Animal Medical Research

1 Medical research involving the use of animals has significantly enhanced the well-being of mankind and animals. Without animal testing, the cure for many fatal diseases would not exist and many would suffer and die from their disease. Despite these benefits, many people and animal rights groups argue that the use of animals for research should be banned. The fact is experiments using animals have played a fundamental role in the development of modern medical treatments. The evolving research using animals will continue to be essential as researchers seek out treatment for existing illness, and react to the emergence of new diseases. It allows medical scientists to test and produce new drugs, and other products for humans and animals' safe use. The procedures learned through research have an invaluable role in educating students and professionals alike in aiding their training for treatment of humans and animals. Most mammals have similar physical processes close to humans that allow scientists to check the effects of new drugs before available to humans. Without the progressive discoveries made through animal testing there would be no major procedures like open-heart surgery (many of which came from studies with pigs), and no cures for such diseases as diphtheria, tuberculosis, measles, mumps, rabies, tetanus, and numerous other infectious diseases. What is known about the human immune system derived from the studies with mice and the cardiovascular system from studies with dogs. The fact is animals make excellent research subjects for a variety of purposes and the results tell us a great deal about human health and physiology. The high level of controlled environment that animal testing presents make them better test subjects than 2 humans in many regards. For example, researchers are allowed to control certain aspects on an animal's diet and temperature more simply than would be probable with humans. Many species of animals can be studied during their total life span because of relatively short life cycles, producing a wealth of valuable insight for the medical arena. The findings are considered necessary for all animals and using them for testing instead of humans is more practicable for economic, timely, and well, humane reasons. The research on animals has, without a doubt, been vital to saving countless human lives (Fox 44-57). Animal research has played a vital role in health and treatment for other animals, as well as humans. The advances in veterinarian medicine have developed because of that crucial role. So, not all animal testing are done only for the sake of humans. Some of the research is even aimed at developing alternatives to animal use so that fewer animals will be needed in the future. Often, pet owners look for alternatives, including new treatments for their ailing pet, and participate in clinical trials similar to human studies that test the effectiveness of new drugs or treatment. These different research methods used for animals may contribute to conservation efforts for domestic and wilds animals. Some think the development of extermination methods are wrong, but usually are not considering the widen scope of conservation. Some animals carry and spread diseases, and using knowledge gained through research may help to control populations of certain animals. At any rate, increased knowledge through animal research has helped numerous animals outside the human species (Fox 44-57). The majority of people on this planet use some sort of product that had to undergo some testing for safety before produced for human use. Although some of the products are not lifesaving or necessities, testing of these products is essential before released on the human population. Of course, the alternative would be to not develop new products and limit the improvement of others. 3 The argument against animal testing questions the morality, necessity, and the validity of such studies. Animal rights groups, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), believe that animals have rights and deserve to have their best interests taken into consideration, regardless of whether they are useful to humans. Like people, they are capable of suffering and have an interest in leading their own lives. Therefore, they are not to be use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other reason. Groups like these, and like-minded people, argue that the majority of animal research is for unneeded human consumption (like cosmetics research) or entertainment (like the circus). They suggest, that the reasons are mainly for monetary gain. And even the methods used are outdated and useless as stated by PETA,
It demands that the validity of non-animal tests be rigorously proven through years of practice and refinement even though not a single animal test method has ever been "validated" as to its reliability and relevance to humans — much to the detriment of the environment and human health. Sadly, many EPA officials aren't even aware of their own agency's outdated animal testing practices and claim that it hasn't required such tests in years. If its left hand doesn't know what its right hand is doing, how can the EPA possibly protect us? While animals are choking on chemicals in EPA-mandated tests, the EPA is choking on its own inertia and inaction. In the interest of ethics, good science, and the protection of our children, the EPA must stop poisoning animals (Sandler).
With the outdated testing methods still in use, and all the new technology that could be used in its place, animal rights groups are questioning the continuation of such practices. Former OSHA health and safety official, and current PETA liaison Jessica Sandler explains, "the agency's indifference to animal suffering is vividly demonstrated by the fact that it allocates virtually none

