1

Animal Testing Does Not Bring Out the Animal in Humans

By: Heather Buckendahl The tens of millions of animals used and killed each year in American laboratories generally suffer enormously, often from fear and physical pain, and nearly always from the deprivation inflicted by their confinement which denies their most basic psychological and physical needs (Anderegg et al). Imagine not being able to communicate, being locked in a cell for weeks on end, being poked and prodded. You have no human contact except for the researcher that comes in and injects you, or harms you in some way, maybe occasionally feeding you. You have a headache but no way to communicate that you have a headache. You are afraid, tired, and lonely. The only contact you have usually ends up with you being in pain. You dont get to have contact with any familiar person or animal. You never feel joy or the outside world. You feel pain all the time. The product of all your pain: a medicine or medical treatment that has no benefit to you at all. You die alone and afraid and no one even notices that you are gone. This imaginary story is what it would feel like if you were an animal involved in testing for a human drug. I first became interested in animal testing when I read an article about people that bred dogs to be used as subjects for experiments. I was curious about animal experimentation so when I had the chance to do a research 2

paper, I decided to research animal experimentation. The results I found sometimes disgusted me, like seeing monkeys with electrodes in their heads, and often made me sad, such as finding out the experiments preformed on animals. When people think of animal testing they usually think of a rat or a mouse in a cage being put through a maze, or being injected with drugs. Many people do not realize that other animals are used. Animals such as dogs, cats, guinea pigs, and rabbits are also used in animal testing cases. Most of these animals are considered pets. Animal testing uses our pets as the subjects for experiments rather than humans, even though humans are the species that will be taking the drugs. The problem with animal testing is that it is often inaccurate for medical research and thus is not beneficial. This paper will discuss why animal testing is not beneficial, the alternatives to animal testing, and the conversation about animal testing that has been, and is continuing, to go on. Testing on animals for medical research is not helpful because the tests yield false outcomes. Many tests done on animals can provide misleading results. One reason for the misleading results is that the doses given to the animals do not mimic the real-life of humans: Animals are typically tested using methods and doses that are at odds with real-life conditions. In one experiment involving the sweetener cyclamate, animals were given the human equivalent of 552 bottles of soft drinks a day. In two experiments with trichloroethylene, used as a 3

decaffeinating agent in coffee, rats were given the human equivalent of 50 million cups of coffee a day. (Fano) One human does not drink 552 bottles of soft drinks per day or 50 million cups of coffee a day. In a way, this is considered overdosing, which does not mimic the real affect of the product. The effects in animals would be much different from those in humans who may have around two or three bottles of soft drink per day. The effects can nullify the experiment, as explained by Herman Kraybill of the National Cancer Institute, such high dosing can falsify an experiment in two ways: it can either poison the cells and tissues so severely as to prevent a carcinogenic response that might otherwise have occurred, or it can so overload and change metabolic processes as to cause a carcinogenic response that might not have occurred (qtd. in Fano). The results of such experiments are misleading because the experiments can prevent or provide a severe response that would not be normally found in humans. Another problem with animal testing is that animals cannot tell researchers the symptoms they have: Many of the most common life threatening side effects of drugs cannot be predicted by animal tests. Animals, for instance, cannot let the experimenter know if they are suffering from headache, amnesia, nausea, depression and other psychological disturbances. Allergic reactions, some blood disorders, skin lesions and many central nervous system effects are even more serious examples that cannot be demonstrated by animal models. (Thomas) 4

Animals, unlike humans, cannot communicate. These communication problems make it so that the researcher is unable to tell if an animal has a symptom that cannot be seen, such as a headache. The symptoms of these animals could possibly warn the researchers of the problem with the drug they are testing; but since the animals cannot communicate, researchers are misled into possibly believing the drug is safe when it is not. A third way that animal experimentation misleads researchers is in the way scientists provide the toxic chemical or drug: Ironically, putting doses of test chemical in food or water is one of the more common methods used by toxicologists to expose animals to chemicals. But rats readily associate food with illness and will avoid a food if they have been ill after eating it. How much an animal eats or drinksas well as the animal's age, genetics, and metabolismcan influence the outcome of an experiment (Fano). Rats refuse to eat the food that makes them sick so researchers cannot provide the rats with a food that made the rats sick before; therefore, they must change the food given to the rat. Unfortunately, the differing food may not be taken into account when the researchers look at the effects of the drug on the rat. Food change is an independent variable, one that could affect the dependent variable, which are the side-effects of the drug. The results are therefore misleading. Animals are also poor models for human testing because animals are not humans: [. . .] every species of animal is a totally different biomechanical and biochemical entity. Therefore, it is impossible to extrapolate data not only from 5

non-human animals to human beings, but also, from one species of animal to another. Second, it is impossible to recreate a spontaneous disease in the laboratory, whether it be on humans or on animals (Burgos). Animals and humans are different so the data cannot be used from species to species. Animal bodily systems also function differently from human bodily systems: All land mammals have four limbs, but attempts to test surgeries of the aorta on dogs fail because dogs' circulation is different in part due to their walking on four extremities while we walk on two. Animals and humans both secrete gastric juices and other chemicals. However, the gastric fluid in dogs' stomachs is much more acidic than ours (Greek and Greek). The difference in the way we walk, dogs on four limbs, humans on two, makes our systems function differently. The difference in the way our systems function makes animals a poor model to test on because the system may react differently to a certain drug because it functions differently. Animals are also a poor model for humans because to be a good, predictable model, the subject being tested must have the same symptoms, the same postulated origin of disease, the same neurobiological mechanism, and the same treatment response (Greek and Greek). Animals do not always have the same diseases as humans and humans do not always have the same diseases as animals (Burgos). Humans and animals do not have the same diseases so there is no point in testing human diseases on animals, because in general, animals cannot get human diseases and vice versa. In science the term isomorphism is the one-to-one correspondence between all elements in two or more living systems (Greek and 6

Greek). Animals are such poor models for humans that: [. . .] all data recovered from animal-model experiments must be scaled. Scaling is a scientific term that generally refers to the fudge factor (Greek and Greek). The scaling is an indicator that animals are poor models for human drug testing. Animal experimentation for medical testing also harms animals. Animals are killed and mistreated by researchers every year: In any other situation the things researchers do to animals would be considered animal abuse and a regular person would be fined and possibly put in jail for a while, such as Michael Vick when he was convicted of dog fighting. An example of harm to animals is physical harm: Consider the case of osteoarthritis, a human degenerative disease resulting in painful deformities of the joints. In order to mimic human lameness in dogs, cats, sheep and pigs, researchers beat the joints of animals with hammer blows, inject them with irritating liquids, subject them to ionizing [sic] radiation and/or dislocate them. Of course, the resulting fractures, haemorrhages [sic], thromboses, confusions, and inflammations bear no relation to human osteoarthritis. (Thomas) The animals were mistreated to mimic a human disease, but the result from the mistreatment of the animals was that the symptoms the animals were experiencing were not even similar to what humans experience. The mistreatment of the animals was unnecessary, especially since the mistreatment did not result in the mimicking of the human disease at all. The 7

animals do not only suffer from mistreatment by researchers but also suffer from chemicals they ingest: In these tests, animals suffer convulsions, severe abdominal pain, seizures, tremors, and diarrhea. They bleed from their genitals, eyes and mouth, vomit uncontrollably, self-mutilate, become paralyzed, lose kidney function, and fall into comas. Up to 2,000 animals may be killed in these ways to test just one chemical (Fano). The animals suffer for ingesting chemicals and it is likely that some of the chemicals tested are ones that are known to be toxic to either humans or animals. If the chemicals are known to be toxic, then it is redundant to retest the chemicals. Testing on animals for medical reasons is not beneficial because the experiments not only harm animals but also delay health warnings. Health warnings have been delayed because of the conflicting data between animal testing and human testing. One example of a health warning that was delayed was that smoking caused lung cancer: [. . .]by 1963 prospective and retrospective studies of human patients had already shown a strong correlation between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. In contrast, almost all experimental efforts to produce lung cancer in animals had failed. [. . .]Because the human and animal data failed to agree, this researcher [Clarence Little] and others distrusted the more reliable human data. As a result, health warnings were delayed for years, while thousands of people died of lung cancer. (Anderegg et al) Now most all people know that a leading cause of lung cancer is smoking, but in 1963 when the data between humans and animals did not match up 8

researchers decided to side with the animal data, even though it was humans that were the ones they researchers were concerned with. Delayed health warnings only hurt people rather than help them. If the human data shows a correlation between smoking and lung cancer, a health warning for humans should be put in place. Health treatments have also been delayed. A health treatment that was delayed because of animal testing was the polio vaccine: The animal model of polio, for example, resulted in a misunderstanding of the mechanism of infection. Studies on monkeys falsely indicated that the polio virus was transmitted via a respiratory, rather than a digestive route. This erroneous assumption resulted in misdirected preventive measures and delayed the development of tissue culture methodologies critical to the discovery of a vaccine. While monkey cell cultures were later used for vaccine production, it was research with human cell cultures which first showed that the polio virus could be cultivated on non-neural tissue. (Anderegg et al) The polio vaccine was eventually given to all people, but the assumption that monkeys and humans would be infected with polio the same way caused the vaccine to be delayed. The delay caused lives to be lost and that loss could have been stopped if the researchers had tested humans or human cultures rather than monkeys. Animal testing also provides drugs that end up eventually harming and sometimes killing humans. Ray C. Greek and Jean Swindle Greek state, 9

Roughly fifteen percent of all hospital admissions are caused by adverse medication reactions. And legal drugs, which made their way to the public via animals, kill approximately 100,000 people per year. That is more than all illegal drugs combined. The drugs that we believe are safe, because they were tested on animals, are actually not safe; they kill people. Many people would be surprised to know that illegal drugs kill less people than legal drugs. People take legal drugs that are prescribed to them by doctors that are supposed to be safe. The fact that legal drugs kill more people than illegal drugs is a scary, but an all too real reality. When legal drugs kill more people than illegal drugs and these legal drugs were tested on animals, the obvious is to find an alternative way to test drugs to make them safe and more marketable to humans. Although not all adverse reactions are caused because of false results, even one adverse reaction because of a false result in animals is enough to show that we should find an alternative to testing. All of the evidence begs the question: why do we do animal testing if we know it isnt safe or beneficial, and that it harms both animals and humans? The simple answer is money, the money that funds the scientists and research is given to the scientists to use in animal experimentation because the animal models make profits for the companies and the people doing and funding the research (Anderegg et al). Money should not decide what kind of testing goes on but sadly it does. Human lives could be saved if more money was put into alternatives to animal testing. However, there are other more complicated reasons. One reason is that the death of an animal is less likely to end up in a 10

