Tran Pham

12/6/2013

SHOULD WE USE ALTERNATIVES FOR ANIMAL TESTING?

Salt Lake Community College

Should We Use Alternatives for Animal Testing?

Should We Use Alternatives for Animal Testing?

Table of Contents Final paper Power Point Newsletter

Should We Use Alternatives for Animal Testing?

Should We Use Alternatives for Animal Testing?

heard about animal testing long time ago; however, Ive never tried to look for further information. Recently, Ive done some researches about animal testing on Google. Clicking Ion the image tab on the left-hand side of the screen, as scrolling down again and again, I see millions of horrible pictures. A picture of a man who is wearing a white blouse uses a syringe to inject substance into a monkey catches my eyes at first sight. Though he is working hard on finding a treatment for the monkey, however, everything seems to be a contradiction when I look at the picture descriptions: he is injecting toxic chemicals into the monkey. The picture shown here also terrifies me to death in which researchers are taking turns to abuse and mutilate a lab rabbit. The organs of the rabbit are bleeding heavily, but the researchers still try their best to cut something in its. And the little cute gray rabbit can do nothing to prevent being put to death. That heart-wrenching image raises in me a real concern for those animals that are suffering pain and distress inside medical laboratories. Researchers cant legally conduct experiments on humans; therefore, to satisfy the urgency of medical treatment as well as the scientific curiosity, they need to find non-human models to become alternatives which are the foundation for the emergence of animal testing. What should we do if animal testing, which is the cruelest act done on animals, doesnt completely come up with the result we expected? Animal testing has been a very controversial issue since it began. There was a time this issue was buried because animals were the only source

Should We Use Alternatives for Animal Testing?

available at that time. We cant deny the benefits from animal experiments that we got, however, many statistics show that the number of animals used for researching now reach the millions exceeding what people imagine. Along with those statistics is the resentment of millions animal testing protestors including medical experts and researchers. They are fighting against the ineffectiveness of animal testing outcome based on logical ideas as well as the perspective of humanity and the measure of ethical behaviors. Animal testing is the use of nonhuman animals in experiments. In the 2nd and 4th centuries BCE, Aristotle and Erasistratus were among the first to perform experiments on living animals (Hajar, Animal Testing and Medicine). According to the website The Psychopharmacology Laboratory at American University nowadays, this kind of research is conducted inside universities, medical schools, pharmaceutical Seriously Ill for Medical Research, companiesetc. Animal research can be divided into two groups: pure research and applied research. Genetics, behavioral studies and developmental biology are three kinds of pure research. Applied research includes toxicology test, biomedical research, transplantation and drug testing (Animal Testing). Because the Elixir Sulfanilamide drug killed more than 100 users in 1937, the U.S. Congress passed laws that required safety testing of drugs on animals

Should We Use Alternatives for Animal Testing?

before they could be marketed. After this enactment, animals were used widely all over the country (Sulfanilamide Disaster). In 2010, there are 1.28 million animals were used in medical researches. That number doesnt include mice, rats, birds and fish because these animals are not covered by Animal Well Fare Act. Each year, over 100 million animals are burned; cripple poisoned around the world (Animal Experiments: Overview).

350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 13,271 145,895 73,317 53,260 38,008 64,930 21,578 210,172 213,029 303,107

Types of Animal Are Used in Research in 2010

Should We Use Alternatives for Animal Testing?

Although animal models are widely used to find treatments for human diseases, no one can guarantee for the relevance of it in human body. In other words, animal testing results are not reliable enough to predict human outcome. Recent research also shows that 92 percent of experimental drugs that are safe and effective in animals fail in clinical trials (Nine out of ten). The reasons for this ineffectiveness are the differences in physiology, anatomy and metabolism between humans and animal. For example, acetaminophen is poisonous to cats but is a therapeutic for humans. In the other hand, penicillin was proved to be a precious medicine for humans but it kills guinea pigs. Moreover, some diseases such as psychopathology, cancer, drug addiction, Alzheimers, and AIDS are species-specific. Rarely animals have the same causes and symptoms as human, therefore, the experiments on animals equal to wasting time (Problems with Animal Research). Not to mention the fact that animal testing delays medical discovery when medicines could be effective in humans but may never be developed because they fail in animal studies. Lipitor, for example, a blockbuster drug of Pfizer for reducing cholesterol, did not seem to be promising in early animal experiments. However, the clinical trial done by the request of scientists demonstrated the effectiveness of Lipitor in human (FDA Input Aids Early Trials). If the scientists had insisted on the result of Lipitor on animals, we would never have had a chance to find a treatment for overweight patients. Also, there are two facts that need to be concerned. First, The National Institutes of Health uses tax dollars to fund the abuse of chimpanzees. According to PETA, more than $16 billion dollars are spent annually on animal testing (More Than). As I mentioned before, animal experiments are cruel and unreliable to predict outcome in humans. Is it worth to spend a large amount of money for a risk? For many researchers, animal model becomes an old-fashioned

