Animal testing has allowed us to develop vaccinations against life threatening disease such as measles and tuberculosis. Also, antibiotics, HIV drugs, insulin and cancer treatment rely on animal testing. For example insulin from cows and pigs can be used to treat diabetes in humans. The insulin is extracted from dead animals and purified. In the 1970s and 1980s cancer treatments were developed by testing on non-human primates. Mice are normally used in cancer treatment research as scientists can create mice without functioning immune systems by taking out the genes for the immune system in mouse embryonic stem cells. In America dogs are testing cancer treatment drugs as they ‘experience cancer in similar ways’ to humans. So testing on dogs would give scientists a better idea of how the drugs would affect humans. ()
In addition, animal testing was essential in the development of open heart surgery and organ transplants. Surgery has been perfected due to experimenting on dogs, also anti-rejection drugs for organ transplant patients are tested on animals. In the USA approximately 80,000 heart valve replacements are done using pig heart valves. Although it is preferable to transfer human valves to human patients this was not always possible so in the 1970s, surgeons transplanted valves from pigs, sheep and cows into dogs. If it was possible to put pig heart valves in a dog then it would have been possible to do the same with a human. Another way to save human lives by using animals is by xenotransplantation. This is the transplant of cells, tissues or organs from one species to another such as pigs to humans. The animal organ can be genetically altered so it is not rejected by the organ transplant patient. In 1994, scientists put human genes into a pig embryo, meaning that a pig with the human immune system was born (see image above). This meant that humans waiting for an organ donor did not have to wait as in Britain 25% of patients who were waiting for an organ donor died. After pumping human blood through the heart, scientists realised that there were fewer signs of rejection so in the future xenotransplantation could be a method of transplantation used all over the world. However many people believe that this is not ethically viable as people do not think it is right to put animal organs inside humans, also there are worries that we do not know enough about the genes and what will happen when they are in the human body. Therefore xenotransplantation is illegal.
Although there are advantages to testing on animals for medical advancement a professor of philosophy at North Carolina State University said, “… health advances have resulted from improvements of living conditions and changes in personal hygiene and lifestyle, none of which has anything to do with animal experimentation.” So some people still believe that animal testing is wrong even though it may help save humans. This is because sometimes the benefits of testing on animals are misleading for example in the 1950s when the drug Thalidomide, developed for pregnant women to stop morning sickness, was shown to have very few side effects. Babies were starting to be born with deformities. Scientists who tested the drug on monkeys showed there were few side effects however the tests were not conducted on pregnant monkeys. When the experiment was redone on pregnant monkeys, they gave birth to deformed offspring also. This shows that testing on animals does not always benefit humans because by the 1960s over 10,000 babies with deformities had been born also, even though millions if dollars have been spent on HIV/AIDS testing on animals, a cure has still not been found. Those against animal testing claim that this is because primates do not die of AIDS because it is a very ‘species- specific’ virus.
In 2006, six men volunteered to participate in the testing of TGN1412. The men were injected with the new drug. They began to swell up and were hospitalised as they became seriously ill with fevers, vomiting, kidney, heart and liver failure, pneumonia and blood poisoning. What mystified the doctors was that the men’s white blood cells had disappeared when tests on animals had the opposite effect even though the animals had been given 500 times the dosage. The inflammation triggering chemicals caused multiple organ failure. (7). Professor Peter Saunders of the Institute of Science in Society said, “Unfortunately all species are different and even if rodents or monkies suffer no adverse reactions… we still can’t be sure it will be safe for humans.” So, anti-vivisectionists say this study proves that animal testing is unsuitable for testing human drugs.
Testing Cosmetic and Household Products:
Anti-vivisectionists argue that animals suffer unnecessarily for testing of luxury products and that it is not needed. In Britain animal testing for cosmetics was banned in the 1990s however the rest of Europe do not believe that is safe to ban testing on cosmetics safe. Cleaning products are tested on animals, to ensure they do not cause too much damage to humans when used. If a person swallows the product or gets it in their eyes or smells or touches the product scientists need to know how the human body would react so the product would be tested on animals.
In 2008, the strength of the botulinum toxin in Botox was tested on animals using the LD50 method. Botulinum produces botulin which produces limp muscular paralysis. Mice are injected with the Botox samples in order to get an idea of the harm the sample could do to humans. The number of people demanding Botox is increasing which means every year more animals are dying. Many people do not think of Botox as cosmetic but as medical instead, therefore it is allowed to be tested on animals (4).
