new organization called the National Centre for the 3R5″ (Preface).

This organization “help[s] find ways to reduce the number of animals used, to replace the use of animals with alternatives, and to ensure that any experiments are refined to minimize suffering to the animals” (Preface). Having this organization helps the UK by getting the country toward the path of gradually eliminating animal experimentation and by saving them lots of time and money then of researchers that are choosing to deal with “very expensive… [housing, feeding, and caring]” for a whole bunch of animals that don‘t want to be handled, and this also saves many animals from having to live such a horrific lifestyle of “confine[rnent] to barren cages”, “[social] isolate[ionJ”, and “[psychological] traumatiz[ation]” (Medical Testing). As animal experimentation begins to gradually decrease across the world, cheaper and easy-to-handle alternatives can be used, animals can live their natural and free lives, and researchers save lots of money as well as unnecessary time for dealing with wild animals. But, above all, once researchers understand the full benefits that actual technological alternatives have and “by adopting nonviolent methods and concentrating on the prevention of disease before it occurs”, is when we can all move forward to exploring and conquering greater diseases without the use of animals.