Should We Use Alternatives for Animal Testing?

model because it takes long time to complete the process and no one can make sure its effectiveness unless the clinical trials are conducted. Second, with that amount of money, PETA estimates that The US Government can provide $606 per month to the 2.2 million households in which senior citizens go to bed hungry, hire an additional 380,000 teachers to help educate Americas youth (More Than). If the medical discovery is urgent, the money should be funded for the invention of more environmental-friendly procedures. According to the Humane Society of the United States, there are four main steps to acquire alternative methods for animal testing. Understanding the alternatives is the first step. The word alternatives implies definition of any change in

Defining Three Rs: Replace Reduce Refine Developing cell and tissue tests, computer models and other sophisticated methods Validating Accepting

animal research that achieves one or more of the three Rs: and refine. Replace the procedures that use animal by a

replace, reduce procedure that dont

use animal. Reduce the number of animals used in procedure and refine the procedure to minimize the potential pain in animal. The next step developing belongs to scientists responsibility. New cell, tissue test, computer modelling and other complicated methods are what researchers looking for to replace animal testing. Also, scientists need to validate their new methods. It means they have to prove and evaluate it in multiple laboratories to see if the result is reliable to predict outcome in human. After the method is scientifically proved, it needs to pass the government authorities acceptance (Alternatives to Animal Tests).

Should We Use Alternatives for Animal Testing?

Because of the development of technology, many scientists introduce different methods that completely replace animals in research. The Humane Society of the United States also states that nearly 50 different alternatives and testing strategies have been developed, validated and/or accepted by international regulatory authorities (Alternatives to Animal Tests). Some researchers use blood from human volunteers to test for fever-causing contaminants in intravenous medicines. Thanks to this method, hundreds of thousands rabbits are saved from pyrogenic tests. Also, instead of using live rabbits, The Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability Test and Isolated Chicken Eye Test use eyes from animals slaughtered for the meat industry to detect toxic substances that are irritating to the eyes (Alternatives to Animal Tests). There are some other outstanding achievements that are admirable. The scientists and engineers at Harvard's Wyss Institute have invented "organs-on-a-chip," including lung-on-a-chip and gut-on-a-chip. To replace traditional animal models, this tiny device was designed to have human cells in a 3-dimensional system that mimics human organs. The chips can be used in disease research, drug testing, and toxicity testing (Organ-on-a-chip). Some patients and healthy people volunteer to have micro-dosing, a technique for studying the behavior of drugs in humans. A low dose is absorbed unlikely to produce whole-body effects but high enough to allow the cellular response to be studied. Researcher then will use medical imaging machines such as MRI, EEG, PET and CT scan to keep track on how the substances are metabolized and how they affect human bodies.

Should We Use Alternatives for Animal Testing?

There is another method widely used in safety testing which is computer simulation. Mannequins also known as crash test dummies are an example. Scientists have created mannequins operated by computers to replace live animal trauma testing for automobile crash. They install a camera and internal sensors in a car to have a closer look at dummies reaction. The first of these was "Sierra Sam" built in 1949 by Alderson Research Labs (ARL) Sierra Engineering. Until now, these dummies are still being refined ("The History of Crash Test Dummies). Before this innovation, researchers used live pigs as subjects for crash testing. So what makes non-animal methods become the optimal choice for medical research? New England Anti-Vivisection Society states that most of alternatives take less time to have results than original methods. For example, Vitro Internationals Corrositex (synthetic skin) can provide a chemical corrosivity determination in as little as 3 minutes to four hours, unlike animal testing that often takes two to four weeks. Also, the traditional testing of chemicals using animals can take up to five years per substance and cost millions of dollars, while non-animal alternatives test hundreds of chemicals in a week and cost only a fraction of that money. Epiderm, a human-base culture cell, was proved to be more accurate than using rabbits to test irritation on human skin. It detected correctly all of the toxic substances that irritate human skin, while tests on rabbits just recognized

Should We Use Alternatives for Animal Testing?