4 of its $500 million annual research budget to developing non-animal test methods, which are more humane, more reliable than, and less costly animal test methods"(Sandler). Opponents of animal testing disagree with the validity of such research. They argue that animals are so different from people that the research is not worthwhile. There are countless cases that emphasize the irrationality of presuming that humans and animals have biology adequately alike for testing to yield positive results. For example, aspirin eases pain in humans, but is poisonous to cats and causes birth defects in mice (O'Donnell).
Animal rights activist and author, Gene Bauston, feels that many people think that animals would be happier and even healthier if they were free in the wild. Whether animals are raised for slaughter, or if the animals are only for companions, he depicts American consumers as supporters of unbridled animal cruelty (6). Author Bernard E. Rollin has a different take on human relations with animals stating that, "humans provided food, forage, protection against extremes of weather and predation, and in essence, the opportunity for the animals to live lives for which they were maximally adapted-better lives than they would live if left to fend for themselves" (5).
Animal rights groups use propaganda regularly to win support and money from animal lovers. They make fictitious claims and are repeatedly at odds with the Advertising Standards Authority, failing to meet standards of honesty. It seems to be the rule rather than the exception; seemingly that it is a calculated approach instead of an accident. And if animal lovers believe that animal rights groups have their best interest as pet owners in mind, then again they have been mislead. The fact is, animal rights groups, such as PETA, would like to phase out the domesticated animals that owners call members of their families (O'Donnell). John Bryant of PETA would like to see that, " the cat, like the dog, must disappear…we should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic
5
version of the cat ceases to exist" (15). Furthermore, many leading activists in the animal rights movement don't even like animals particularly, as Peter Singer of PETA admits, "we are not especially interested in animals. Neither of us had ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals"(ii). Some extremist take action into their own hands, and cause violence toward research institutions, and even against people that don't share their ideas. These people's idea of animal rights is not to stop animal cruelty, but to sacrifice and suppress man, making him equal to them. A requirement of human survival and progress demands that we sometimes kill when threatened by animals, to eat them to survive, and conduct test to fight disease (Epstein).
The argument has been made that aside from the cruel aspect of animal testing, that it is unnecessary because humans' physiology is so different than other animal species and that there are many other methods available that do not require animals. The fact is all mammals have the same fundamental organs that perform the same functions, and even co-ordinate in the same manor. There are minor differences, of course, but these differences can provide useful information as well. An example of this is that muscular dystrophy in mice does less damage, and if scientists can find out why, it may lead to treatment. As for other methods as an alternative, this is common practice. When its available, other methods are always used first but testing on animals is needed in most cases because there is no alternative to the use of whole organisms except humans. Some myths are just feeble attempts to discredit valuable research. One is that aspirin is poisonous to cats and not to humans, but researchers still use it on lab cats. Aspirin is only toxic when highly dosed far higher than dosages given to humans. Another myth about the reason the research is done is that it's an institution only interested in making money. Much of the research is performed by non-profit organizations. It is true that pharmaceutical companies cut a profit, but it is in the interest of treatment of illnesses to the human race. 6
Opponents of this kind of research take the stand that it's still not worth the suffrage of immense pain that the laboratory animals endure. Most procedures involve only mild measures and where significant distress may be caused, painkillers are used. There are many strict laws in place to prevent such intense pain or cruelty (O'Donnell).
Animal research is an especially controversial issue, and will continue to be until technology increases to a point where many studies may be substituted. Medical studies are essential to seek out treatment for existing illness, and react to the emergence of new diseases. It allows medical scientists to produce and test new drugs and other products for humans and animals' safe use. The treatment of animals should always be executed with respect and dignity, and the researchers are people that share a love for the creatures on this planet with animal rights activists. What must be kept in mind is that for humans and animals alike to survive in this ever-changing world, medical research must be done for the sake of all living creatures. The animal rights extremist must adhere to the fact that as part of the human species, we must do everything in our power to survive and endure so that we can move forward together along with the animals.

7
Works Cited
Bauston, Gene. Battered Birds, Crated Herds, How We Treat the Animals We Eat. Michigan: Farm Sanctuary, 1996.
Bryant, John. Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic. 2nd. Washington, D.C.: J.M. Bryant Ferne House, 1983.
Epstein, Alex. "The Terror of "Animal Rights"." Front Page Magazine 06 Feb 2004 26 Apr 2006 .
Fox, Michael Allen. The Case for Animal Experimentation : An Evolutionary and Ethical Perspective. Rep. Los Angeles: University of Californian Press, 1986.
O'Donnell, Kevin. "Part 1." Animal Rights Myths FAQ. 15 June 2004. 26 Apr 2006 .
Rollin, Bernard E. Farm Animal Welfare: Social, Bioethical, and Research Issues. 1st Paperback. Ames, IW: Iowa State Press, 2003.
Sandler, Jessica. "PETA Living." PETA. 07 Apr 2006. PETA. 28 Apr 2006 .
Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals. 2nd. New York, NY: New York Review Books, 1990.