For example, in the book, Animal Research Takes Lives: Humans and Animals Both Suffer by Betty Overell, the founder of the New Zealand Anti-Vivisection Society, claimed that in 1983, the painkiller Butazolidin (by t -z l -d n) caused nearly 600 human deaths in the United States alone. These deaths were not foreseen beforehand, as the test subjects were animals, not humans. Overell went on to explain that none of the many different species tested on experienced any adverse side-effects to the medication, yet it caused many complications when taken by humans (Overell 290).
In addition to inaccuracy, animal testing is inhumane to the animals involved, both during testing and while they are awaiting testing, and lastly, is unnecessary due to the advancements in the field of medical research. First off, throughout the history of testing on animals, many human lives have been lost due to inaccuracies that have occurred during animal testing. There have been many cases where an animal showed no side effects when subjected to a specific medication.
When that same medication was tested on humans, however, the reaction was completely different. Take the antidiarrheal drug, Clioquinol, for example. At the time of its release, this drug not only passed tests on rats and dogs, but in cats and rabbits as well. None of the animals were said to have experienced any adverse side effects. However, humans reacted in an entirely different manner. Clioquinol caused blindness and even paralysis in many of its users. These side effects resulted in a worldwide removal of the drug, in 1982 (Greek 67).
The Term Paper on The True Side Effects F Sterids part 1
The True Side Effects f Sterids What, exactly, are sterids? Usually called anablic sterids, they are synthetic substances similar in chemical structure t the hrmne teststerne. Teststerne is ften called the male sex hrmne, but females prduce it t. In bth sexes, teststerne prmtes the grwth f skeletal muscles, the muscles that are cnnected t the skeletn and enable a persn t mve. The muscle-grwing ...
Another, more recent tragedy that can be credited to relying on animal testing occurred in 2004 when the drug Vioxx was found to be the cause of over 600,000 deaths. Keep in mind that this drug claimed to be an anti-inflammatory drug, to help manage pain for humans with arthritis troubles. In the article, Vioxx Suit Faults Animal Tests, John Gartner reported that the drug had only been tested on animals. Merck, the manufacturer of Vioxx relied on the positive animal testing and assumed that the drug would react the same way in human body. The company couldn’t have been more incorrect.
He went on to explain that Vioxx caused the patient to be 220% more likely to have heart ailments. Take Nancy Tufford for example. Tufford was a woman from Minnesota who took Vioxx from January 2002 until the summer of 2004. In 2003, she was diagnosed with “congestive heart failure and abnormal heart function. ” Gartner continued on to say that before taking Vioxx, Ms. Tufford had no previous documented problems with her heart. Another man, Robert Ernst, who was a 59 year old avid runner, died from heart problems after taking Vioxx for only six months (Gartner).
The problem with relying on animal testing is that animals and humans differ in many ways, and unless scientists discover a species that is so closely related to humans, it will be hard for animal testing to be an effective research method. Next, animal testing is inhumane. How would you feel if someone took your sister, your brother, your best friend, or your closest family member, and then began running endless tests and sometimes even painful procedures on them, all without anything to numb the pain? I would never want that to happen to anyone, so why would we wish it on animals?
Animals have feelings just like humans do. They are capable of feeling pain, as well as a wide range of other emotions and feelings. Many people think that the government effectively monitors the treatment of the animals in the facilities, however they are mistaken. There are several known cases where animal testing facilities have been documented on mistreating the animals. For example, the Professional Laboratory Research Services (PLRS), an animal testing facility in North Carolina, got away with mistreating and abusing animals for many years.
The Term Paper on Animal Testing 5
Animal testing is used for many products worldwide. Also animal testing is used for a wide range of things, such as items in houses and medicines. Many places test on animals, such as private facilities, universities, and government laboratories. A big debate in today’s society is whether or not scientist should use animals for testing. Most of the animals die during or after the testing. Typing ...
In 2010, a PETA representative went undercover to observe the treatment of the animals at this facility. The results were documented (via video: http://www. youtube. com/watch? v=ItM2ptst4u8&feature=player_embedded).
Several employees of the facility were charged with up to 14 felony counts of animal abuse. Dogs were frequently yelled at, kicked, sprayed with a mixture of chemicals, sometimes even bleach and water, and were viscously kicked by the employees. Cats located on this facility were not treated much better.
The investigator documented a cat, clinging onto a chain link fence for dear life. Once the cat was latched onto the fence, the employee aggressively pulled the cat from the fence, causing the cat’s nails to rip out of the digit completely. The employee then taunted the cat, asking “how many of your nails are left? ” This video documentary eventually led to the Professional Laboratory Research Service being shut down completely (Mullins).
I don’t understand why someone in the medical field would believe that it was okay to treat their test subjects like that.
If one facility was caught mistreating their test animals in such a manner, there has to be many more with similar procedures. Lastly, in today’s medical field there is no reason to even test on animals anymore. There are many different alternatives to the primal method of animal testing. Skinethic is a company that strives to achieve the “3Rs” (The Use of Our Models), which stands for Reduce, Refine and Replace. This company hopes to “Reduce the number of animals being tested,” “refine the methodology used,” and “replace the animal models” (The Use of Our Models).
Skinethic wants to reduce the number of animals used in the medical field and is an advocate for the popular alternative to animal testing, Episkin. Episkin is reconstructed human skin that is placed in a petri-dish. This alternative is most commonly used to test skin irritation. (The Use of Our Models).
Another company called VaxDesign created another alternative for animal testing. This company wanted to find a better way to test and study the effect of HIV/AIDS vaccines.
The Term Paper on Animal Testing Paper Animals Research Humans
... on the results of animal tests anyway. Humans are different from other animals, so the results of animal testing may not apply to ... use animals, we can use non-animal alternatives or computer simulations or test on human volunteers. Every year, millions of animals suffer ... example: morphine calms humans but excites cats, cortisone causes birth defects in mice but not in humans, penicillin kills guinea ...
Normally primates are infected with the HIV/AIDS disease and then set through a study process that causes weight loss, breathing problems, neurological problems and more before they pass away or are put down. In order to help eliminate this inhumane system VaxDesign developed a dime-sized human immune system made from human cells produced from their system called Modular IMmune In vitro Construct (MIMIC).
This system can actually be used to test vaccines on many different human populations at one time.
This method is much more effective because it is tested on actual human immune systems and is faster than testing on animals. (Alternatives to Animal Testing) A huge breakthrough in decreasing the number of animals that are tested each year happened when MRI, fMRI, EEG, PET, and CTs came around. Scientists that wanted to study the human brain would cut into the brains of rats, cats, and monkeys in order to look at what they wanted. Now with advanced imaging from these machines scientists are able to look all the way down to the tiniest neurons in the human brain.
They can also now induce, and safely reverse, brain disorders through the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation. This technique for brain study has eliminated the need for animal test subjects and has also cut down the chance of interspecies extrapolation, which is the projection of test results from animals to humans. (Alternatives to Animal Testing) Finally, in 95% of medical schools across the United States animal testing has been completely replaced with things such as: sophisticated human-patient simulators, virtual-reality systems, computer simulators, and supervised clinical experience.