10 out of 25 test chemicals. To cut a long story short, alternatives are more reliable, accurate, time-benefit and cost-effective than animal models (Alternatives in Testing). Besides the technical disadvantages stated above, there is another reason urges people to say goodbye to animal testing. Whatever happens to humanity and ethical behavior? People always talk about how to enhance the moral standards in our society but our history has proved it to be humane fallacies. The two World Wars are the evidences for heartlessness. In order to increase the influence and the economic power, great nations didnt hesitate to dip hands into blood and tears of millions innocent people. That guilt has left the pain and misery for victims as well as the regrets for humanity all over the world. Going back to animal testing and we can see how it is similar to World Wars. Researchers conclude that mice do show discomfort through their face when being injected painful stimuli. Just like the way humans react, mice grimace is a sign of feeling soreness. Most of animals used in research, generally, do have central nervous system and they are aware of getting hurt. Although the pain level depends on individuals endurance as well as the severity of pain, people all feel bad and so do animals. To satisfy the emergence of medical treatments and human benefits, some researchers are willing to cut off a part of animals body for studying or shave their hair to expose new substances. However, that is

Should We Use Alternatives for Animal Testing?

not enough to describe what is happening inside laboratories. Nobody can imagine how cruel researchers are when they torture pitiful animals. Doing harm to animals equals to hurting people or even worse because animals are weak and vulnerable to the impact of humans. There is no way to defend them against getting hurt. Abusing animal for medical purposes has no difference than opening animal version World War. The World Wars II affected entire human race so bad even until now and ending it will open a new gate for peace and happiness, why we dont apply it for animal experiments? It isnt fair when human who is proved to be the highest form of animal are taking advantage of lower-level animals for sake. Yes we are the most intelligent species but it doesnt mean we can do whatever we want to hurt animals. The difference between human and animal is we have the ability to love. Grown up in the upbringing of the love of humanity and the love of animals, we assume that hurting animals equals to violating ethics. Seeing things from the perspective of a human, animal testing is nothing but cruelty and ruthlessness. Conscientious researchers are aware of reducing the quantity and minimizing the potential pain in animals when being abused, however, completely replacing animals from researches always received the best support from the majority of people. Cruelty-free is the highest purpose of alternatives because there are no more animals suffered from poisonous injection, having skin interacted with toxic chemicals or being a subject of vivisection (a surgery conducted on living organism especially animals). Some scientists are passionately deep in the dream of finding the cure for people and forgot the soreness millions animals have suffered. They are misunderstanding about the main purpose

Should We Use Alternatives for Animal Testing?

of medicine which is to discover diseases treatment not only for humans but also for animals. The American Medical Student Association states that it "strongly encourages the replacement of animal laboratories alternatives in training." ninety-five percent schools have the use of animal with non-animal undergraduate medical According to research, of the US medical completely replaced model in medical

education. By using variety of non-animal methods including complicated human-patient simulators, computer simulators, virtual-reality systems, conscience scientists are opening a new landmark for the humanity and effectiveness in medical exploration.

Should We Use Alternatives for Animal Testing?

Works Cited "Alternatives in Testing." New England Anti-Vivisection Society. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2013. "Alternatives to Animal Tests: The Humane Society of the United States." RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2013. "Animal Testing." Animal Testing. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2013. "Animal Experiments: Overview." PETA. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2013. "FDA Input Aids Early Trials." Drug Discovery & Development. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2013. Hajar, Rachel. "Animal Testing and Medicine." NCBI. U.S. National Library of Medicine, n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2013. "More Than $16 Billion in Taxpayer Money Wasted Annually on Animal Testing." PETA. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2013. "Nine out of Ten Statistics Are Taken out of Context." Understanding Animal Research. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2013. "Organs-on-a-Chip Gain Momentum and Support." Organs-on-a-Chip Gain Momentum and Support. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2013. "Problems with Animal Research." -The American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS). N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2013. "Sulfanilamide Disaster." U.S. Food and Drug Administration. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2013. "The History of Crash Test Dummies." About.com Inventors. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2013.