Lauren Flores, Class of 2022
Without the consideration of its consequences, the exploitation of animals through experiments in laboratories is blindly accepted. Scientists are currently exploring alternatives to replace the use of animals for research, as we reach new heights in technology. A closer look at animal testing makes its sustinability and effectiveness for ensuing generations clear: if we don’t advocate for innovation, the effects of animal experimentation could be everlasting.
According to Humane Society International, an estimate of at least 115 million animals are used for experiments in the world annually. These experiments are conducted to test the safety of cosmetics, household chemicals, pharmaceuticals, food additives for harmful components, medicinal research and treatments, as well as biomedical cures for diseases. The Department of Agriculture in the U.S. underreports at least 90% of animals that are tested on and impoverished countries do not report on their behalf. We can infer that animal exploitation grossly exceeds recorded statistical data.
The use of animal models in laboratories are outdated, unreliable and expensive to maintain. An alternative is the implementation of the in vitro method; 3D cell cultures allow for cells to regenerate under a controlled environment. Furthermore, scientists are able to use human isolated tissue where the patient undergoing the illness consents for the extraction of fresh tissue for medicinal research. Nothing is more valuable for research than a sample taken from the ill patient themself. These methods pave the way for scientists to extract precise results from human models without the need to break moral code.
Upon testing animals for a cure for cystic fibrosis, the translation of research performed on animal models to human patients was found to be problematic because the models react differently to the same test. For example, a mouse does not develop the illness as spontaneously as a human would, therefore the variables in each model deters the ability to identify unforeseen issues and ensure human safety. There are too many differences between the DNA in both models for precise results. If animal experimentation is not a reliable method of testing, then why do scientists continue to utilize animals as test subjects?
The alternative of using human isolated tissue would provide scientists with the tools to detect developments and potential risks otherwise unforeseen with animal models. This alternative option is essential for consideration because it would eliminate the possibility of obtaining imprecise results, bringing us closer to solutions in science and it is free of animal exploitation. Animals are forced to undergo inhumane procedures such as surgery without anesthetics so that they become sick for testing. Animals are forced to consume harmful chemicals to monitor their reactions for studies and then are euthanized or used for another inhumane test. These laboratories are almost always in violation of inspections and are not ideal.
When it comes to our health, we should always use our critical thinking skills to analyze the validity of information supported by professionals. One incident that supports this reasoning occured in the 70’s, when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a drug, found to harm pregnant women and their newborns, which was meant to prevent nausea. Pregnant women had been administered medication that contained Bendectin (Thalidomide) which is found in the “Morning After Pill”. The FDA’s seal of approval was given however, the medication was later found to cause issues for the pregnant women taking it as it caused birth defects in their newborns. Experts then explored the option of a recall. As Betty Mekdeci, executive director of the Birth Defect Research for Children stated, “ Following a large meeting at the Food and Drug Administration on October 15, 1976, it was decided that ‘a type 2 NAS/NRC recall of the old formulation product should be undertaken.’ Despite the decisions made at this meeting, no recall of three-part Bendectin was ever made. Since the product had a shelf life of up to five years, it is possible that women in the United States received Bendectin containing Bentyl as late as 1982”. In this study, animal models were used. If animal models were reliable subjects for testing harmful components in lieu of humans, then the experimentation of Bendectin would have been proved safe after being tested on rabbits and it wouldn’t have negatively impacted mothers and their newborns. As stated by the Humane Society International, animal models as test subjects are considered to be the default method, however the result of this test disproves the validity of why scientists still use animals at all.
Modern technological advancements serve as instruments to dismantle the unethical treatment of animals for experiments and replace it with alternative measures for a better future. Starting discussions and generating interest toward in vitro models for testing will eliminate such complications that occur in current testing methods such as risk, waste, high cost, imprecise results, and will put an end to animal suffering. Will we continue to test on animal models for the sake of familiarity and comfort despite its ineffectiveness? Why are we testing on animals for a cure that is meant for the human species? Animal experimentation not only fosters unethical practices but promotes lack of compassion which is the fuel for ultimate morality.