lawsuit or losing money than the death of a human (Anderegg et al). To most humans, animals are expendables but humans are not. This expendability of animals to humans makes it less likely to end up in a lawsuit which makes it so companies do not lose money. Another reason is that animal testing appears more controlled, because scientists can claim that they control all the variables and only change one at a time (Anderegg et al). The assertion that scientists can control all the variables is not always correct; one example of this is the varying types of food that scientists may need to use to get rats to ingest the drug. Although animal experimentation is lucrative there are alternative methods. Many tests are done on animals but, [s]cientists are looking for cheaper, more accurate--and more humane--methods of testing chemicals on living tissues, and the result has been new technologies in cultivating human tissues and using computer models (Putney 46). The money that companies spend on animal testing could be put into finding alternative methods to animal testing. Some alternatives to animal testing that have been researched are epidemiology, patient studies, autopsies, biopsies, and postmarket surveillance (Anderegg et al). Epidemiology is they study of human populations and has shown some promise: [. . .] the identification of the major risk factors for coronary heart disease, such as smoking, elevated cholesterol and high blood pressure [. . .] derives from epidemiological studies (Anderegg et al). Patient studies, epidemiology, autopsies, biopsies all provide information based on humans rather than animals which is more beneficial because the models 11

are humans. Alternative methods that use some kind of human culture would most likely benefit humans more than using animals. The loss of life would also be lower if we used human cultures because it would have been tested on humans first. In a way, no matter how much testing there is on animals, the first people that receive the drug or treatment are basically human experimentation subjects, because the way those first humans react may be completely different from the way the animal subjects reacted. It is important that alternative methods are found because they are likely to be more reliable and yield better results than animal subjects. The paper has discussed reasons why animal testing is not beneficial, why animal testing continues, and alternatives to animal testing, but who is talking about animal testing? The answer is that many people are discussing animal testing. Scientists, animal rights activists, and the governments of the United States and other counties have been discussing animal testing. Some scientists agree with animal testing while others morally oppose animal testing. Others just want to know what the benefit of animal testing is: Given all these peculiarities, we began to ponder just how humans do benefit from animal experimentation. We asked physicians how it had specifically contributed to their field. Surgeons denied knowledge of any specific contributions, but referred us to pediatricians. Pediatricians knew of no significant achievements in pediatrics that relied on animals, but referred us to psychiatrists. Psychiatrists pointed out the drawbacks to studying psychosis in mice and suggested we contact the internists. 12

And it continued. Each specialist, though unaware of true animal-model successes in his own field, was convinced that other specialists were reliant on this protocol. They too had bought what was fast appearing to us as a bill of goods. (Greek and Greek) Greek and Greek interviewed many different specialists in fields of medicine and psychology. None of these people seemed to have any idea as to what benefit animal testing has for humans, some like psychiatrists even pointed out that there was a disadvantage rather than an advantage to using animals. Governments of the United States as well as other countries are discussing alternatives to animal testing. Both the United States and the European Council have added the Three Rs into law (Roush). The Three Rs are reduce, refine, and replace (Roush). The goals of the governments are to reduce the number of animals used, refine the techniques of animal testing, and possibly replace animals with other models. Animal testing is a subject that affects all our lives, and though I disagree and many others disagree with animal testing, some scientists do agree with animal testing. An article entitled Animal Experimentation is Always Justified argues, Not only do animal transplants have the potential to save AIDS patients, but they also have enormous possibilities for leukemia and lymphoma patients, who frequently go without transplants because of the lack of donors. The problem with this argument is that the word used is potential. Everything has potential to do something but just because it has potential to do something does not mean that it will. A stone has potential to roll down a hill but that does not mean that 13

the stone ever will. The article also argues that without animals, the polio vaccine would not have been developed, which is correct. Without animals, the vaccine would not be available, but because of the animals, the polio vaccine was delayed while people that had polio suffered and some even died. Students are also talking about animal testing. During my presentation, I gave a survey asking people whether or not animal testing for medical research or beauty products was good. Out of 13 surveys, five people thought animal testing was good, six thought that animal testing was not good, and two people put a different answer (Writer). However, one person said beauty product testing was good and twelve said beauty product testing was not good (Writer). Most people responded that they thought animal testing was good for medical research because in some way it would benefit humans, whereas most people thought that beauty product testing was not good because it was for vanity not for any benefit (Writer). Many others are talking about animal testing as well, ranging from congress to animal rights activists. For my whole life I have used products that were probably tested on animals. These products can range from the vaccines I received as a child to the hair care products I used to use. Animal testing is something that affects every person whether they know it or not. Medicines, vaccines, treatments, and even beauty products are tested on animals. Unfortunately for both humans and animals, animal testing is not beneficial for medical research. This essay had discussed why animal testing is not beneficial, alternatives to animal testing, and the conversation about animal testing. Some people believe that 14

animal testing is good and others think that animal testing is bad, but animal testing still remains and will probably remain for years to come. 15

Works Cited Anderegg, Christopher, Kathy Archibald, Jarrod Bailey, Murry J. Cohen, Stephen R. Kaufman, and John J. Pippin "The Value of Animal Experimentation Is Exaggerated." Current Controversies: Rights of Animals. Ed. Debra A. Miller. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Northwest Missouri State Owens Lib. 10 Mar. 2010 <http://find.galegroup.com>. "Animal Experimentation Is Always Justified." Opposing Viewpoints Digests: Animal Rights. Ed. Jennifer A.Hurley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1999. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Northwest Missouri State - Owens Lib. 18 Mar. 2010 <http://find.galegroup.com >. Burgos, Javier B. "Animal Experimentation Is Unscientific." At Issue: Animal Experimentation. Ed. David M. Haugen. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Northwest Missouri State - Owens Lib. 10 Mar. 2010 <http://find.galegroup.com>. Buckendahl, Heather.. Animal Testing. Croatia, Animal Friends. "Animal Experimentation Is Not Ethical." At Issue: Animal Experimentation. Ed. Ronnie D. Lankford, Jr. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Northwest Missouri State - Owens Lib. 10 Mar. 2010 <http://find.galegroup.com>. 16

Fano, Alix. "Chemical Testing on Animals Is Unreliable." At Issue: Animal Experimentation. Ed. Cindy Mur. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Northwest Missouri State - Owens Lib. 10 Mar. 2010 <http://find.galegroup.com>. Greek, C. Ray, and Jean Swingle Greek. "Animal Experimentation Is Unscientific." Opposing Viewpoints: Animal Experimentation. Ed. Helen Cothran. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2002. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Northwest Missouri State - Owens Lib. 10 Mar. 2010 <http://find.galegroup.com >. Putney, Margaret. "Being a mouse on death row: researchers look for alternatives to animal testing." Science & Spirit 19.1 (2008): 46+. Academic OneFile. Web. 17 Mar. 2010. Roush, Wade. "Hunting for animal alternatives." Science 274.5285 (1996): 168+. Academic OneFile. Web. 17 Mar. 2010. Thomas, Pat. "Animal Experimentation Hampers Medical Research." At Issue: Animal Experimentation. Ed. Ronnie D. Lankford, Jr. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Northwest Missouri State - Owens Lib. 10 Mar. 2010 <http://find.galegroup.com>.

The suffering of animals used in medical research is not contested, although the scale of it often is. However, views diverge sharply on whether animal experimentation is part of good science and results in medical breakthroughs for humans, or whether such progress could have been achieved by other means.

Every month we invite two experts to debate, and then invite you to join the conversation online. The best comments will be printed in the next magazine. Every issue we invite two experts to debate a hot button issue in The Argument, and then invite you to join the conversation online - well read all your comments and select the best to print next issue. (Wed prefer you to use your real name, but would love to hear what our readers have to say either way.) If you cant comment, then you can simply vote in our poll, which youll find partway down the debate. See also our followup blog post from animal testing expert Andrew Knight. Looking for a previous Argument? See the full list of debates.

Laurie

Pro-Test march in Oxford, UK. Edmond Terakopian / PA Archive / Press Association Biomedical research is a difficult process, to say the least. The human body is the most complex machine yet encountered, consisting of trillions of cells, each containing billions of molecules, many of which are composed of tens of thousands of atoms. These molecular machines perform their designated tasks with incredible precision, working within a stunningly interdependent environment, from the level of molecules communicating with each other over minute distances right up to entire organ systems interacting with one another. Biomedical researchers need tools capable of mimicking this level of complexity. The past century or so has seen an explosion in the availability of investigative tools cell cultures, non-invasive imaging, computer models these are all powerful techniques in humanitys arsenal in the war against disease and ignorance, but none of them fully replicates the intricacy of a living organism. Without the ability to use animals in their research, scientists efforts would be massively hampered, not only in the direct development of new treatments, but also in the fundamental research which underpins all biomedical knowledge. For example, it was Alan Lloyd Hodgkin and Andrew Huxleys work on the nerves of squid that elucidated the basis of nervous transmission; and it was John C Eccles work on cats spinal cords that first incontrovertibly demonstrated the nature of the synapse, earning him a share of the 1963 Nobel in Physiology, along with Hodgkin and Huxley. Without their work on animals, we would know far less about the workings of our own nervous systems and how to treat them.

Helen

PETAs action in the US. Lai Seng Sin / AP / Press Association Images Absolutely! The human body indeed most living systems is extremely complex. This complexity and intricacy is precisely why animals are not good models for human medicine. Humans differ from other animals anatomically, genetically and metabolically, meaning data derived from animals cannot be extrapolated to humans with sufficient accuracy. Understandably, when a drug or other medical treatment is developed, it must be tested in an entire living system. Using another species is using the wrong system. Considering the differences that occur on the metabolic, genetic and molecular levels, when applied to an entire biological system those intricate differences become exponential. Pre-clinical testing needs to be conducted in such a way that eliminates the risk of species differences and is instead directly applicable to humans. Medical advances should be weighed up against the delays and tragedies caused by reliance on animal experiments the thalidomide disaster whereby tens of thousands of children were born with severe deformities not predicted in animal tests, to name one of the most famous, but there are many others. While some discoveries have been attributed to animal use, it does not necessarily mean that they could not have been made through other means. Dr John McArdle said: Historically, vivisection has been much like a slot machine. If researchers pull the experimentation lever often enough, eventually some benefits will result by pure chance. Such logic does not constitute good science. Good science, relevant and, importantly, efficient science is what we must strive for.

Laurie

www.CartoonStock.com Its undeniable that there are significant variations between species, but part of research is taking these differences into account and selecting appropriate model organisms to replicate the system one is testing. Fortunately, researchers have devised many routes of minimizing inter-species variation, such as the use of transgenic animals genetically altered to replicate human physiology more closely. This has additional benefits, including shorter generationspan, allowing scientists to perform experiments which simply would not be possible using humans (even ignoring ethical concerns). Id love to hear a proposal for methods to realistically replace these animal models that eliminate the risk of species differences, but currently none exist, and developing these methods is still well within the realm of science fiction. To suggest otherwise is highly misleading. One can claim that medical discoveries can be made using exclusively nonanimal methods, but unless one can suggest realistic replacements, these claims are hollow. The thalidomide tragedy in fact resulted from insufficient animal testing. At the time it was not standard procedure to give pregnant animals drugs before clinical use. Once investigators became aware of thalidomides mutating effects, experiments using pregnant animals confirmed the results, leading to these tests becoming standard for pre-clinical drug testing.

Helen
Even when genetically modified, there is no single animal model that can accurately mimic the complex human situation. There are far too many unknown variables that cannot all be accounted for. Instead, we now have scientific (not fiction) technologies such as microfluidic chips and microdosing. Not only do these techniques analyse the effects of drugs on an entire living system, they analyze a human living system, eliminating error caused by species differences and resulting in data that is relevant to humans.

