Drug researchers argue that if there are no new drug tests, then potentially useful drugs will be undiscovered. With the help of vivisection, drug researchers of the past decades discovered the cures for polio and smallpox along with flu vaccines. In addition, diabetics would suffer or die from their disease if drug researchers did not incorporate vivisection in their research. A ban on vivisection would lead to testing on humans, where the costs would be extremely high. Additionally, humans take longer to experience potential side effects because human life expectancy is longer than most animals’. On the other hand, results derived from animal experiments have had a negligible effect on the dramatic rise in life expectancy in the 20th century (BBC).
In addition, researchers and scientists artificially induce animals with synthetic symptoms because human diseases do not occur naturally. Doctors diagnose humans with a disease due to natural symptoms such as stress, bad habits, environmental and genetic influences. The drug experiments will result in inaccurate data since the disease created in an experiment cannot effectively predict or duplicate actual occurring diseases in humans.
All animals, big or small, have the right to live freely in their natural environment without human interruption. It is bad enough that the scientists and researchers take animals away from their habitat, but the manner in which they are treated is horrendous. For example, “psychologists gave electric shocks to the feet of 1042 mice … caused convulsions by giving more intense shocks … to the animals’ eyes or … their ears” (Graft et al 1) and, in Japan, famished rats with “electrodes in their necks and eyeballs were forced to run on treadmills for four hours at a time” (Graft et al 1). Another cruel experiment is that monkeys became addicted to drugs by automatic injection. Those became “cold-turkey monkeys” and were observed to die in convulsions and some plucked all its hair out or bit off its own fingers and toes (Graft et al 1-2). All the animal experiments are done for “knowledge” or “curiosity” which is supposed to help society.
One of the arguments of pro-vivisection is that it is better to sacrifice a “pet” than a “child.” Many maintain the idea that vivisection cures deadly diseases in humans and that test animals are the answer. Researchers prove that animals have played an essential role in medical advances. However, that does not justify the extent of cruelty toward animals used in the experiments. Furthermore, the United States waste millions on animal experimentation while children all over the world routinely die from starvation and curable diseases. Those “millions could be spent feeding, clothing, vaccinating, and educating children” in destitute areas. Our universities spend billions each year on animal experimentation, money that could instead be “put toward scholarships and grants so that every young person could gain a college education” (“Vivisection”).
If animals have done nothing but die for human curiosity, then why experiment with the living, helpless animals? As Baird and Rosenbaum said “but what is wrong isn’t the pain, isn’t the suffering, isn’t the deprivation. These compound what’s wrong.” Society should not take vivisection lightly because animals have no voice to defend themselves but they can feel everything a human can like pain, agony, suffering, and anguish. So if one cannot sacrifice a human, why sacrifice a poor defenseless animal for the curiosity of the human mind?
It is claimed that the majority of those who are against vivisection are hypocrites. They eat meat and wear leather without feeling guilt, but then go around protesting vivisection, when the wearing of leather and eating of meat precipitated an animal’s death. How do they justify their activities? The majority anti-vivisection groups are also vegetarians such as those who are members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). People have the freedom to make their own decisions on their participation in the treatment of animals whether its being a vegetarian or anti-vivisection or both or neither.
As time has progressed, so has technology so one would assume with the technological advances in science and medicine that alternatives to animal experiments would be used instead. One could suggest computer simulations and computer- aided drug designs. According to Dr. Walker at the University of Texas, computer simulations “…offer a wide range of advantages … savings in animal procurement … the opportunity to correct errors and repeat parts of the experiment performed incorrectly or misinterpreted ….” Whereas, scientists may use computer aided drug designs in which “3-D computer graphics and the theoretical field of quantum pharmacology” are combined to assist in designing drugs (Graft et al 5). The problem with technological alternatives is the chances of a computer glitch because the computer cannot mimic the complexities of an entire biological system and not all electronic devices are perfect.
Epidemiological studies, comparative studies of large human populations, as an alternative to vivisection because it has been proven to uncover causes of diseases. Because of epidemiological studies, researchers exposed that smoking is linked to lung cancer. In addition, epidemiological studies first identified AIDS when atypical infections and malignancies began showing up in patients in the late 1970's (Graft et al 5). Vivisection proved otherwise and society and the scientific community accept the epidemiological studies. Researchers are analyzing the information they observe through the community. A problem with that is the information may not always be accurate since communities vary depending on the environment. The use of alternatives proves beneficial to both sides of the issue on vivisection.