References:
https://aldf.org/focus_area/animals-used-in-research/
http://birthdefects.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Bendectin-Part-1.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_9Vb6tLBTM&feature=youtu.be
https://www.hsi.org/news-media/about/
According to Humane Society International, an estimate of at least 115 million animals are used for experiments in the world annually. These experiments are conducted to test the safety of cosmetics, household chemicals, pharmaceuticals, food additives for harmful components, medicinal research and treatments, as well as biomedical cures for diseases. The Department of Agriculture in the U.S. underreports at least 90% of animals that are tested on and impoverished countries do not report on their behalf. We can infer that animal exploitation grossly exceeds recorded statistical data.
The use of animal models in laboratories are outdated, unreliable and expensive to maintain. An alternative is the implementation of the in vitro method; 3D cell cultures allow for cells to regenerate under a controlled environment. Furthermore, scientists are able to use human isolated tissue where the patient undergoing the illness consents for the extraction of fresh tissue for medicinal research. Nothing is more valuable for research than a sample taken from the ill patient themself. These methods pave the way for scientists to extract precise results from human models without the need to break moral code.
Upon testing animals for a cure for cystic fibrosis, the translation of research performed on animal models to human patients was found to be problematic because the models react differently to the same test. For example, a mouse does not develop the illness as spontaneously as a human would, therefore the variables in each model deters the ability to identify unforeseen issues and ensure human safety. There are too many differences between the DNA in both models for precise results. If animal experimentation is not a reliable method of testing, then why do scientists continue to utilize animals as test subjects?
The alternative of using human isolated tissue would provide scientists with the tools to detect developments and potential risks otherwise unforeseen with animal models. This alternative option is essential for consideration because it would eliminate the possibility of obtaining imprecise results, bringing us closer to solutions in science and it is free of animal exploitation. Animals are forced to undergo inhumane procedures such as surgery without anesthetics so that they become sick for testing. Animals are forced to consume harmful chemicals to monitor their reactions for studies and then are euthanized or used for another inhumane test. These laboratories are almost always in violation of inspections and are not ideal.
When it comes to our health, we should always use our critical thinking skills to analyze the validity of information supported by professionals. One incident that supports this reasoning occured in the 70’s, when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a drug, found to harm pregnant women and their newborns, which was meant to prevent nausea. Pregnant women had been administered medication that contained Bendectin (Thalidomide) which is found in the “Morning After Pill”. The FDA’s seal of approval was given however, the medication was later found to cause issues for the pregnant women taking it as it caused birth defects in their newborns. Experts then explored the option of a recall. As Betty Mekdeci, executive director of the Birth Defect Research for Children stated, “ Following a large meeting at the Food and Drug Administration on October 15, 1976, it was decided that ‘a type 2 NAS/NRC recall of the old formulation product should be undertaken.’ Despite the decisions made at this meeting, no recall of three-part Bendectin was ever made. Since the product had a shelf life of up to five years, it is possible that women in the United States received Bendectin containing Bentyl as late as 1982”. In this study, animal models were used. If animal models were reliable subjects for testing harmful components in lieu of humans, then the experimentation of Bendectin would have been proved safe after being tested on rabbits and it wouldn’t have negatively impacted mothers and their newborns. As stated by the Humane Society International, animal models as test subjects are considered to be the default method, however the result of this test disproves the validity of why scientists still use animals at all.
Modern technological advancements serve as instruments to dismantle the unethical treatment of animals for experiments and replace it with alternative measures for a better future. Starting discussions and generating interest toward in vitro models for testing will eliminate such complications that occur in current testing methods such as risk, waste, high cost, imprecise results, and will put an end to animal suffering. Will we continue to test on animal models for the sake of familiarity and comfort despite its ineffectiveness? Why are we testing on animals for a cure that is meant for the human species? Animal experimentation not only fosters unethical practices but promotes lack of compassion which is the fuel for ultimate morality.
References:
https://aldf.org/focus_area/animals-used-in-research/
http://birthdefects.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Bendectin-Part-1.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_9Vb6tLBTM&feature=youtu.be
https://www.hsi.org/news-media/about/
Proudly powered by Weebly