Systematic reviews conducted in the areas of toxicity testing and biomedical research have shown that alternatives are far more predictive of human outcomes than data obtained from animals. The results obtained from testing thalidomide (post-disaster) on pregnant animals only resulted in defects when given to white New Zealand rabbits at doses between 25 to 300 times that given to humans, and certain species of monkeys at ten times the dose. Even if the drug had been tested on those specific species (by chance) thalidomide would still have gone to market since the vast majority of species showed no defects, and of those that did, only at much higher doses than given to humans.

Laurie
Claiming that microfluidics and microdosing can analyze drug effects on a full living system is absurd. How can a fluid-based chip replicate the most basic heart, let alone a human one? Microdosing can be useful for studying uptake mechanisms of a drug, but gives extremely limited information on its efficacy at treating a condition. Alternatives are already widely used in research, but expecting them to replace animal tests in the near future is hugely nave. Its true that thalidomide doesnt affect all species, which is part of the basis for drugs being tested on a variety of carefully selected species. These models will never be perfect but, as any scientist will tell you, no test is. We must use the best available model, and some of the time this means using animals. More importantly, you continue to ignore the most important use of animals in science basic research. Without access to live organisms, we would know far less about the function of the cardiovascular system, how digestion works, hormonal interactions, and a vast array of other data which none of your proposed alternatives could even hope to elucidate. Thus, if we value progression of medical knowledge, animal research is a necessity.

Helen
Without emotion, we can say that no model is perfect, but a battery of human-specific methodologies in pre-clinical testing is far more predictive than depending on data from another species. Even the US Federal Drug Administration confirms that nine out of ten drugs proven successful in animal tests fail in human trials. This not only questions the efficacy and the fundamental argument for using animals, but critically raises the question about all the drugs that failed in animals which might have worked in humans. How many discarded cures for cancer? In the past, much research has been based on animals because we didnt know any better. Today we are far more aware of the dangers of extrapolating from one species to another and we have scientific research methods mass spectrometry, genome mapping, innovative imaging techniques and highly developed computer models capable of simulating parts of the human body as mathematical equations and three-dimensional graphical models, just to name a few more. Terminally ill patients dont care whether a cancer drug works on a mouse, or that some disease can be cured in another species. Such claims only taunt them with false hope. These people need real cures based on real science not misleading and antiquated animal experiments.

Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, and in vivo testing, is the use of non-human animals in experiments. Worldwide it is estimated that the number of vertebrate animalsfrom zebrafish to non-human primatesranges from the tens of millions to more than 100 million used annually.[1] Invertebrates, mice, rats, birds, fish, frogs, and animals not yet weaned are not included in the figures; one estimate of mice and rats used in the United States alone in 2001 was 80 million.[2] Most animals are euthanized after being used in an experiment.[3] Sources of laboratory animals vary between countries and species; most animals are purpose-bred, while others are caught in the wild or supplied by dealers who obtain them from auctions and pounds.[4] The research is conducted inside universities, medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, farms, defense establishments, and commercial facilities that provide animal-testing services to industry.[5] It includes pure research such as genetics, developmental biology, behavioral studies, as well as applied research such as biomedical research, xenotransplantation, drug testing and toxicology tests, including cosmetics testing. Animals are also used for education, breeding, and defense research. The practice is regulated to various degrees in different countries. Supporters of the use of animals in experiments, such as the British Royal Society, argue that virtually every medical achievement in the 20th century relied on the use of animals in some way,[6] with the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences arguing that even sophisticated computers are unable to model interactions between molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, and the environment, making animal research necessary in many areas.[7] Animal rights, and some animal welfare, organizationssuch as PETA and BUAVquestion the legitimacy of it, arguing that it is cruel, poor scientific practice, poorly regulated, that medical progress is being held back by misleading animal models, that some of the tests are outdated, that it cannot reliably predict effects in humans, that the costs outweigh the benefits, or that animals have an intrinsic right not to be used for experimentation.[8]

Definitions
The terms animal testing, animal experimentation, animal research, in vivo testing, and vivisection have similar denotations but different connotations. Literally, "vivisection" means the "cutting up" of a living animal, and historically referred only to experiments that involved the dissection of live animals. The term is occasionally used to refer pejoratively to any experiment using living animals; for example, the Encyclopdia Britannica defines "vivisection" as: "Operation on a living animal for experimental rather than healing purposes; more broadly, all experimentation on live animals",[9] although dictionaries point out that the broader definition is "used only by people who are opposed to such work".[10] The word has a negative connotation, implying torture, suffering, and death.[11] The word "vivisection" is preferred by those opposed to this research, whereas scientists typically use the term "animal experimentation".[12][13]

[edit] History
Main article: History of animal testing

An Experiment on a Bird in an Air Pump, from 1768, by Joseph Wright

The earliest references to animal testing are found in the writings of the Greeks in the 2nd and 4th centuries BCE. Aristotle () (384322 BCE) and Erasistratus (304258 BCE) were among the first to perform experiments on living animals.[14] Galen, a physician in 2nd-century Rome, dissected pigs and goats, and is known as the "father of vivisection."[15] Avenzoar, an Arabic physician in 12th-century Moorish Spain who also practiced dissection, introduced animal testing as an experimental method of testing surgical procedures before applying them to human patients.[16][17] Animals have been used repeatedly through the history of biomedical research. The founders, in 1831, of the Dublin Zoothe fourth oldest zoo in Europe, after Vienna, Paris, and London were members of the medical profession, interested in studying the animals both while they were alive and when they were dead.[18] In the 1880s, Louis Pasteur convincingly demonstrated the germ theory of medicine by inducing anthrax in sheep.[19] In the 1890s, Ivan Pavlov famously used dogs to describe classical conditioning.[20] Insulin was first isolated from dogs in 1922, and revolutionized the treatment of diabetes.[21] On November 3, 1957, a Russian dog, Laika, became the first of many animals to orbit the earth. In the 1970s, antibiotic treatments and vaccines for leprosy were developed using armadillos,[22] then given to humans.[23] The ability of humans to change the genetics of animals took a large step forwards in 1974 when Rudolf Jaenisch was able to produce the first transgenic mammal, by integrating DNA from the SV40 virus into the genome of mice.[24] This genetic research progressed rapidly and, in 1996, Dolly the sheep was born, the first mammal to be cloned from an adult cell.[25] Toxicology testing became important in the 20th century. In the 19th century, laws regulating drugs were more relaxed. For example, in the U.S., the government could only ban a drug after a company had been prosecuted for selling products that harmed customers. However, in response to the Elixir Sulfanilamide disaster of 1937 in which the eponymous drug killed more than 100 users, the U.S. congress passed laws that required safety testing of drugs on animals before they could be marketed. Other countries enacted similar legislation.[26] In the 1960s, in reaction to the Thalidomide tragedy, further laws were passed requiring safety testing on pregnant animals before a drug can be sold.[27]

[edit] Historical debate

Claude Bernard, regarded as the "prince of vivisectors"[28] argued that experiments on animals are "entirely conclusive for the toxicology and hygiene of man".[29]

As the experimentation on animals increased, especially the practice of vivisection, so did criticism and controversy. In 1655, the advocate of Galenic physiology Edmund O'Meara said that "the miserable torture of vivisection places the body in an unnatural state."[30][31] O'Meara and others argued that animal physiology could be affected by pain during vivisection, rendering results unreliable. There were also objections on an ethical basis, contending that the benefit to humans did not justify the harm to animals.[31] Early objections to animal testing also came from another angle many people believed that animals were inferior to humans and so different that results from animals could not be applied to humans.
[31]

On the other side of the debate, those in favor of animal testing held that experiments on animals were necessary to advance medical and biological knowledge. Claude Bernard, known as the "prince of vivisectors"[28] and the father of physiologywhose wife, Marie Franoise Martin, founded the first anti-vivisection society in France in 1883[32]famously wrote in 1865 that "the science of life is a superb and dazzlingly lighted hall which may be reached only by passing through a long and ghastly kitchen".[33] Arguing that "experiments on animals ... are entirely conclusive for the toxicology and hygiene of man...the effects of these substances are the same on man as on animals, save for differences in degree,"[29] Bernard established animal experimentation as part of the standard scientific method.[34] In 1896, the physiologist and physician Dr. Walter B. Cannon said The antivivisectionists are the second of the two types Theodore Roosevelt described when he said, Common sense without conscience may lead to crime, but conscience without common sense may lead to folly, which is the handmaiden of crime. [35] These divisions between pro- and anti- animal testing groups first came to public attention during the brown dog affair in the early 1900s, when hundreds of medical students clashed with anti-vivisectionists and police over a memorial to a vivisected dog.[36]

One of Pavlovs dogs with a saliva-catch container and tube surgically implanted in his muzzle, Pavlov Museum, 2005

In 1822, the first animal protection law was enacted in the British parliament, followed by the Cruelty to Animals Act (1876), the first law specifically aimed at regulating animal testing. The legislation was promoted by Charles Darwin, who wrote to Ray Lankester in March 1871: "You ask about my opinion on vivisection. I quite agree that it is justifiable for real investigations on physiology; but not for mere damnable and detestable curiosity. It is a subject which makes me sick with horror, so I will not say another word about it, else I shall not sleep to-night."[37][38] Opposition to the use of animals in medical research first arose in the United States during the 1860s, when Henry Bergh founded the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), with America's first specifically anti-vivisection organization being the American AntiVivisection Society (AAVS), founded in 1883. Antivivisectionists of the era generally believed the spread of mercy was the great cause of civilization, and vivisection was cruel. However, in the USA the antivivisectionists' efforts were defeated in every legislature, overwhelmed by the superior organization and influence of the medical community. Overall, this movement had little legislative success until the passing of the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act, in 1966.[39]

[edit] Care and use of animals

See also: Animal testing regulations, Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, and Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 [edit] Regulations

The regulations that apply to animals in laboratories vary across species. In the U.S., under the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act and the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (the Guide), published by the National Academy of Sciences, any procedure can be performed on an animal if it can be successfully argued that it is scientifically justified. In general, researchers are required to consult with the institution's veterinarian and its Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), which every research facility is obliged to maintain.[40] The IACUC must ensure that alternatives, including non-animal alternatives, have been considered, that the experiments are not unnecessarily duplicative, and that pain relief is given unless it would interfere with the study. Larry Carbone, a laboratory animal veterinarian, writes that, in his experience, IACUCs take their work very seriously regardless of the species involved, though the use of non-human primates always raises what he calls a "red flag of special concern."[41] A study published in Science magazine in July 2001 confirmed the low reliability of IACUC reviews of animal experiments. Funded by the National Science Foundation, the three-year study found that animal-use committees that do not know the specifics of the university and personnel do not make the same approval decisions as those made by animal-use committees that do know the university and personnel.

