It is also important to note that rats, rodents, rabbits, and mice are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act in the United States. Given this level of abuse inflicted on animals and also considering that there are numerous alternatives available such as the ones based on nanotechnology and stem cell science that are being ignored due to the convenience of testing on animals (Dove; Dolgin; Liebsch et al
"3 Rs" stand for reduction, refinement, and replacement. Researchers are thus encouraged to "to reduce the number of animals used in experiments to the minimum considered necessary, refine or limit the pain and distress to which animals are exposed, and replace the use of animals with non-animal alternative when possible" (Ferdowsian and Beck 1)
Supporters of animal testing insist that avoiding animal testing will put humans at greater risk because using animals in the process of developing a drug is at the moment a required procedure. Animals, besides, humans have a capacity to feel pain and express it through behavior and likewise they have a capacity to predict analgesic efficacy in humans, making the use of animals necessary in pain research models (Mogil, Davis, and Derbishyre)
For example, the thalidomide produced in late 1970s, intended to combat excessive vomiting in pregnant women, was largely successful on animals but led to tens of thousands of children being "born with severe deformities not predicted in animal tests" (Pycroft and Marston 35). Drawing from a systematic study of recent animal research scientific papers, some clinicians question the entire premise that animal research can be helpful for developing drugs suitable to humans (Roberts et al
e. "without treating the interests of animals as less weighty than those of humans" and if the evidences show that "the benefits of an experiment on an animal would outweigh the costs to the animal" (Singer)
They argue that stopping animal testing will make it much harder for scientists to develop effective drugs that can reduce pain, alleviate illnesses, and save lives. Supporters of animal testing ground their justification based on the belief that "humans are sufficiently superior to animals to the extent that the death of an animal from developing a new drug is justified by the benefit to human life or well-being" (Taylor 166)
curedisease.net), asserts that "…nobody benefits from animal testing when they take medicines" because drugs "originate not from such tests but from clinical observation, serendipity and rational drug design" (Archibald, 2005, p
Both sides have valid points and this paper delves into issue using positions from several sides of the animal testing issue. Defining animal experimentation Roman Kolar with the Animal Welfare Academy in Neubiberg, Germany explains that any experimental procedure carried out "…on an organism from the zoological (taxonomic) category Animalia" is an animal experiment (Kolar, 2006, p
By using animals in research, and through animal research science learns how certain chemicals "interact with living systems"; this knowledge can be "translated into protection of humans, animals, and the environment from toxic levels of natural -- as well as man-made -- exposures (SOT, 6). Legal and professional accountability In Canada there are Research Ethics Boards (REBs) that have the power to authorize or reject funding for experiments with animals; when animal research proposals do not meet with proper ethical requirements, the REBs can put a halt to the experiments (Tremayne-Lloyd, et al
Those who oppose animal testing believe that it is inhumane treatment of living things. Over the years there have been hotly debated arguments over the use of animal testing as well as sits ins, protests and other types of demonstrations regarding the practice (Ahmad, 1999)
Then there are those who completely protest any animal testing at all even in the face of curing diseases (Policy, 2001). People who use animals to conduct research say that they have no ill feelings towards the animals and they try and conduct the research in such a manner that it will be as comfortable for the animal as possible while still obtaining the answers that they need from the research (Wereschagin, 2000)
Animal testing needs to be continued because anything short of animal testing is less effective in is use and its function (Wereschagin, 2000). Many of the tests and research methods involved do cause distress to the animals used for testing (Philips, 1998)
Animal Testing: Cosmetics and Toiletries Animal testing is the use of non-human animals in a variety of experiments (Wikipedia, 2005) Many experiments aim to test certain substances to determine their effect on humans, or to test medical or psychological hypotheses
Animal Testing: Cosmetics and Toiletries Animal testing is the use of non-human animals in a variety of experiments (Wikipedia, 2005) Many experiments aim to test certain substances to determine their effect on humans, or to test medical or psychological hypotheses
This suggests that the medication can in the future be used by millions of people suffering from a similar ailment according to the latest research. A study showing the reason other people are more resistant than others are to sicknesses like tuberculosis (TB) as well as leprosy has acknowledged a fresh genetic variant which, influence disease susceptibility of these diseases (Hayhurst, 2000)
The majority of animals involved in the study are rats as well as mice. Animal testing is significant in the medical world as animal experimentation plays a vital role in numerous medical advances (Gahlmann, 1993)
It is often accompanied by catchy slogans such as "If society funds mouse models of cancer, we will find more cures for cancer in mice." It is argued that the physiology of animals and humans are too different to allow results from animal research to be extrapolated to humans" (Ringach, 2011) the main argument behind this assumption is provided by the fact that humans and animals are different in structure, composition, and reaction and the information gathered from tests ran on animals cannot be applied or used to assist human medicine
More precisely, "Rodents are the animal model of choice for modern medical researchers because they have a naturally short life span -- two to three years -- that allows scientists to observe in "fast forward" what happens during the progress or pathogenesis of a disease."(Trull, n
With respect to animal rights there is a middle ground that can be acceptable to both opponents and proponents of animal testing. This middle ground is not extreme; rather, it would force animal testing companies to engage in "humane reform" (Regan, 688)
"The fundamental argument for more than two centuries has been, therefore, that experimenting on animals with the goal of preventing and curing human medical problems was a legitimate addition to the long list of ways in which animals are used for human benefit." (Newton xvi) Works cited: Newton, D