Abolishing animal experimentation is best for the whole world including both animals and humans. Animals will not worry about being separated from their family. The abolishment will save millions of animals’ lives and countless others the pain of experimentation. Vivisection will save taxpayers money and direct it to beneficial opportunities for the community. Since vivisection only kills and does not have much profit, then the elimination of it will only be advantageous.
Works Cited
Baird, Robert M., and Stuart E, Rosenbaum, ed. “The Rights Perspective.” Animal Experimentation: Moral Issues. New York; Prometheus Books, 1991. Amazon.com 20 Jan. 2007. <http://amazon.com>
BBC Team. “Experimenting On Animals.” British Broadcasting Corporation. 2002-2005. 26 Jan. 2007. <http://bbc.uk.co/religion/>
“Flawed Science That Puts Us All In Danger.” Editorial. Western Daily Press 3 Sept. 2005. 19 Jan. 2007.<http://westpress.co.uk/>
Graft, Donald, et al. “AR FAQS.” Animal Liberation Front. 20 Jan 2007 <http://animalliberationfront.com>
"History of Vivisection.” South Africans for the Abolition of Vivisection.14 Nov. 2006. 21 Jan. 2007. <http://www.saav.org.za/history.php>
“Vivisection.” Last Chance For Animals. 2006. 21 Jan. 2007. <http://www.lcanimal.org/about.htm>
Outline
Thesis Statement: Vivisection needs to be abolished.
- Vivisection; Severity of animal testing
a. rodents accounted for 85% of procedures, fish 8%, birds 4%, and legally protected dogs/cats/horses/primates less than 1% (Dorey)
b. 100 million animals are used in experiments worldwide (Graft et al, 1).
c. History of animals roman times) (“history”)
- CP: Vivisection has been used since Roman time
a. Proved beneficial to medical advances
b. Better understanding of human anatomy
- Animals and humans genetically different thus, testing useless
a. Some products and treatments are beneficial for humans but harm animals and vice versa
i. Penicillin kills animals
Possible cures are held back because it failed when tested w/ animals (“Flawed”).
b. Tests do not provide with safe drugs
i. Adverse reactions to prescription drugs 4th biggest killer in the West
ii. Ninety percent of drugs found safe by testing on animals fail when tested on humans (“Flawed”)
c. Human diseases naturally occur
i. Number of variables lead to disorder
1. genetic and environmental influences,
2. bad habits and stress
ii. Thus, animals will not adequately duplicate diseases
1. yield inaccurate data
2. artificially induce disease
- CP: if we end drug testing then, causes …
a. No new drug testing or
i. cure for polio and smallpox, flu vaccines would not exist and diabetics would suffer or die from their disease
ii. potential new drugs never found
b. Human testing for all safety tests
i. costs of testing in humans would be extremely high
ii. take longer to see potential effects because time we live compared to lab animals
- Animal rights violated
a. Right to peace in natural environment
b. Treated atrociously and cruelly
- Child vs. Pet
a. Better to sacrifice your pet than a human w/ deadly disease who can benefit from cure
b. more cruel to test new drugs on people or children, or to let people die because there was not enough information about a drug
- Testing is immoral
a. Examples rats shocked, starved rats, drugged monkeys (Graft et al 1-2)
i. Psychologists shocked rats’ feet leading to shocks in eyes and ears resulting in convulsions
ii. In Japan, starved rats w/ electrodes in their necks and eyeballs forced to run in treadmills for 4 hours at a time.
iii. Monkeys became addicted to drugs by automatic injection in their veins. Became cold cut monkeys thus, observed to die in convulsions and some plucked hair out or bit off their own fingers and toes.
b. “What is wrong isn’t the pain, isn’t the suffering, isn’t the deprivation” (Baird and Rosenbaum 78).
i. “These compound what’s wrong” (Baird and Rosenbaum 78).
ii. The animals are living creatures and feel the pain like any person would.
- Hypocrites
a. People eat meat or wear leather w/o guilt
b. No sympathy for animals
- Technology
- computer simulations
i. “opportunity to correct errors and repeat parts of the experiment performed incorrectly or misinterpreted ….” Dr. Walker
- computer-aided graphic design
- assist in designing drugs which benenfitial to society
- cannot completely understand the biological system
-
Epidemiological studies
- proven to link smoking to lung cancer
- not always correct b/c of human error