Specifically, blinded committees more often ask for more information rather than approving studies.[42] The IACUCs regulate all vertebrates in testing at institutions receiving federal funds in the USA. Although the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act do not include purpose-bred rodents and birds, these species are equally regulated under Public Health Service policies that govern the IACUCs.[43][44] Animal Welfare Act regulations are enforced by the USDA, whereas Public Health Service regulations are enforced by OLAW and in many cases by AAALAC.
[edit] Numbers

Types of vertebrates used in animal testing in Europe in 2005: a total of 12.1 million animals were used.[45]

Accurate global figures for animal testing are difficult to obtain. The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) estimates that 100 million vertebrates are experimented on around the world every year, 1011 million of them in the European Union.[46] The Nuffield Council on Bioethics reports that global annual estimates range from 50 to 100 million animals. None of the figures include invertebrates such as shrimp and fruit flies.[47] Animals bred for research then killed as surplus, animals used for breeding purposes, and animals not yet weaned are also not included in the figures.[48] According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the total number of animals used in that country in 2005 was almost 1.2 million,[49] but this does not include rats and mice, which make up about 90% of research animals.[50][51] In 1995, researchers at Tufts University Center for Animals and Public Policy estimated that 1421 million animals were used in American laboratories in 1992, a reduction from a high of 50 million used in 1970.[52] In 1986, the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment reported that estimates of the animals used in the U.S. range from 10 million to upwards of 100 million each year, and that their own best estimate was at least 17 million to 22 million.[53] In the UK, Home Office figures show that 3.2 million procedures were carried out in 2007, a rise of 189,500 since the previous year. Four thousand procedures used non-human primates, down 240 from 2006.[54] A "procedure" refers to an experiment that might last minutes, several months, or years. Most animals are used in only one procedure: animals either die because of the experiment or are euthanized afterwards.[47]

[edit] Species [edit] Invertebrates

Fruit flies are commonly used. Main article: Animal testing on invertebrates

Although many more invertebrates than vertebrates are used, these experiments are largely unregulated by law. The most used invertebrate species are Drosophila melanogaster, a fruit fly, and Caenorhabditis elegans, a nematode worm. In the case of C. elegans, the worm's body is completely transparent and the precise lineage of all the organism's cells is known,[55] while studies in the fly D. melanogaster can use an amazing array of genetic tools.[56] These animals offer great advantages over vertebrates, including their short life cycle and the ease with which large numbers may be studied, with thousands of flies or nematodes fitting into a single room. However, the lack of an adaptive immune system and their simple organs prevent worms from being used in particular aspects of medical research such as vaccine development.[57] Similarly, the fruit fly immune system differs greatly from that of humans,[58] and diseases in insects can be different from diseases in vertebrates[59]; however, fruit flies and waxworms can be useful in certain situations to identify novel virulence factors or pharmacologically active compounds.[60][61][62]
[edit] Vertebrates

Enos the space chimp before insertion into the Mercury-Atlas 5 capsule in 1961 Further information: Animal testing on frogs, Animal testing on rabbits, Animal testing on rodents, Draize test, and Median lethal dose

This rat is being deprived of restful REM sleep by a researcher using a single platform ("flower pot") technique. The water is within 1 cm of the small flower pot bottom platform where the rat sits. At the onset of REM sleep, the rat would either fall into the water only to clamber back to its pot to avoid drowning, or its nose would become submerged into the water shocking it back to an awakened state.

In the U.S., the numbers of rats and mice used is estimated at 20 million a year.[51] Other rodents commonly used are guinea pigs, hamsters, and gerbils. Mice are the most commonly used vertebrate species because of their size, low cost, ease of handling, and fast reproduction rate.[63] Mice are widely considered to be the best model of inherited human disease and share 99% of their genes with humans.[63] With the advent of genetic engineering technology, genetically modified mice can be generated to order and can provide models for a range of human diseases.[63] Rats are also widely used for physiology, toxicology and cancer research, but genetic manipulation is much harder in rats than in mice, which limits the use of these rodents in basic science.[64] Nearly 200,000 fish and 20,000 amphibians were used in the UK in 2004.[65] The main species used is the zebrafish, Danio rerio, which are translucent during their embryonic stage, and the African clawed frog, Xenopus laevis. Over 20,000 rabbits were used for animal testing in the UK in 2004.[65] Albino rabbits are used in eye irritancy tests because rabbits have less tear flow than other animals, and the lack of eye pigment in albinos make the effects easier to visualize.[65] Rabbits are also frequently used for the production of polyclonal antibodies.
Cats and dogs See also: Laika and Russian space dogs

Cats are most commonly used in neurological research. Over 25,500 cats were used in the U.S. in 2000, around half of whom were used in experiments which, according to the American Anti-Vivisection Society, had the potential to cause "pain and/or distress".[66] Dogs are widely used in biomedical research, testing, and education particularly beagles, because they are gentle and easy to handle. They are commonly used as models for human diseases in cardiology, endocrinology, and bone and joint studies, research that tends to be highly invasive, according to the Humane Society of the United States.[67] The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Welfare Report for 2005 shows that 66,000 dogs were used in USDA-registered facilities in that year.[49] In the U.S., some of the dogs are purposebred, while most are supplied by so-called Class B dealers licensed by the USDA to buy animals from auctions, shelters, newspaper ads, and who are sometimes accused of stealing pets.[68]

Non-human primates Main article: Animal testing on non-human primates

Around 65,000 primates are used each year in the U.S. and Europe.

Non-human primates (NHPs) are used in toxicology tests, studies of AIDS and hepatitis, studies of neurology, behavior and cognition, reproduction, genetics, and xenotransplantation. They are caught in the wild or purpose-bred. In the U.S. and China, most primates are domestically purpose-bred, whereas in Europe the majority are imported purpose-bred.[69] Rhesus monkeys, cynomolgus monkeys, squirrel monkeys, and owl monkeys are imported; around 12,000 to 15,000 monkeys are imported into the U.S. annually.[70] In total, around 70,000 NHPs are used each year in the United States and European Union.[45][49] Most of the NHPs used are macaques;[71] but marmosets, spider monkeys, and squirrel monkeys are also used, and baboons and chimpanzees are used in the U.S; in 2006 there were 1133 chimpanzees in U.S. primate centers.[72] The first transgenic primate was produced in 2001, with the development of a method that could introduce new genes into a rhesus macaque.[73] This transgenic technology is now being applied in the search for a treatment for the genetic disorder Huntington's disease.[74] Notable studies on non-human primates have been part of the polio vaccine development, and development of Deep Brain Stimulation, and their current heaviest non-toxicological use occurs in the monkey AIDS model, SIV.[6][71][75] In 2008 a proposal to ban all primates experiments in the EU has sparked a vigorous debate.[76]
[edit] Sources Main articles: Laboratory animal sources and International trade in primates

Animals used by laboratories are largely supplied by specialist dealers. Sources differ for vertebrate and invertebrate animals. Most laboratories breed and raise flies and worms themselves, using strains and mutants supplied from a few main stock centers.[77] For vertebrates, sources include breeders who supply purpose-bred animals; businesses that trade in wild animals; and dealers who supply animals sourced from pounds, auctions, and newspaper ads. Animal shelters also supply the laboratories directly.[78] Large centers also exist to distribute strains of genetically-modified animals; the National Institutes of Health Knockout Mouse Project, for example, aims to provide knockout mice for every gene in the mouse genome.[79]

A laboratory mouse cage. Mice are either bred commercially, or raised in the laboratory.

In the U.S., Class A breeders are licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to sell animals for research purposes, while Class B dealers are licensed to buy animals from "random sources" such as auctions, pound seizure, and newspaper ads. Some Class B dealers have been accused of kidnapping pets and illegally trapping strays, a practice known as bunching.[80] It was in part out of public concern over the sale of pets to research facilities that the 1966 Laboratory Animal Welfare Act was ushered in the Senate Committee on Commerce reported in 1966 that stolen pets had been retrieved from Veterans Administration facilities, the Mayo Institute, the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, and Harvard and Yale Medical Schools.[81] The USDA recovered at least a dozen stolen pets during a raid on a Class B dealer in Arkansas in 2003.[82] Four states in the U.S. Minnesota, Utah, Oklahoma, and Iowa require their shelters to provide animals to research facilities. Fourteen states explicitly prohibit the practice, while the remainder either allow it or have no relevant legislation.[83] In the European Union, animal sources are governed by Council Directive 86/609/EEC, which requires lab animals to be specially bred, unless the animal has been lawfully imported and is not a wild animal or a stray. The latter requirement may also be exempted by special arrangement.[84] In the UK, most animals used in experiments are bred for the purpose under the 1988 Animal Protection Act, but wild-caught primates may be used if exceptional and specific justification can be established.[85][86] The United States also allows the use of wildcaught primates; between 1995 and 1999, 1,580 wild baboons were imported into the U.S. Over half the primates imported between 1995 and 2000 were handled by Charles River Laboratories, Inc., or by Covance, which is the single largest importer of primates into the U.S.[87]
[edit] Pain and suffering Further information: Animal cognition and Pain in animals

Prior to dissection for educational purposes, chloroform was administered to this common sand frog to induce anesthesia and death.

The extent to which animal testing causes pain and suffering, and the capacity of animals to experience and comprehend them, is the subject of much debate.[88][89] According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in 2006 about 670,000 animals (57%) (not including rats, mice, birds, or invertebrates) were used in procedures that did not include more than momentary pain or distress. About 420,000 (36%) were used in procedures in which pain or distress was relieved by anesthesia, while 84,000 (7%) were used in studies that would cause pain or distress that would not be relieved.[49] In the UK, research projects are classified as mild, moderate, and substantial in terms of the suffering the researchers conducting the study say they may cause; a fourth category of "unclassified" means the animal was anesthetized and killed without recovering consciousness, according to the researchers. In December 2001, 1,296 (39%) of project licenses in force were classified as mild, 1,811 (55%) as moderate, 63 (2%) as substantial, and 139 (4%) as unclassified.[90] There have, however, been suggestions of systemic underestimation of procedure severity.[91] The idea that animals might not feel pain as human beings feel it traces back to the 17thcentury French philosopher, Ren Descartes, who argued that animals do not experience pain and suffering because they lack consciousness.[47][92] Bernard Rollin of Colorado State University, the principal author of two U.S. federal laws regulating pain relief for animals,[93] writes that researchers remained unsure into the 1980s as to whether animals experience pain, and that veterinarians trained in the U.S. before 1989 were simply taught to ignore animal pain.[94] In his interactions with scientists and other veterinarians, he was regularly asked to "prove" that animals are conscious, and to provide "scientifically acceptable" grounds for claiming that they feel pain.[94] Carbone writes that the view that animals feel pain differently is now a minority view. Academic reviews of the topic are more equivocal, noting that although the argument that animals have at least simple conscious thoughts and feelings has strong support,[95] some critics continue to question how reliably animal mental states can be determined.[47][96] The ability of invertebrate species of animals, such as insects, to feel pain and suffering is also unclear.[97][98] The defining text on animal welfare regulation, "Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals" defines the parameters that govern animal testing in the USA. It states "The ability

to experience and respond to pain is widespread in the animal kingdom...Pain is a stressor and, if not relieved, can lead to unacceptable levels of stress and distress in animals."[99] The Guide states that the ability to recognize the symptoms of pain in different species is vital in efficiently applying pain relief and that it is essential for the people caring for and using animals to be entirely familiar with these symptoms. On the subject of analgesics used to relieve pain, the Guide states "The selection of the most appropriate analgesic or anesthetic should reflect professional judgment as to which best meets clinical and humane requirements without compromising the scientific aspects of the research protocol". Accordingly, all issues of animal pain and distress, and their potential treatment with analgesia and anesthesia, are required regulatory issues in receiving animal protocol approval.
[edit] Euthanasia Further information: Euthanasia and Animal euthanasia