George Cotsarelis at the University of Pennsylvania thought they had found a cure for baldness when they cut one centimetre cubed of skin off of the backs of mice a few days after their hair follicles had formed. When a certain protein was added the number of follicles that grew back doubled and there was less scarring (). It could be said that this test was unnecessary as baldness is nothing to cure. It is not a life-threatening disease that can kill humans so there is no need to cure baldness and harm animals.
The Future of Animal Testing:
As there are a lot of ethical issues when it comes to animal testing, in 1959, (two British scientists) Bill Russell and Rex Burch came up with the three R’s, reduce, replace and refine.
Reduce- reducing the number of animals when testing a new product, although using maximum number of animals would give better results, animal life would have been wasted.
Replace- if possible, using other methods instead of testing on animals. As technologies have become more sophisticated make replacing animal testing possible.
Refine- improving procedures in order to cause minimum pain and discomfort whilst in a laboratory. ()
One method that could be used in the future is an in-vitro method to replace animal testing. This means growing stem cells into human organs and tissues. This can give scientists more accurate ideas of the reactions to a new medicine or chemical as it would be easier to assess the toxicity of the particular test substance. Also certain genes in the cells can be switched on and off in order to develop a diseased human tissue. From this scientists can start developing cures. Using stem cells can be cheaper and easier than testing on animals because even though it is not cheap to develop the stem cells it is still cheaper than breeding, genetically modifying and housing the animals. (12) The cosmetics company L’Oreal have adopted the stem cell method of testing.
This image shows the method L’Oreal use. They grow cells left over from breast surgery and cover the skin with the product they are testing. They check the safety by using MTT (a yellow chemical) to show hoe many cells have been killed after adding the substance. In the presence of living cells the MTT turns blue. This is an effective method of testing safety as the cells cultured can resemble skin of different ethnicities and, by adding intense ultraviolet light, older skin. (8)
Another method which could replace animal testing in the future is using computer models. Using computer models can decrease the numbers of animal models significantly as they can stimulate a response to research, although the entire organism cannot be replaced yet. Different cells and tissues can be presented on the computer and can be used to test the effect of certain chemicals. The models may look life like however Professor Noble of Oxford University feels there is still some way to go before computer modelling is perfected as they have “modelled only about 2% of the genes and proteins involved.” (2)
Although the computer models can be used to test the human reaction to chemicals, scientists still feel the need to test the on animals to ensure the computer models are working correctly. So, as technology improves testing on animals may no longer be necessary but before a computer model it made tests will have to be carried out on animals. In the long run the use of animals for testing substances may decrease. () In addition computers can be used to dissect animals in school environments instead of dissecting a real animal. As technology is getting better dissecting on a computer becomes more realistic.
Bibliography:
1)
2)
The BBC is a well known news group that people rely on to tell the truth about important issues like animal testing. For that reason, the news must be up to date and with the use of scientific viewpoints it is made more reliable. However the articles were last updated in 2006 so more research could have been found but not included. I used source 1 for a pie chart of animals used in animal experimentation which was sourced from the Home Office.
3)
Scientific American is a science journal in America. It is similar to New Scientist, so contains news articles on many different subjects. The viewpoint of anti-vivisectionists is used in this particular article. It contains information on the draize test method of testing on animals.
4) Animal Research and testing by Patience Coster
This is a reliable book to retain information from as Patience Coster researched the topic carefully before writing it and has opinions of different individuals. Also studies and statistics are used to back up the issue of animal testing and research. Although Patience Coster does not specifically specialise in this particular area, she does illustrate different subjects in social, cultural, historical and political issues.
5) The Independent, July 2004
This is a newspaper that is widely read by intellectuals; therefore information should be well researched and truthful. The particular article I have used consists of many statistics about animal testing and although the article it from 2004, so slightly out of date, the law is unlikely to have changed since then as drugs tests on animals are in the interest of the safety of humans.
6)
7)
8) http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526144.100-human-skin-to-replace-animal-tests.html
9)
10)
The new scientist journals are a high quality source of information for any topic as they consist of studies and the views of scientists in all different topics, this makes finding information easy and reliable. Source 8 provided an image sourced by L’Oreal Research which should be dependable as this is image as probably produced by scientists who work for the cosmetics company.
11)
12)
These two websites were recommended for further information by Patience Coster in the book ‘Animal Research and Testing’ therefore they must contain valuable information on animal testing. The websites include information and articles on animal experimentation and alternatives as they are against testing on animals.
