However, there are many who would argue that it is wrong to assume that our welfare is more important than that of animals. Even if they cannot express their feelings to us, animals still feel pain and suffering just as acutely as we do. After all, animals are living beings and we should not think that their life is less important just because they could appear less intelligent. Alternatively, we should focus on other branches of medicine that do not exchange discoveries for the suffering of living things, for example growing human tissue from a cell sample. Although still rudimentary, it has great potential to eventually replace animal testing. Unfortunately such methods are still not viable enough at the current time for mass utilisation.
On the other hand, the pain that is prevented by medicine discovered using animal testing greatly outweighs the pain incurred on the tested animals. A select committee in the House of Lords agreed to this fact by publishing a comprehensive report on the matter[4]. Successes that are a consequence of animal testing includes penicillin, the polio vaccine and organ transplantation[5]. Moreover, a survey recently showed that 74% of all living Nobel Laureates in Medicine agreed that animal testing was essential in their work which culminated in a Nobel Prize[6]. It is of course desirable to keep the pain suffered by tested animals to a minimum but if we test on animals now, we can build comprehensive results which future scientific research can rely upon. The disadvantages of animal testing are obviously negligible compared to the benefit humankind receives in the present and the future.
Unfortunately, it is in the opinion of some that the practices of several animal testing institutions are far from ideal. They argue that sometimes scientists discover only too late that they are on a fool’s errand in a specific direction of research. Sadly, this often results in animals being tested on needlessly. Furthermore, opponents of animal testing emphasize that when an occasional success does appear, it is overstated. Also, some medicines derived from animal testing have to be later withdrawn because of previously unknown side-effects. One well-publicized example is Thalidomide, a drug given to pregnant women 40 years ago to combat morning sickness. Animal testing confirmed its effectiveness but later research proved that it caused catastrophic birth defects[7]. Therefore some would think that animal testing, despite the optimism, is inefficient at both finding and verifying potential cures. In response, we could argue that all scientific procedures are imperfect and failures are bound to happen. Even the safest experiments carry a risk. Occasional miscalculations and accidents do occur in the science world but we should not let that hinder valuable research.
In spite of fierce debates it is a common understanding that the advancement of medicine is paramount to the survival of our race. From discovering vaccines to curing cancer, cloning to genetics, animal testing is commonplace. Indeed it is the most effective way to ensure that the medicine produced is going to have a reasonably positive effect on the intended patient. Animal testing is by no means perfect on either scientific or moral grounds but it is the only developed method we have. Other approaches that do not involve testing on animals, stem cell research for example, are still in their infancy and require vast amounts of resources[8]. As we make progress in medicine, we will eventually develop an experimentation method that will supersede animal testing. Great promise has already been shown in the development of medical computer simulations, where the effects of diseases are being predicted virtually[9]. In the mean time, however, our only path forward is to continue to test on animals. Still, we must hope that one day an alternative which convincingly addresses the deficiencies of animal testing will be found. Despite being far from perfect, the lives of countless patients have been saved because of animal testing. Therefore it would be one of humanity’s greatest mistakes to abandon it without a reliable and robust replacement.
Bibliography
-
“Drugs trial men ‘are improving’” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4820188.stm
-
“Dispatches: The Drug Trial That Went Wrong” http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/D/dispatches2006/drug_trial/feature.html
-
“Testing times for human research” http://www.ngpharma.com/pastissue/article.asp?art=268373&issue=170 “However, if a clinical trial backfires then the knock-on effect for the industry is potentially catastrophic. Horror stories of human guinea pigs suffering severe, adverse reactions during trial drugs are hardly music to the ears of would-be volunteers.”
-
“House of Lords: Select Committee on Animals In Scientific Procedures” http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldselect/ldanimal/150/15005.htm
“More commonly, there are those who hold that the whole institution of morality, society and law is founded on the belief that human beings are unique amongst animals. Humans are therefore morally entitled to use animals, whether in the laboratory, the farmyard or the house, for their own purposes. And this belief is sometimes combined with a further belief that there is a moral imperative for human beings to develop medical and veterinary science for the relief of suffering, among both humans and other animals. This moral imperative permits the use in research laboratories of animals, whose suffering must be weighed against the ultimate relief of suffering towards which research is directed.”
-
“Nobel Prizes: The Payoff from Animal Research” http://www.fbresearch.org/education/nobels.htm
“Where Would We Be Without Animal Research?” http://www.ncabr.org/biomed/FAQ_animal/faq_animal_11.html
-
“Survey of Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine” http://www.simr.org.uk/pages/nobel/nobel_survey.html
-
“Thalidomide” http://www.animalrights.net/archives/related_topics/topics/medical_research/thalidomide.html
-
“Federal Stem Cell Research: What Taxpayers Should Know” http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm749.cfm
“To treat, for example, the 17 million diabetes patients in the United States will require a minimum of 850 million to 1.7 billion human eggs. Collecting 10 eggs per donor will require a minimum of 85 to 170 million women. The total cost would be astronomical, at $100,000 to $200,000 for 50 to 100 human eggs per each patient.”
- “Entelos is the leader in biosimulation.”
http://www.entelos.com/company.php