There is general agreement that animal life should not be taken wantonly, and regulations require that scientists use as few animals as possible.[100] However, while policy makers consider suffering to be the central issue and see animal euthanasia as a way to reduce suffering, others, such as the RSPCA, argue that the lives of laboratory animals have intrinsic value.[101] Regulations focus on whether particular methods cause pain and suffering, not whether their death is undesirable in itself.[102] The animals are euthanized at the end of studies for sample collection or post-mortem examination; during studies if their pain or suffering falls into certain categories regarded as unacceptable, such as depression, infection that is unresponsive to treatment, or the failure of large animals to eat for five days;[103] or when they are unsuitable for breeding or unwanted for some other reason.[104] Methods of euthanizing laboratory animals are chosen to induce rapid unconsciousness and death without pain or distress.[105] The methods that are preferred are those published by councils of veterinarians. The animal can be made to inhale a gas, such as carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, by being placed in a chamber, or by use of a face mask, with or without prior sedation or anesthesia. Sedatives or anesthetics such as barbiturates can be given intravenously, or inhalant anesthetics may be used. Amphibians and fish may be immersed in water containing an anesthetic such as tricaine. Physical methods are also used, with or without sedation or anesthesia depending on the method. Recommended methods include decapitation (beheading) for small rodents or rabbits. Cervical dislocation (breaking the neck or spine) may be used for birds, mice, and immature rats and rabbits. Maceration (grinding into small pieces) is used on 1 day old chicks. High-intensity microwave irradiation of the brain can preserve brain tissue and induce death in less than 1 second, but this is currently only used on rodents. Captive bolts may be used, typically on dogs, ruminants, horses, pigs and rabbits. It causes death by a concussion to the brain. Gunshot may be used, but only in cases where a penetrating captive bolt may not be used. Some physical methods are only acceptable after the animal is unconscious. Electrocution may be used for cattle, sheep, swine, foxes, and mink after the animals are unconscious, often by a prior electrical stun. Pithing (inserting a tool into the base of the brain) is usable on animals already unconscious. Slow or rapid freezing, or inducing air embolism are acceptable only with prior anesthesia to induce unconsciousness.[106]

[edit] Research classification

[edit] Pure research

Basic or pure research investigates how organisms behave, develop, and function. Those opposed to animal testing object that pure research may have little or no practical purpose, but researchers argue that it may produce unforeseen benefits, rendering the distinction

between pure and applied researchresearch that has a specific practical aimunclear.[107] Pure research uses larger numbers and a greater variety of animals than applied research. Fruit flies, nematode worms, mice and rats together account for the vast majority, though small numbers of other species are used, ranging from sea slugs through to armadillos.[108] Examples of the types of animals and experiments used in basic research include:
Studies on embryogenesis and developmental biology. Mutants are created by adding transposons into their genomes, or specific genes are deleted by gene targeting.[109][110] By studying the changes in development these changes produce, scientists aim to understand both how organisms normally develop, and what can go wrong in this process. These studies are particularly powerful since the basic controls of development, such as the homeobox genes, have similar functions in organisms as diverse as fruit flies and man.[111][112] Experiments into behavior, to understand how organisms detect and interact with each other and their environment, in which fruit flies, worms, mice, and rats are all widely used.[113][114] Studies of brain function, such as memory and social behavior, often use rats and birds.[115][116] For some species, behavioral research is combined with enrichment strategies for animals in captivity because it allows them to engage in a wider range of activities.[117] Breeding experiments to study evolution and genetics. Laboratory mice, flies, fish, and worms are inbred through many generations to create strains with defined characteristics.[118] These provide animals of a known genetic background, an important tool for genetic analyses. Larger mammals are rarely bred specifically for such studies due to their slow rate of reproduction, though some scientists take advantage of inbred domesticated animals, such as dog or cattle breeds, for comparative purposes. Scientists studying how animals evolve use many animal species to see how variations in where and how an organism lives (their niche) produce adaptations in their physiology and morphology. As an example, sticklebacks are now being used to study how many and which types of mutations are selected to produce adaptations in animals' morphology during the evolution of new species.[119][120]

[edit] Applied research

Applied research aims to solve specific and practical problems. Compared to pure research, which is largely academic in origin, applied research is usually carried out in the pharmaceutical industry, or by universities in commercial partnerships. These may involve the use of animal models of diseases or conditions, which are often discovered or generated by pure research programmes. In turn, such applied studies may be an early stage in the drug discovery process. Examples include:
Genetic modification of animals to study disease. Transgenic animals have specific genes inserted, modified or removed, to mimic specific conditions such as single gene disorders, such as Huntington's disease.[121] Other models mimic complex, multifactorial diseases with genetic components, such as diabetes,[122] or even transgenic mice that carry the same mutations that occur during the development of cancer.[123] These models allow investigations on how and why the disease develops, as well as providing ways to develop and test new treatments.[124] The vast majority of these transgenic models of human disease are lines of mice, the mammalian species in which genetic modification is most efficient.[63]

Smaller numbers of other animals are also used, including rats, pigs, sheep, fish, birds, and amphibians.[86] Studies on models of naturally occurring disease and condition. Certain domestic and wild animals have a natural propensity or predisposition for certain conditions that are also found in humans. Cats are used as a model to develop immunodeficiency virus vaccines and to study leukemia because their natural predisposition to FIV and Feline leukemia virus.[125] [126] Certain breeds of dog suffer from narcolepsy making them the major model used to study the human condition. Armadillos and humans are among only a few animal species that naturally suffer from leprosy; as the bacteria responsible for this disease cannot yet be grown in culture, armadillos are the primary source of bacilli used in leprosy vaccines.[108] Studies on induced animal models of human diseases. Here, an animal is treated so that it develops pathology and symptoms that resemble a human disease. Examples include restricting blood flow to the brain to induce stroke, or giving neurotoxins that cause damage similar to that seen in Parkinson's disease.[127] Such studies can be difficult to interpret, and it is argued that they are not always comparable to human diseases. [128] For example, although such models are now widely used to study Parkinson's disease, the British anti-vivisection interest group BUAV argues that these models only superficially resemble the disease symptoms, without the same time course or cellular pathology.[129] In contrast, scientists assessing the usefulness of animal models of Parkinson's disease, as well as the medical research charity The Parkinson's Appeal, state that these models were invaluable and that they led to improved surgical treatments such as pallidotomy, new drug treatments such as levodopa, and later deep brain stimulation.[75][127][130]

[edit] Xenotransplantation Main article: Xenotransplantation

Xenotransplantation research involves transplanting tissues or organs from one species to another, as a way to overcome the shortage of human organs for use in organ transplants.[131] Current research involves using primates as the recipients of organs from pigs that have been genetically-modified to reduce the primates' immune response against the pig tissue.[132] Although transplant rejection remains a problem,[132] recent clinical trials that involved implanting pig insulin-secreting cells into diabetics did reduce these people's need for insulin.
[133][134]

Documents released to the news media by the animal rights organization Uncaged Campaigns showed that, between 1994 and 2000, wild baboons imported to the UK from Africa by Imutran Ltd, a subsidiary of Novartis Pharma AG, in conjunction with Cambridge University and Huntingdon Life Sciences, to be used in experiments that involved grafting pig tissues, suffered serious and sometimes fatal injuries. A scandal occurred when it was revealed that the company had communicated with the British government in an attempt to avoid regulation.[91][135]
[edit] Toxicology testing Main article: Toxicology testing Further information: Draize test, LD50, Acute toxicity, and Chronic toxicity

Toxicology testing, also known as safety testing, is conducted by pharmaceutical companies testing drugs, or by contract animal testing facilities, such as Huntingdon Life Sciences, on

behalf of a wide variety of customers.[136] According to 2005 EU figures, around one million animals are used every year in Europe in toxicology tests; which are about 10% of all procedures.[45] According to Nature, 5,000 animals are used for each chemical being tested, with 12,000 needed to test pesticides.[137] The tests are conducted without anesthesia, because interactions between drugs can affect how animals detoxify chemicals, and may interfere with the results.[138][139]

A rabbit during a Draize test

Toxicology tests are used to examine finished products such as pesticides, medications, food additives, packing materials, and air freshener, or their chemical ingredients. Most tests involve testing ingredients rather than finished products, but according to BUAV, manufacturers believe these tests overestimate the toxic effects of substances; they therefore repeat the tests using their finished products to obtain a less toxic label.[136] The substances are applied to the skin or dripped into the eyes; injected intravenously, intramuscularly, or subcutaneously; inhaled either by placing a mask over the animals and restraining them, or by placing them in an inhalation chamber; or administered orally, through a tube into the stomach, or simply in the animal's food. Doses may be given once, repeated regularly for many months, or for the lifespan of the animal.[citation needed] There are several different types of acute toxicity tests. The LD50 ("Lethal Dose 50%") test is used to evaluate the toxicity of a substance by determining the dose required to kill 50% of the test animal population. This test was removed from OECD international guidelines in 2002, replaced by methods such as the fixed dose procedure, which use fewer animals and cause less suffering.[140][141] Nature writes that, as of 2005, "the LD50 acute toxicity test ... still accounts for one-third of all animal [toxicity] tests worldwide."[137] Irritancy can be measured using the Draize test, where a test substance is applied to an animal's eyes or skin, usually an albino rabbit. For Draize eye testing, the test involves observing the effects of the substance at intervals and grading any damage or irritation, but the test should be halted and the animal killed if it shows "continuing signs of severe pain or distress".[142] The Humane Society of the United States writes that the procedure can cause redness, ulceration, hemorrhaging, cloudiness, or even blindness.[143] This test has also been criticized by scientists for being cruel and inaccurate, subjective, over-sensitive, and failing to reflect human exposures in the real world.[144] Although no accepted in vitro alternatives exist, a modified form of the Draize test called the low volume eye test may reduce suffering and provide more realistic results and this was adopted as the new standard in September 2009.[145][146] However, the Draize test will still be used for substances that are not severe irritants.[146] The most stringent tests are reserved for drugs and foodstuffs. For these, a number of tests are performed, lasting less than a month (acute), one to three months (subchronic), and more than three months (chronic) to test general toxicity (damage to organs), eye and skin irritancy, mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, and reproductive problems. The cost of the full

complement of tests is several million dollars per substance and it may take three or four years to complete. These toxicity tests provide, in the words of a 2006 United States National Academy of Sciences report, "critical information for assessing hazard and risk potential".[147] Nature reported that most animal tests either over- or underestimate risk, or do not reflect toxicity in humans particularly well,[137] with false positive results being a particular problem.[148] This variability stems from using the effects of high doses of chemicals in small numbers of laboratory animals to try to predict the effects of low doses in large numbers of humans.[149] Although relationships do exist, opinion is divided on how to use data on one species to predict the exact level of risk in another.[150]
[edit] Cosmetics testing

Products in Europe not tested on animals carry this symbol. Main article: Testing cosmetics on animals

