This is according to the Humane Society International. The clips usually stay on for days, and to ensure the rabbits stay in place, they are incapacitated. Some experimentation also involves using lethal doses of certain chemicals to determine how much can kill animals. Animals make poor test subjects This statement is a direct contradiction from what proponents believe about how closely related animals and humans are anatomically and biologically, because of the many metabolic, cellular, and anatomical differences between the two species.
Using rats for toxicity, for example, must not be accepted as reliable since humans are nowhere close to being kilogram rats, according to Thomas Hartung, professor of evidence-based toxicology at Johns Hopkins University.
This is further supported by the study in the Archives of Toxicology that states that the lack of direct comparison of human data versus that of a mouse makes the usefulness of research data dubious. Success in animal experimentation does not equate to human safety When the sleeping pill thalidomide was tested on pregnant rats, mice, cats and guinea pigs, there were no incidence of birth defects, except when administered at extremely high doses.
However, when it was used by pregnant women, it resulted in severe deformities affecting 10, babies. Can lead to misleading research Some medicines and products that are harmful to animals are actually valuable to humans. Aspirin, for example, was almost shelved because it proved dangerous for animals. Imagine what would have happened if aspirin was completely taken off the pharmaceutical list? There would have been no way to lower the risk of organ transplant being rejected.
Most animals used in testing and research are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act AWA As of , only over 1 million animals are covered by the AWA, leaving around 25 million more unprotected from mistreatment and abuse. These include birds, fish, mice and rats. And because vivisections within laboratory walls are regulated by the committee that the facility itself selected, animal subjects are even more at risk of being treated like prisoners in a hospital for their entire existence.
The animals were so stressed out psychologically that they resorted to self-mutilation. The rest of the violations that NIRC committed were caught on a video footage, showing the heartbreaking conditions of the animals. But this facility is just one of the many that violates AWA. There are less expensive alternatives to animal experimentation Despite what proponents insist, cell cultures in a petri dish, or in vitro in glass testing, are not exactly useless or insufficient.
They can even produce results that are more relevant than animal experimentation. The same thing is true when using artificial human skin as a test subject, instead of animal skin. Virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures done through computer models also have the capacity to predict toxicity levels of substances, so no need to poison animals to collect data and draw conclusions.
And, when testing for adverse reactions, administering small doses on humans, also known as microdosing, also offers an alternative. Combined with blood analysis, results will be produced. But what is really important is that these alternatives are less expensive than animal experimentations. These only shows that animal tests are wasting plenty of government dollars allocated for research.
Plenty of animal lives are wasted Considering all the tests that failed, not to mention other non-experimental factors that affect animals, there is a significant number of animal lives wasted for nothing. They suffer or get killed during the experiment, and suffer the same fate after the experiment. But what is really inhumane and unethical are the poor research procedures used by some facilities.
Serious flaws were discovered in plenty of studies in the UK and the U. Selection bias was a major problem, but even with randomization and blinding technique used, proper selection of animals still failed. There is also a lack of hypothesis or objective related to the study. Medical breakthroughs need not involve animals Is animal experimentation really that necessary in discovering treatments and cures?
Opponents argue that there is really no evidence of its vital role in major medical advances. If funds and resources are focused on animal-free alternatives, more humane, ethical and inexpensive solutions.
One such alternative that should be given full support is the microfluidic chip, also known as organs on a chip. This involves the use of chips to achieve certain functions of a human body, such as mix, pump and sort. The chips are lined with human cells so they work similar to human organs. With this alternative, researchers can no longer use the excuse that they need a living, whole-body system to run experiments. Global Warming Facts and Myths.
List of Pros of Animal Experimentation 1. Research animals must be provided with shelter that follows minimum housing standards, such as the right-sized enclosure, recommended temperature, access to clean food and water, etc. Veterinarians must regularly inspect the animals and their living conditions Each research facility must set up an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee IACUC that will approve all proposals to use animals for experimentation.
List of Cons of Animal Experimentation 1. The arthritis drug Vioxx, which turned out great on animals was really bad news on humans because it caused more than 20, heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths. The Red Line of Sustainable Development.
How to Sustain Economic Development. A Way to Get Sustainability for All. Europe, for example, has banned the sale of cosmetics with ingredients tested on animals. He and the other authors said the sharp increase in mice used in experiments that their study revealed could be driven by federal restrictions on the use of chimpanzees, dogs and cats due to growing public pressure, and the fact that mice and other smaller animals are not included in the Animal Welfare Act.
The use of mice "reflects scientists' and laypersons' greater moral concern for animals in laboratories who are typical viewed as companion animals or as being human-like or having higher mental abilities," the authors wrote. A spokesman for the National Institute of Health dismissed the study, saying the methods could not be used to quantify the numbers of animals being used in research.
Columbus also said the increased numbers of animals could simply be due to the fact that "research grant awards has increased over the time period reported in the paper. The study accused the federally-funded labs of breeding mice to carry genes that "predispose them to crippling diseases and other maladies.
PETA also alleged that individuals on testing oversight committees are often involved in animal research themselves, which creates a potential conflict of interest. In an article accompanying the study, Lisa Hara Levin of the animal welfare group Animal Care and Control of New York and William Reppy of Duke University said the study illustrated the need to reform policies related to animal research.
They called for avoiding the use of animals in experiments when a non-animal alternative is available, increased transparency regarding animal experiments and a greater willingness to negotiate with responsible representatives of the animal rights and welfare community about problems they have concerning animals in institutions.
Zuckerberg acknowledges there was "a breach of trust between Facebook and the people who share their data with us". Together, they're responsible for the personal data of 50 million people being pulled from Facebook. Share Tweet Reddit Flipboard Email. The study estimated that 17 million to million animals are still used in laboratories. Latest From "60 Minutes" Aly Raisman speaks out about sexual abuse. The polo team that uses cloned horses.
The link between Cambridge Analytica and Facebook. Why Bill and Melinda Gates put 20, students through college. Steve Scalise on surviving shooting: What a chemical attack in Syria looks like.
There are arguments against and for animals in research, who support animal testing seem to feel this is a " This article was adapted from "'Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or.
Should Animals Continue to Be Used in Research Experiments? Hundreds of thousands of people make a living from breeding research animals, manufacturing the food and housing used for experiments, building the labs and research centres, staffing them and doing research. The scientific and logistical limitations incurred by the use of.
Should animals be used in research? Animals, from the fruit fly to the mouse, are widely used in scientific research. They are crucial for allowing scientists to learn more about human biology and health, and for developing new medicines. Animal Testing - Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing? Death Penalty - Should the Death Penalty Be Allowed? All proposals to use animals for research must be approved by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) set up by each research facility. Humane treatment is enforced by each facility's IACUC, and.
Sep 04, · Second Thoughts of an Animal Researcher. By John P the use of animals is warranted. Yet research spanning the spectrum from cognitive ethology to neuroscience has made it clear that we have. Animals Used in Research Despite growing recognition of the inadequacies of animal models and growing acceptance of alternative methods, animals continue to be used in research, testing and teaching in the United States every year.