Animal Testing

      Briana Daoust

 Jacques 

Advanced E.L.A.

Animal Testing 

 

They’re trapped and can’t get out. It’s gloomy, and sultry tubes are being shoved down their throat. Do you consider the need to help these vulnerable animals? Animals around the world suffer every day from animal testing. No human being needs the innovative products; the old products work exactly the same. “If you love animals called pets, why do you eat animals called dinner?” (http://www.quotegarden.com) Why does everybody push away the thought of animals being poisoned to death by testing?

Furthermore, animal testing is overused and is an injustice and unfair procedure. Testing on animals for cosmetics should not be tolerable. “Nearly 200 chimpanzees formerly used for invasive research are getting a new, albeit temporary, lease on life. Tempers flared last year when the NIH announced that the chimps were going to be moved to Texas and put back into the research grind. Talk about a change in standard of living! At least in the Alamogordo facility, the chimps had access to fresh fruit, socialization, and indoor and outdoor areas. It's surely a far cry from being put back into the pool of animals to be confined, poked, prodded, hurt, and exposed an abundance of nasty substances. The chimps' plight raised a big wave of activism and awareness. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine raised a ruckus, and ended up turning into a pretty star-studded one at that. Among the celebrities who got involved were Gene Hackman, True Blood's Kristin Bauer, and the closest to the primate world has to a rock star, Dr. Jane Goodall. Even the Governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, got involved in a big way. He made it clear that he wanted the chimps to stay retired (in New Mexico) rather then in rattling cages at the U.S. Department of Agriculture to get an investigation underway.” (http://www.nih.gov/) Scientists can think of other ways to test cosmetics than testing it on animals. Although medical use should be limited, they are trying to save patients, but while doing so they are killing innocent animals. This is very serious, as researchers are trying to create another way of testing, animals are still dying. If people around the world could realize this and come together to prevent it, this problem wouldn't exist. There is no need for all these tests; however, there are a couple of solutions.

 Animal testing is not environmentally friendly; whatsoever, with all the Eco friendly ideas going on, animal testing might soon become a part of history if the chips developed by Professor Jonathan Dordick of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Douglas Clark of the University of California is accepted by the researchers. “The product developed by the duo consists of two glass slides. The first glass slide is called the Meta Chip that contains an array of little blots containing human liver enzymes. The Data Chip is the other glass slide, which, depending on the test, contains blots of bladder, liver, kidney, heart, skin, or lung cell cultures. When pressed together the two chips show the human body’s reaction to the testing compound. The newly developed in-vitro product is believed to be more efficient than animal testing in labs.” (http://www.scienceahead.com/entry/new-alternative-to-animal-testing-found/-) This solution would help scientists greatly because they could save the lives of animals. However, some might say this could not be 100% accurate because you can’t see the actual reaction of a human. Therefore humans could die and the company could get sued. These tests are expensive, and with the money catastrophe we already have, it could put the state in even more debt. Also those tests may not be 100% accurate. There could be a cell that isn’t fully developed, and could throw the whole analysis off course. Although all those statements could turn out true; if we used slides instead of animals, the tests would be more effective because we would use real human cells. Also, we wouldn't be taking the innocent lives of animals every day. We would be saving money by not having to raise animals and feed them and take care of them. Nevertheless, the actual expenses are fairly equal. With this in mind, people would rather save the lives of animals around the world than kill their loving souls for testing.

Animal testing is an easy way to test products. There are other ways to test medicine and merchandise. Chemicals would be just as efficient!

“On a purely logical level, ethics would seem to dictate that the species, humans, that want to use a potentially harmful chemical whether the chemical is destined for a cosmetic, a cleaning product, or a pharmaceutical—should supply the test subjects that undergo the safety tests (i.e. human test subjects). It seems unethical that the "user species" would impose the fear, pain, and health consequences of the testing on an unwitting, unwilling species. Indeed, human trials of new drugs are done all the time, but that's after the pharmaceutical has already been tested on myriad laboratory animals. The issue of animal testing is a fundamentally ethical one. Years ago, the public was outraged over exposés about the abuse of test animals, and many consumer-goods companies abandoned animal testing for their products. Did they simply stop testing their goops and globs before putting them on the shelf for sale? Of course not! They instead developed non-animal testing methods that are as good or better at evaluating product safety. For instance, eye irritation for a chemical might be tested on donated human retinas, and cultured human skin can be used to evaluate skin reactions. Unfortunately, there is still plenty of animal testing going on for a variety of products. Many animal rights activists pursue an end to all animal testing. Other organizations argue for the three Rs:

1. Replace the use of animals in scientific procedures with non-animal alternatives whenever possible;
2. Reduce the number of animals used in any animal-testing procedure;

Refine procedures so that animals experience less pain, suffering, or discomfort.” (http://www.grinningplanet.com/2004/10-12/cosmetics-animal-testing-article.htm) Chemicals can be used so we don’t have to use defenseless animals. It may be expensive but there are pros and cons to animal testing, this is just a solution. “Some may think animal testing helps researchers to find drugs and treatments to improve health and medicine. Many medical treatments have been made possible by animal testing, including cancer and HIV drugs, insulin, antibiotics, vaccines and many more. The cons are, in animal testing, countless animals are experimented on and then killed after their use. Others are injured and will still live the remainder of their lives in captivity. This is the reason why people like us are trying to put a stop to animal testing. The unfortunate aspect is that many of these animals received tests for substances that will never actually see approval, or public consumption and use. Animal testing generally costs an enormous amount of money. Animals must be fed, housed, cared for and treated with drugs or a similar experimental substance.” (http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk/) With that said, there should not be animals tested with drugs or medicine. It is unfair to the animals because they don’t have a voice in the decisions made in their life. The people who test on these animals don’t think about the animals feelings. They only care about the money they get. As a result, animal testing could be controlled to the minimum. If we use other resources, animals wouldn’t suffer like they do now.

     Animal testing is as malicious as a crime. If killing people is a crime, then killing animals should be a misdemeanor as well. This problem is solved best by the slides because they show the reaction a human being would have without humans or animals being killed or injured. With the technology that we have today, we should be able to make this idea become veracity. Would you want to see your beloved pet die? Even if it’s not your animal, people still need to care about what’s happening around them.