Cosmetics testing on animals is particularly controversial. Such tests, which are still conducted in the U.S., involve general toxicity, eye and skin irritancy, phototoxicity (toxicity triggered by ultraviolet light) and mutagenicity.[151] Cosmetics testing is banned in the Netherlands, Belgium, and the UK, and in 2002, after 13 years of discussion, the European Union (EU) agreed to phase in a near-total ban on the sale of animal-tested cosmetics throughout the EU from 2009, and to ban all cosmetics-related animal testing. France, which is home to the world's largest cosmetics company, L'Oreal, has protested the proposed ban by lodging a case at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, asking that the ban be quashed.[152] The ban is also opposed by the European Federation for Cosmetics Ingredients, which represents 70 companies in Switzerland, Belgium, France, Germany and Italy.[152]
[edit] Drug testing

Beagles used for safety testing of pharmaceuticals in a British facility

Before the early 20th century, laws regulating drugs were lax. Currently, all new pharmaceuticals undergo rigorous animal testing before being licensed for human use. Tests on pharmaceutical products involve:
metabolic tests, investigating pharmacokinetics how drugs are absorbed, metabolized and excreted by the body when introduced orally, intravenously, intraperitoneally, intramuscularly, or transdermally. toxicology tests, which gauge acute, sub-acute, and chronic toxicity. Acute toxicity is studied by using a rising dose until signs of toxicity become apparent. Current European legislation demands that "acute toxicity tests must be carried out in two or more mammalian species" covering "at least two different routes of administration".[153] Sub-acute toxicity is where the drug is given to the animals for four to six weeks in doses below the level at which it causes rapid poisoning, in order to discover if any toxic drug metabolites build up over time. Testing for chronic toxicity can last up to two years and, in the European Union, is required to involve two species of mammals, one of which must be non-rodent.[154] efficacy studies, which test whether experimental drugs work by inducing the appropriate illness in animals. The drug is then administered in a double-blind controlled trial, which allows researchers to determine the effect of the drug and the dose-response curve. Specific tests on reproductive function, embryonic toxicity, or carcinogenic potential can all be required by law, depending on the result of other studies and the type of drug being tested.

[edit] Education, breeding, and defense

Animals are also used for education and training; are bred for use in laboratories; and are used by the military to develop weapons, vaccines, battlefield surgical techniques, and defensive clothing.[107] For example, in 2008 the United States Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency used live pigs to study the effects of improvised explosive device explosions on internal organs, especially the brain.[155] There are efforts in many countries to find alternatives to using animals in education.[156] Horst Spielmann, German director of the Central Office for Collecting and Assessing Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, while describing Germany's progress in this area, told German broadcaster ARD in 2005: "Using animals in teaching curricula is already superfluous. In many countries, one can become a doctor, vet or biologist without ever having performed an experiment on an animal."[157]

[edit] Ethics
[edit] Viewpoints Further information: Animal welfare and Animal rights

Monument for animals used in testing at Keio University

The ethical questions raised by performing experiments on animals are subject to much debate, and viewpoints have shifted significantly over the 20th century.[158] There remain disagreements about which procedures are useful for which purposes, as well as disagreements over which ethical principles apply to which species. The dominant ethical position worldwide is that achievement of scientific and medical goals using animal testing is desirable, so long as animal suffering and use is minimized.[159] The British government has additionally required that the cost to animals in an experiment be weighed against the gain in knowledge.[160] Some medical schools and agencies in China, Japan, and South Korea have built cenotaphs for killed animals.[161] In Japan there are also annual memorial services (Ireisai ) for animals sacrificed at medical school. A wide range of minority viewpoints exist. The view that animals have moral rights (animal rights) is a philosophical position proposed by Tom Regan, among others, who argues that animals are beings with beliefs and desires, and as such are the "subjects of a life" with moral value and therefore moral rights.[162] Regan still sees ethical differences between killing human and non-human animals, and argues that to save the former it is permissible to kill the latter. Likewise, a "moral dilemma" view suggests that avoiding potential benefit to humans is unacceptable on similar grounds, and holds the issue to be a dilemma in balancing such harm to humans to the harm done to animals in research.[163] In contrast, an abolitionist view in animal rights holds that there is no moral justification for any harmful research on animals that is not to the benefit of the individual animal.[163] Bernard Rollin argues that benefits to human beings cannot outweigh animal suffering, and that human beings have no moral right to use an animal in ways that do not benefit that individual. Another prominent position is that of philosopher Peter Singer, who argues that there are no grounds to include a being's species in considerations of whether their suffering is important in utilitarian moral considerations.[164] Although these arguments have not been widely accepted, governments such as the Netherlands and New Zealand have responded to the concerns by outlawing invasive experiments on certain classes of non-human primates, particularly the great apes.[165][166]
[edit] Prominent cases

Various specific cases of animal testing have drawn attention, including both instances of beneficial scientific research, and instances of alleged ethical violations by those performing the tests.

Muscle physiology This section requires expansion with: more examples of applications to research on other medical applications, besides muscle physiology.

The fundamental properties of muscle physiology were determined with on work done using frog muscles (including the force generating mechanism of all muscle,[167] the length-tension relationship,[168] and the force-velocity curve[169]), and frogs are still the preferred model organism due to the long survival of muscles in vitro and the possibility of isolating intact single-fiber preparations (not possible in other organisms).[170] Modern physical therapy and the understanding and treatment of muscular disorders is based on this work and subsequent work in mice (often engineered to express disease states such as muscular dystrophy).[171]
University of California, Riverside Main article: Britches (monkey)

1985 was a pivotal year in the debate about animal research in the United States, with the enactment of amendments to the Animal Welfare Act.[172] Britches, a macaque monkey, was born that year inside the University of California, Riverside, removed from his mother at birth, and left alone with his eyelids sewn shut, and a sonar sensor on his head, as part of an experiment to test sensory substitution devices for blind people. The Animal Liberation Front raided the laboratory on April 20, 1985, removing Britches and 466 other animals, and reportedly inflicting $700,000-worth of damage to equipment.[173] A spokesman for the university said the allegations of mistreatment were false, and that the raid caused long-term damage to its research projects.[174] The National Institutes of Health conducted an eightmonth investigation and concluded that no corrective action was necessary.[175]
Huntingdon Life Sciences

Footage filmed by PeTA inside Huntingdon Life Sciences showed staff mistreating beagles. Main article: Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty

In 1997, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals filmed staff inside Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) in the UK, Europe's largest animal-testing facility, hitting puppies, shouting at them, and simulating sex acts while taking blood samples.[176] The company said the employees were dismissed.[177] Two pleaded guilty to "cruelly terrifying dogs," and were given community service orders and ordered to pay 250 costs, the first lab technicians to have been prosecuted for animal cruelty in the UK.[178] The broadcast of the video on Britain's Channel 4 Television in March 1997 triggered the formation of Stop Huntingdon Animal

Cruelty (SHAC), an international leaderless resistance campaign to close HLS, which has been criticized for its sometimes violent tactics.[179] In January 2009, several British SHAC activists were jailed for blackmailing companies linked to HLS.[180]
Roslin Institute Main article: Dolly (sheep)

Dolly the sheep: the first clone produced from an adult animal

In February 1997 a team at the Roslin Institute in Scotland announced the birth of Dolly the sheep, a ewe that had been cloned from tissue taken from another adult sheep.[25] Dolly was produced through nuclear transfer to an unfertilised oocyte, and was the only lamb that survived from 277 attempts at this technique.[181] Dolly appeared to be a normal sheep, living for six years and giving birth to several lambs, but was euthanized in 2003 after contracting a progressive lung disease.[182] Although the production of Dolly was a scientific breakthrough, it was controversial, since it showed that not only could cloned animals be produced for use in farming,[183] but also that it would now be, in principle, possible to clone a human being.[184]
University of Cambridge

A marmoset after being brain damaged, filmed at Cambridge by the BUAV Main article: Primate experiments at Cambridge University

The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) raised concerns about primate experiments at the University of Cambridge in 2002. In a series of court cases, the BUAV alleged that monkeys had undergone surgery to induce a stroke, and were left alone after the procedure for 15 hours overnight. Researchers had trained the monkeys to perform certain tasks before inflicting brain damage and re-testing them. The monkeys were only given food and water for two hours a day, to encourage them to perform the tasks. The judge hearing BUAV's application for a judicial review rejected the allegation that the Home Secretary had been negligent in granting the university a license.[185] The British government's chief inspector of animals conducted a review of the facilities and experiments. It concluded the

veterinary input at Cambridge was "exemplary"; the facility "seems adequately staffed"; and the animals afforded "appropriate standards of accommodation and care."[186]
Columbia University Main article: Primate experiments at Columbia University

CNN reported in October 2003 that Catherine Dell'Orto, a veterinarian at Columbia University, had approached the university's Institute of Comparative Medicine about the treatment of baboons who were undergoing surgery as part of an experiment into stroke treatment. She said the baboons, who were in some cases having an eyeball removed, were left to suffer in their cages after the surgery. She alleged there was systemic maltreatment, poor record-keeping, and other violations of regulations, according to CNN. She presented her evidence in October 2002 and, dissatisfied with the response, contacted People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals two months later.[187] In March 2003, a lab technician shot video inside the lab, which according to The New York Daily News showed primates in cages without pain medication; the video included one baboon with a metal cylinder screwed into its head, according to the newspaper. Dell'Orto told the newspaper that primates were often not euthanized or given painkillers after surgery; she said other primates had torn their fingers off out of fear.[188] The U.S. Department of Agriculture upheld Dell'Orto's complaint that there was shoddy record-keeping, and that 11 animals had been provided with "inadequate or questionable care." They found no evidence that the experiments violated federal guidelines or that there had been retaliation against Dell'Orto. CNN reported that Columbia responded by ordering better record-keeping, a review of the veterinary care program, and tighter criteria for euthanasia of laboratory animals.[189]
Covance Main article: Covance

In 2004, German journalist Friedrich Mlln shot undercover footage of staff in Covance, Mnster, Europe's largest primate-testing center, making monkeys dance in time to blaring pop music, handling them roughly, and screaming at them. The monkeys were kept isolated in small wire cages with little or no natural light, no environmental enrichment, and high noise levels from staff shouting and playing the radio[190] (video). Primatologist Jane Goodall described the living conditions of the monkeys as horrendous. Another primatologist, Stephen Brend, told BUAV that using monkeys in such a stressed state is bad science, and trying to extrapolate useful data in such circumstances is what he called an untenable proposition.[190] In 2004 and 2005, PETA shot footage inside the company in the United States. According to The Washington Post, PETA said an employee of the group filmed primates being choked, hit, and denied medical attention when badly injured.[191] The U.S. Department of Agriculture fined Covance $8,720 for 16 citations, three of which involved lab monkeys; the other citations involved administrative issues and equipment.[192]
[edit] Threats to researchers

In 2006, a primate researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) shut down the experiments in his lab after threats from animal rights activists. The researcher had received a grant to use 30 macaque monkeys for vision experiments; each monkey was anesthetized for a single physiological experiment lasting up to 120 hours, and then euthanized.[193] The researcher's name, phone number, and address were posted on the website of the Primate Freedom Project. Demonstrations were held in front of his home. A Molotov cocktail was placed on the porch of what was believed to be the home of another UCLA

primate researcher; instead, it was accidentally left on the porch of an elderly woman unrelated to the university. The Animal Liberation Front claimed responsibility for the attack. [194] As a result of the campaign, the researcher sent an email to the Primate Freedom Project stating "you win," and "please dont bother my family anymore."[195] In another incident at UCLA in June 2007, the Animal Liberation Brigade placed a bomb under the car of a UCLA children's ophthalmologist who experiments on cats and rhesus monkeys; the bomb had a faulty fuse and did not detonate.[196] UCLA is now refusing Freedom of Information Act requests for animal medical records. These attacks, as well as similar incidents that caused the Southern Poverty Law Center to declare in 2002 that the animal rights movement had "clearly taken a turn toward the more extreme," this prompted the US government to pass the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and the UK government to add the offense of "Intimidation of persons connected with animal research organisation" to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.[197] Such legislation, and the arrest and imprisonment of extremists may have decreased the incidence of attacks.[198]

