Animal Research
Animal ResearchAnimal Research
For the past 20 years, there has a been an on going heated
debate on whether experiments on animals for the benefit of medical and scientific research is ethical.
Whether it is or isn't, most people believe that some form of cost-benefit test should be performed
to determine if the action is right. The costs include: animal pain, distress and death where the
benefits include the collection of new knowledge or the development of new medical therapies for
humans. Looking into these different aspects of the experimentation, there is a large gap for argument
between the different scientists' views. In the next few paragraphs, both sides of the argument will be
expressed by the supporters. A well known scientist named Neal D. Barnard said," The use of
animals for research and testing is only one of many investigative techniques available. We believe
that although animal experiments are sometimes intellectually seductive, they are poorly suited to
addressing the urgent health problems of our era, such as heart disease, cancer, stroke, AIDS and
birth defects." He goes on further to say that animal experiments can not only mislead researchers
but even contribute to illnesses or deaths by failing to predict any toxic effect on drugs. The majority
of animals in laboratories are used for genetic manipulation, surgical intervention or injection of
foreign substances. Researchers produce solutions from these animal "models" and are adapting
them to human conditions. Unfortunately, these animal "models" can't always be connected with the
human body thus creating problems. Many times, researchers induce strokes on animals in order to
test certain methods for curing. The downfall of this procedure is that a healthy animal that
experiences a sudden stroke does not undergo the slowly progressive arterial damage that usually
plays a crucial role in human strokes. In another illustration of the inaccuracy of animal research,
scientists in the 1960s deduced from many animal experiments that inhaled tobacco smoke did not
cause lung cancer. For many years afterward, the tobacco industry was able to use these studies to
delay government warnings and to discourage physicians from intervening in their patients' smoking
habits. We all know now that this is totally untrue and that smoking is a large contributor to cancer. It
turns out that cancer research is especially sensitive to differences in physiology between humans and
other animals. Many animals, particularly rats and mice, synthesize within their bodies approximately
100 times the recommended daily allowance for humans of vitamin C, which is believed to help the
body ward off cancer. The stress of handling, confinement and isolation alters the animal's mental
stability and introduces yet another experimental variable that makes any results from testing even
less valuable to human helping. In many cases, drugs and other substances are given to the test
animals but studies have shown considerable differences in the effects of these drugs on different
species. David Salsburg of Pfizer Central Research has noted that of 19 chemicals known to cause
cancer in...
To view the complete essay, you be registered.