[edit] Alternatives to animal testing

Main article: Alternatives to animal testing

Scientists and governments state that animal testing should cause as little suffering to animals as possible, and that animal tests should only be performed where necessary. The "three Rs"[100] are guiding principles for the use of animals in research in most countries:
1. Replacement refers to the preferred use of non-animal methods over animal methods whenever it is possible to achieve the same scientific aim. 2. Reduction refers to methods that enable researchers to obtain comparable levels of information from fewer animals, or to obtain more information from the same number of animals. 3. Refinement refers to methods that alleviate or minimize potential pain, suffering or distress, and enhance animal welfare for the animals still used.[199]

Alternative methods include positron emission tomography (PET), which allows scanning of the human brain in vivo,[200] and comparative epidemiological studies of disease risk factors among human populations.[201] Several invertebrate systems are considered acceptable alternatives to animals in very early stage discovery screens.[202] Because of similarities between the innate immune system of insects and mammals, insects can replace mammals in certain types of studies. Drosophila melanogaster and the Galleria mellonella (waxworm) have been particularly important for analysis of virulence traits of mammalian pathogens.[203] [204] Waxworms and other insects have also proven valuable for the identification of pharmaceutical compounds with favorable bioavailability.[205] The decision to adopt such models generally involves accepting a lower degree of biological similarity with mammals for significant gains in experimental throughput. Although such principles have been welcomed as a step forwards by some animal welfare groups,[206] they have also been criticized as both outdated by current research,[207] and of little practical effect in improving animal welfare.[208]

What are the advantages and disadvantages of using animals to test the medicines invented for human use? Discuss and state your own opinion. My answer: In recent years, the issue about animal right has garnered great attention from the society. Whether animal testing should be banned or not is still being debated by many people. Both the advantages and disadvantages of using animals in experiments for inventing medicines for humanity will be discussed in this essay before a reasonable conclusion is drawn. First, the critics of the idea of using animals in testing medicines argue that non-human animals are living organisms like human and also they share the same place to live with humanity, so they should be considered as non-human persons and members of the moral community. Animals are hence believed to have the rights of not to be owned or not to be subjects in experiments. In addition, the researches that used animals as subjects to be tested are often criticized for enthanising most of the animals after experiments. They are also believed to provide out-of-date data which lead to misleading information and the medicines used on animals can not always be applied safely on human. This is therefore, animal testing is argued to have great disadvantages on both humans and animals. On the other hand, the advocators of animal experimentation argue that using non-human animals in testing medicines has brought extreme benefits to human lives and is playing a very important role on many fields of researching. These supporters rely on the fact that virtually every discovery in the 20th century is resulted from animal testing and thousands of lives have been protected from dangerous diseases by medicines which were tested on animals. Moreover, until now even sophisticated computers are unable to model interactions between molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, and the environment, making animal research necessary in many areas. In conclusion, although animal testing has several certain drawbacks, it is believed to bring undeniably important benefits to humanity. It is hoped that there will be more awareness about the lives of animals to protect them from illegal hunting and being poorly treated.

From when you are a baby to when you are an adult animal testing is used in your everyday products. From the Pampers you put on as a baby and the Johnson and Johnson you are washed with. To when you are older the Febreeze, Sunsilk, and Gillette you use.( Companies That do Test on Animals) Animal testing surrounds you in every act of life. The guess is around 100 million animals are used worldwide in animal testing. (Animal Rights) Animal testing is rooted from natural curiosity. How the insides of a living organism operate and look is an interesting idea. Because of the fact that dissection of humans was illegal by the Roman Church, animals were the second best option for knowledge of living organisms. (Animal Testing) The debate surrounding the idea of animal testing is a very heated one. There are many alternating opinions to why it is just or not. Kanter, James. E.U. animal-welfare plan may limit trade; A new law could protect test animals but could block more meat imports. International Herald Tribune. 27. April 2010: 1. eLibrary. Web. 05 May 2010.

Companies That do Test on Animals //A-Z Caring Consumer// search for cruelty free companies and products. Web. 05 May 2010. House of Lords Animals in Scientific Procedures Report. The United Kingdom Parliament. 2002. 25 Jul 2006 . Life in a Laboratory. Stop Animal Test. 24 Jul 2006 . Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The National Academy Press. 1988. 24 Jul 2006 . The Hidden Lives of Rats and Mice." Stop Animal Tests. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. 30 July 2006 hiddenrats/ >. "Animal Testing." Wikipedia. 27 July 2006. 30 July 2006 . Pratt, Dallas, M.D. Alternatives to Pain. N.p.: Argus Archives, 1980. Ryder, Richard. "Institutional Speciesism: Cruelty is Wrong." Animal Experimentation: Good or Bad? By Richard Ryder, et al. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2002. 57-74.

Preface:
I'm going to try and impartially present both sides of this issue, as I know them. I'll confine myself to what I know to be facts, and avoid supposition. I shall also try to bring to the table every valid argument on both sides that comes to mind. I shall withold my own subjective opinions in this matter, and will not state where my own heart lies in this argument. Note that this is an argument that is neither cut and dried, and has both objective and subjective components to it. I promise to treat each as fairly as I can, without the blessing or curse of my own opinion rearing its own ugly or delightful head. If I seem split on this issue -- well... In favor of Animal Research: The leading arguments favoring animal research as as such: Certain compounds, be they food or pharmaceuticals, may have unforeseen effects that no amount of calculation or research is going to unearth. Thalidomide, in the 1960's, is a classic example. A sedative, Thalidomide made it through trials with no apparent problems. No-one, however, thought to test how this drug would work if used by woman who were pregnant. It turns out, the way it worked was that it produced amazingly grotesque, heartbreaking birth defects. The testing wasn't flawed. No-one had a clue this would happen. But clearly it did. Long term testing on primate subjects would have been grisly, but very well might have uncovered this defect before hundreds of human babies were born with horriffic and incapacitating defects, almost all quickly fatal. The fact is, that when it comes to prepping a drug or vaccine or procedure for use on the human population, we either need to test it on animals with metabolic and eventually genetic similarities to humans, or we'll have to let it into

production without testing. Or -- in effect -- the final phase tests won't be in the lab; they'll be on your neighbors. To put this in perspective, what if it's your sibling who, on the happy day of the birth of their child, finds a creature that will never live a day without extreme pain, not a minute without the revultion of others, not a month in school, not a minute on a bicycle, and not a decade alive -- leaving behind a family financially and emotionally devasted (and statistically likely to even be divorced). But there are a few monkeys somewhere who were left alone.

Opposed to Animal Testing:

Simply because animals are not human does not imply they don't feel pain, despair, torture, and horror, somewhat as we do. Inflicting torturous procedures on animlas in order to spare ourselves the pain seems morally reckless at best, and arrogant to the point of hubris at worst. As we do not "own" these creatures, we have no inherent right to subject them against their will to what we ourselves call inhumane practices, any more than we have a right to torture animals for our amusement. The question may be posed: "What makes it morally acceptable for us to take another creature's freedom and life away from them, solely to maybe improve the qualitiy of our lives, but more likely suffer much as we ourselves would suffer, without discernable, beneficial results?" And worse, up until recently, this testing wasn't solely reserved for matters of life and death, or even human health; we tested with animals in order to discover the potential dangers of cosmetics (although this practice has almost stopped, and WILL stop in your lifetime). The story this tells about humans isn't even sufficiently dignified to say, "we sacrificed them that we may live", but rather, "They died in pain so that we may look good flirting." A Final Note on Human Test Subjects. Both sides of this argument eventually reach the point of discussing human subjects. The fact is this is an accepted albeit controverisal practice, and we do extensive human testing. The rules are: The human must of course be eligible for the test, physically and emotionally. The "pay" or reward for the test must be clearly stated before the test begins. The subject must be apprised that, in blind and double-blind tests, they may be given the drug, or they may be given the placebo -- even if they need the drug to survive. And -- they must be allowed to decide to do or not do this as a free choice, unencumbered by threat or benefit unrelated to the test.

You can't legally let prisoners get invovled in most medical testing, because it's cruel and inhuman punishment, and violates the 4th Amendment. If one personally feels this to be unreasonable, consider lobbying to amend that

amendment. But, as it stands today, those are the laws. The fact is that no-one will submit willfully to medical testing unless they have something to gain. The more dangerous the potential outcome of the test, the more they'll need to gain, to the point that the tests have almost the blackmailer's taint about them. The very rich would have no reason to consider participating in such tests, and so this would be the realm of the disenfranchised and powerless to effectively say no. Neither side in this argument has, after consideration, put forth the idea of total cessation of animal testing in favor of testing on humans. ---Any testing that is done must be done voluntarily. No being has a natural right to subject another being to any treatment, be it with or without their knowledge. The reasoning that humans are superior beings and thus are given a wider range of freedoms to test other species is nonsense, like saying that you should go to jail for murdering a smart person longer than for doing the same to a dumb person. Even the testing of medicines on human beings voluntarily would have to be looked at carefully as this is happening today to people that are seriously economically disadvantaged and could therefore be considered to be coerced. Answer I would like to add on to the discussion.Many people think that animal testing is easy because it doesn't harm you, but it actually does. It harms you possibly if something goes wrong and the animal you're performing testing upon dies, then that's 1 less of their species and that alone makes a minor scratch on the ecosystem. I too think animal testing should be banned. If you want something to test on, test on an object or somthing who agrees.

Answer:
i don't like animal testing at all. It's cruel! I don't like disecting animals even if they are dead. This is a good website:Altweb: Alternatives to Animal Testing and S FDA/CFSAN - Animal Testing

Animal experimentation

A difficult issue

In 1997 Dr Jay Vacanti and his team grew an ear on

the back of a mouse Animal experiments are widely used to develop new medicines and to test the safety of other products. Many of these experiments cause pain to the animals involved or reduce their quality of life in other ways. If it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer then experimenting on animals produces serious moral problems. Animal experimenters are very aware of this ethical problem and acknowledge that experiments should be made as humane as possible. They also agree that it's wrong to use animals if alternative testing methods would produce equally valid results.
Two positions on animal experiments In favour of animal experiments: Experimenting on animals is acceptable if (and only if): suffering is minimised in all experiments human benefits are gained which could not be obtained by using other methods

Against animal experiments: Experimenting on animals is always unacceptable because: it causes suffering to animals the benefits to human beings are not proven any benefits to human beings that animal testing does provide could be produced in other ways

Harm versus benefit

The case for animal experiments is that they will produce such great benefits for humanity that it is morally acceptable to harm a few animals. The equivalent case against is that the level of suffering and the number of animals involved are both so high that the benefits to humanity don't provide moral justification.
The three Rs

The three Rs are a set of principles that scientists are encouraged to follow in order to reduce the impact of research on animals. The three Rs are: Reduction, Refinement, Replacement.

Reduction: Reducing the number of animals used in experiments by: Improving experimental techniques Improving techniques of data analysis Sharing information with other researchers

Refinement: Refining the experiment or the way the animals are cared for so as to reduce their suffering by: Using less invasive techniques Better medical care Better living conditions

Replacement: Replacing experiments on animals with alternative techniques such as: Experimenting on cell cultures instead of whole animals Using computer models Studying human volunteers Using epidemiological studies

Top

Drug safety
Animal experiments and drug safety

Scientists say that banning animal experiments would mean either

an end to testing new drugs or using human beings for all safety tests

Animal experiments are not used to show that drugs are safe and effective in human beings they cannot do that. Instead, they are used to help decide whether a particular drug should be tested on people. Animal experiments eliminate some potential drugs as either ineffective or too dangerous to use on human beings. If a drug passes the animal test it's then tested on a small human group before large scale clinical trials. The pharmacologist William D H Carey demonstrated the importance of animal testing in a letter to the British Medical Journal: We have 4 possible new drugs to cure HIV. Drug A killed all the rats, mice and dogs. Drug B killed all the dogs and rats. Drug C killed all the mice and rats. Drug D was taken by all the animals up to huge doses with no ill effect. Question: Which of those drugs should we give to some healthy young human volunteers as the first dose to humans (all other things being equal)? To the undecided (and non-prejudiced) the answer is, of course, obvious. It would also be obvious to a normal 12 year old child... An alternative, acceptable answer would be, none of those drugs because even drug D could cause damage to humans. That is true, which is why Drug D would be given as a single, very small dose to human volunteers under tightly controlled and regulated conditions.

William DH Carey, BMJ 2002; 324: 236a

Top

Are animal experiments useful?

Are animal experiments useful?

Animal experiments only benefit human beings if their results are valid and can be applied to human beings. Not all scientists are convinced that these tests are valid and useful. ...animals have not been as critical to the advancement of medicine as is typically claimed by proponents of animal experimentation. Moreover, a great deal of animal experimentation has been misleading and resulted in either withholding of drugs, sometimes for years, that were subsequently found to be highly beneficial to humans, or to the release and use of drugs that, though harmless to animals, have actually contributed to human suffering and death. Jane Goodall 'Reason for Hope', 1999
The moral status of the experimenters

Animal rights extremists often portray those who experiment on animals as being so cruel as to have forfeited any own moral standing. But the argument is about whether the experiments are morally right or wrong. The general moral character of the experimenter is irrelevant. What is relevant is the ethical approach of the experimenter to each experiment. John P Gluck has suggested that this is often lacking: The lack of ethical self-examination is common and generally involves the denial or avoidance of animal suffering, resulting in the dehumanization of researchers and the ethical degradation of their research subjects. John P. Gluck; Ethics and Behavior, Vol. 1, 1991 Gluck offers this advice for people who may need to experiment on animals: The use of animals in research should evolve out of a strong sense of ethical selfexamination. Ethical self-examination involves a careful self-analysis of one's own personal and scientific motives. Moreover, it requires a recognition of animal suffering and a satisfactory working through of that suffering in terms of one's ethical values. John P. Gluck; Ethics and Behavior, Vol. 1, 1991
Animal experiments and animal rights

The issue of animal experiments is straightforward if we accept that animals have rights: if an experiment violates the rights of an animal, then it is morally wrong, because it is wrong to violate rights. The possible benefits to humanity of performing the experiment are completely irrelevant to the morality of the case, because rights should never be violated (except in obvious cases like self-defence). And as one philosopher has written, if this means that there are some things that humanity will never be able to learn, so be it.

This bleak result of deciding the morality of experimenting on animals on the basis of rights is probably why people always justify animal experiments on consequentialist grounds; by showing that the benefits to humanity justify the suffering of the animals involved.
Justifying animal experiments

Those in favour of animal experiments say that the good done to human beings outweighs the harm done to animals. This is a consequentialist argument, because it looks at the consequences of the actions under consideration. It can't be used to defend all forms of experimentation since there are some forms of suffering that are probably impossible to justify even if the benefits are exceptionally valuable to humanity.
Top

Ethical arithmetic

Animal experiments and ethical arithmetic

The consequentialist justification of animal experimentation can be demonstrated by comparing the moral consequences of doing or not doing an experiment. This process can't be used in a mathematical way to help people decide ethical questions in practice, but it does demonstrate the issues very clearly.
The basic arithmetic

If performing an experiment would cause more harm than not performing it, then it is ethically wrong to perform that experiment. The harm that will result from not doing the experiment is the result of multiplying three things together:
the moral value of a human being the number of human beings who would have benefited the value of the benefit that each human being won't get the moral value of an experimental animal the number of animals suffering in the experiment the negative value of the harm done to each animal it's virtually impossible to assign a moral value to a being

The harm that the experiment will cause is the result of multiplying together:

But it isn't that simple because:

it's virtually impossible to assign a value to the harm done to each individual the harm that will be done by the experiment is known beforehand, but the benefit is unknown the harm done by the experiment is caused by an action, while the harm resulting from not doing it is caused by an omission

Certain versus potential harm

In the theoretical sum above, the harm the experiment will do to animals is weighed against the harm done to humans by not doing the experiment. But these are two conceptually different things.
The harm that will be done to the animals is certain to happen if the experiment is carried out The harm done to human beings by not doing the experiment is unknown because no-one knows how likely the experiment is to succeed or what benefits it might produce if it did succeed

So the equation is completely useless as a way of deciding whether it is ethically acceptable to perform an experiment, because until the experiment is carried out, no-one can know the value of the benefit that it produces. And there's another factor missing from the equation, which is discussed in the next section.
Acts and omissions

The equation doesn't deal with the moral difference between acts and omissions. Most ethicists think that we have a greater moral responsibility for the things we do than for the things we fail to do; i.e. that it is morally worse to do harm by doing something than to do harm by not doing something. For example: we think that the person who deliberately drowns a child has done something much more wrong than the person who refuses to wade into a shallow pool to rescue a drowning child. In the animal experiment context, if the experiment takes place, the experimenter will carry out actions that harm the animals involved. If the experiment does not take place the experimenter will not do anything. This may cause harm to human beings because they won't benefit from a cure for their disease because the cure won't be developed. So the acts and omissions argument could lead us to say that
it is morally worse for the experimenter to harm the animals by experimenting on them than it is to (potentially) harm some human beings by not doing an experiment that might find a cure for their disease.

And so if we want to continue with the arithmetic that we started in the section above, we need to put an additional, and different, factor on each side of the equation to deal with the different moral values of acts and omissions.
Top

Other approaches

Other approaches to animal experiments

One writer suggests that we can cut out a lot of philosophising about animal experiments by using this test: ...whenever experimenters claim that their experiments are important enough to justify the use of animals, we should ask them whether they would be prepared to use a brain-damaged human being at a similar mental level to the animals they are planning to use. Peter Singer, Animal Liberation, Avon, 1991 Sadly, there are a number of examples where researchers have been prepared to experiment on human beings in ways that should not have been permitted on animals. And another philosopher suggests that it would anyway be more effective to research on normal human beings: Whatever benefits animal experimentation is thought to hold in store for us, those very same benefits could be obtained through experimenting on humans instead of animals. Indeed, given that problems exist because scientists must extrapolate from animal models to humans, one might think there are good scientific reasons for preferring human subjects. Justifying Animal Experimentation: The Starting Point, in Why Animal Experimentation Matters: The Use of Animals in Medical Research, 2001 If those human subjects were normal and able to give free and informed consent to the experiment then this might not be morally objectionable.
Top

Proposed EU directive
Proposed EU directive

In November 2008 the European Union put forward proposals to revise the directive for the protection of animals used in scientific experiments in line with the three R principle of replacing, reducing and refining the use of animals in experiments. The proposals have three aims:
to considerably improve the welfare of animals used in scientific procedures to ensure fair competition for industry to boost research activities in the European Union

The proposed directive covers all live non-human vertebrate animals intended for experiments plus certain other species likely to experience pain, and also animals specifically bred so that their organs or tissue can be used in scientific procedures. The main changes proposed are:
to make it compulsory to carry out ethical reviews and require that experiments where animals are used be subject to authorisation to widen the scope of the directive to include specific invertebrate species and foetuses in their last trimester of development and also larvae and other animals used in basic research, education and training to set minimum housing and care requirements to require that only animals of second or older generations be used, subject to transitional periods, to avoid taking animals from the wild and exhausting wild populations

to state that alternatives to testing on animals must be used when available and that the number of animals used in projects be reduced to a minimum to require member states to improve the breeding, accommodation and care measures and methods used in procedures so as to eliminate or reduce to a minimum any possible pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm caused to animals

The proposal also introduces a ban on the use of great apes - chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans - in scientific procedures, other than in exceptional circumstances, but there is no proposal to phase out the use of other non-human primates in the immediate foreseeable future

Right now, millions of mice, rats, rabbits, primates, cats, dogs, and other animals are locked inside cold, barren cages in laboratories across the country. They languish in pain, ache with loneliness and long to roam free and use their minds. Instead, all they can do is sit and wait in fear of the next terrifying and painful procedure that will be performed on them. The stress, sterility and boredom causes some animals to develop neurotic behaviors such incessantly spinning in circles, rocking back and forth and even pulling out their own hair and biting their own skin. They shake and cower in fear whenever someone walks past their cages and their blood pressure spikes drastically. After enduring lives of pain, loneliness and terror, almost all of them will be killed. More than 100 million animals every year suffer and die in cruel chemical, drug, food and cosmetic tests, biology lessons, medical training exercises, and curiosity-driven medical experiments. Exact numbers aren't available because mice, rats, birds and cold-blooded animalswho make up more than 95 percent of animals used in experimentsare not covered by even the minimal protections of the Animal Welfare Act and therefore go uncounted. To test cosmetics, household cleaners, and other consumer products, hundreds of thousands of animals are poisoned, blinded, and killed every year by cruel corporations. Mice and rats are forced to inhale toxic fumes, dogs are force-fed pesticides, and rabbits have corrosive chemicals rubbed onto their skin and eyes. Many of these tests are not even required by law, and they often produce inaccurate or misleading results; even if a product harms animals, it can still be marketed to you. Cruel and deadly toxicity tests are also conducted as part of massive regulatory testing programs that are often funded by U.S. taxpayers' money. The Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Toxicology Program, and the Department of Agriculture are just a few of the government agencies that subject animals to painful and crude tests. The federal government and many health charities waste precious dollars from taxpayers and generous donors on cruel and misleading animal experiments at universities and private laboratories instead of spending them on promising clinical, in vitro and epidemiological studies that are actually relevant to humans. Millions of animals also suffer and die for classroom biology experiments and dissections, even though modern alternatives have repeatedly been shown to teach students better, save teachers time and save schools money. Each of us can help save animals from suffering and death in experiments by demanding that our alma maters stop experimenting on animals, by buying cruelty-free products, by donating

only to charities that don't experiment on animals, by requesting alternatives to animal dissection and by demanding the immediate implementation of humane, effective non-animal tests by government agencies and corporations.