The animal experimentation
This research project papers exhibits a broader view on animal experimentation especially on its effects towards animal population. In essence, this report provides the details on improper techniques for animals testing that will bring huge effects towards animal population which arise the point that if people take a circumspect look at animal testing, they would realize that animal testing is indirect declaration of extinction of animal kingdom from our planet. In Britain, individuals who against the animal testing stand on the point that animal experimentation are scientifically unacceptable because of the existence of differences in genetic encoded and physical appearance between animal and human. As a solution, toxichips are created. In the context of techniques, the eyes irritancy test and acute toxicity test have been claimed as the causes of animal extinction from earth. Both eyes irritancy test and acute toxicity test are the examples of the methods used in animal testing to determine the reaction of certain chemicals in humans by using animals as the subject. These in turn bring about the alternatives by science development such as embryonic stem cell and also computer simulation.
Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is "because the animals like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is," because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction~ Magel (Charles 2009)
Back in 1880's, animals were first subjected to become the indicators of science achievement especially in medical research field. Also known as in-vivo testing, most of the animal experiments conducted through the vivisection, a process which carry the surgery on living specimens, regularly animals possessing with central nervous system to view living internal structure. Introduced as experimental method of testing surgical procedures, animal testing is practiced before applying to human patients. Controversy arise when Edmund (1665) stand on the point that which the animals testing as "the miserable torture of vivisection places in an unnatural condition". He testified that animal's physical as well as internal lining tissue could be affected by unexplainable pain throughout the harmful and unreliable experiments' procedures. In order to limit the situation, a rigorous law has been imposed, enacting in the British parliament on animal rights and protection (Animal Experimentation Debatabase, 2000).
According to Animal Experimentation Debatabase (2000), the British Union for abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) predicts that over 100 millions vertebrates are experimented on around the globe each year. This statistics include 10-11 millions experiments in the Europeans countries. This increasing toll should be overcome in the presence of modern technology in present time. High development in technology nowadays enables people to create things that will benefit all sides, without harming effecting one side. Recently, in Johannesburg, South Africa new study released stated that the vaginal microbicide gel, PRO 2000 does not prevent HIV infection in females although it was tested safe and effective on nonhuman species (Mail & Guardian Online 2009). Microbicides are some microbes in the form of gel, creams or foams used to avoid the vaginal sexual transmission of HI virus and other sexually transmitted diseases when applied in the female reproductive organ. The trials include 9385 women in East and Southern Africa and proved the gel was safe but yet, it did not show any prevention on HIV infection.
Even though thousands of experiments have been carried out throughout these years, the questions on the topic still emerge from the mind. One of them is improper technique for animal testing effect the animal population. Do you agree?
However, if people take a circumspect look at animal testing, they would realize that animal testing is indirect declaration on the extinction of animal kingdom from our planet.
This report will exhibit convincing evidences of why people should consider more seriously of the issues of extermination of animal population. The research findings are mainly on the effects from improper methods for animal testing which result in the decreasing number of animal population in the planet. This research also confined to the Britain alone because its has higher rate of the animal experiments compare to other countries and the exposure of the testing to the world is more obvious (Dixton 2000).
Experiments on Animals are Scientifically Unacceptable
Improved nutritional intake, standard living places and conducive environment had proved as the main factors to reduce the number of spreading diseases rather than information obtained from animal experimentation. There are high possibility that the data gained will mislead researchers and scientists from all over the world. When the possibility achieved the precaution level, the experiments done before are must be completely neglected and the data obtained are unreliable to be use on human patients. However, days by days, experimenters keep doing their work, ignoring what people critics about them. Experiments are conducted each day until successful outcomes achieved. Usually, nowadays' experiment can be divided into three major group which are drug and product test, education and the use of animals in biomedical and behavioral research. This three critical groups has increase theirs own demand for animals requirement in order to perform and proof their non-stop experiments.
Genetic Encoded and Physical Appearance Consideration
Most testing conducted on animal are nothing like humans (McGraw, 2000). As example, the guinea pig and the rat. These two creatures are among the most famous experimental laboratory animal which widely used across the world. Scientists and experimenters test them to evaluate the reaction occurs. Scientifically, as well as morally the experimentation is to be rejected. The reactions or responds of a mouse to a chemical substance is no guide to human reactions. Flynn (2008) stated that although the pH of rabbit tears is different from human tears and rabbit's cornea is thinner than human's cornea, rabbits are still the primary subjects for cosmetic testing. Chimpanzee claimed as the most closely related animal with human being has more intelligent which means more immoral it is to treat such animal as disposable and worthless biological specimens (Animal Experiment Debatabase n.d). Each and every species has its own unique physiology. This means whatever the animal's responds to the chemical components are unreliable and impossible to expect the same reactions will occur towards humans. Despite the obvious differences between human and animals, is it makes any sense if we continue using animals as indicators of experiments to test drugs?
The picture shows a chimpanzee being 'set-up' in the preparation room before experiment.
Inappropriate Condition of Animals to be Experimented
Testing on animals is scientifically invalid due to improper condition of the animals to be tested on. This situation can be happening when the animal experienced different kind of environment or being injected with foreign liquid in the body such as being in the cage, injected with anesthetics. This will lead to malfunction of certain organs as well as biochemical reaction in the body. Furthermore the pain from the process of vivisection will surely create some interference in the accuracy and consistency of the verdict obtained. In fact, some of the animals are chained up in steel cage whereas some are left to starve. The consequences of this situation will contribute to unreliable and variation of data that highly risk to be applied on human patients. As conclusion, it is never acceptable to test drugs on perfectly healthy animals; even the cure is going to be use on other animal.
The animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours, they move finished and complete, gifted with extension of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren; they are not underlings; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendor and travail of the earth. ~ Beston (The Outermost House, 1928)
Toxichip-A Solution to Animal Experimentation
Toxichip was proposed as 3 years research by a special group of international scientists and being sponsored by the European Commission. This research concentrate on the development of both cell-line based biochip that will examine the effect of toxic chemicals on cell lines and bacterial cells, thus alleviating the recent demand for animal sacrifice (Rhodes, 1994). Based biochips, which allow the detection of vast arrays of toxins not only in individuals chemicals, but also in environmental analysis of wastewater and drug development are used in the association with tissue culture has the potential to replace animal testing.
In order to eliminate the animals as the front candidates of medical research, bacterial cells based biochips are introduced. The bacterial cells based biochips developed will contain of genetically modified bacterial strains that react with the presence of toxins to send reports in that affected normal body cell (Rhodes, 1994). The bacterial cells will be generated so that they will detect the chemical toxins by exhibiting different colours. The colours indicate particular chemical toxics by differentiating the type of toxic by portraying different colour.
The Eye Irritancy Test
This test is responsible for the hardship and death thousands of rabbits in Britain each year but yet, does not show any sign of improvement in disease prevention aspect .Since 1944, the eye irritancy test or also known as the Draize eye irritancy test has become more popular and applicable among animal experimenters (Globe 1987).. Powdered substances, granule, flake, as well as liquid chemicals are dropped into the eyes of rabbits and the observation is noted. As such, the most obvious reaction that scientists can observe is that the eye's chain of worsening. The federal Food, Drugs and Cosmetics Act does not requisite cosmetics manufactures to test theirs products for safety reasons and does not conduct animal testing. However, The Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) suggest that corporation replace the safety of their products or else paste a warning sign to potentially hazardous products (Globe 1987). Therefore, most companies conduct the Draize test mainly due to they used to perform the test as their habit, as well as because their legal departments and insurance permits them to do the test to cover themselves when they are sued.
Experts agree that the Draize test is rough and inaccurate because it is observational dependent. However, many critics of the experiments emerge from within the products company itself. Mellon Institute of Pittsburgh and the Medical Research Division of Esso proved that test is unreliable. Experimented in 25 different laboratories, the research exposed variations in the ways the laboratories examined the rabbits' reaction, and came out with conclusion that the methods should not be applied as suggested for any circumstances (Globe 1987). By this point, it is obvious that the Draize test does not effectively reflect the level of irritancy in humans.
The Draize Test-The Concrete Evidence of Animal's Suffer ness
In the experiment, 100 milligram of a high concentration solution are dripped into six to nine conscious rabbits' eyes, who may be chained and locked up in special cage from which only their heads over hanged (Globe 1987). Their eyes are forced to open by placing clips at the lid, and the rabbits are potentially to break their own neck or spine when struggling to escape. During specific intervals over 72 hours period, the damaged caused at the rabbits' eyes is recorded. Usually the test last for about 7-18 days, depending on the results obtained. The reactions that normally showed include the inflammation of the iris in the pupil, ulceration, swelling of the eyelids, excessive bleeding, and also blindness (Globe 18987). The worst part of all is that, pain relieving drugs are not injected, causing the animals to experience unexplainable suffer while breathing consciously throughout the duration of the test. Experimenters claimed that these drugs will cause interference in the test results.
Reduction of Animal Population
The Draize eye irritancy test in rabbits has been the primary objective of efforts to decrease the use of animals in research. Data obtained from six rabbit eye irritation test of 155 different forms of chemicals were used to indicate the ability of irritation from each and every possible combination of five, four, three, or two rabbits subset to predict the Draize score resulting from six rabbits (Globe 1987). As such, there are 920, 2325, 3100, and 2325 possible combinations of the 155 research for the five, four, three, two respectively can be made. Then experimenters also categorize materials using a four-degree adjectival system based on the Draize score among which include other factors.
Embryonic Stem Cell-Replacement Of Animal Experimentation
Other than saving numerous animal lives, alternatives to animal experimentation are effective and trustworthy. Non-animals test normally take shorter time to finish, cost only a fraction of animals and are not sign with species population that make the extrapolation impossible or difficult. Alternatives to animal experimentation include replacing with non-animal procedures and also regulating animal-based test to decrease the number of animal used as well as to minimize the pain affected by the subjects (Coghlan 1996). An embryonic stem cell test can be used using mouse-derived cells to review potential toxic level content in growing embryo which has been authorized as a fractional replacement for eye irritancy test in rabbits (Coghlan 1996). Growing cells in the laboratory is widely known as cell culture. From this section, human embryonic cells are alienated by removing the inner cell mass into a plastic round shaped laboratory culture dish which provided with nutrients for the development of cells known as culture medium. Then, the cells segregate and reach over the surface of the dish. Normally the inner surface of culture dish is covered mouse embryonic skin cells that have been treated so they will not divide. This coating surface of cells is named as a feeder layer. The mouse cells at the bottom part of the culture dish supply the inner mass with a sticky layer by which they can join. Embryonic stem cells that have been flourished for about six months without differentiating are called pluripotent and visible as genetically normal. At any condition at this progress, group of cells can be frozen and transferred to other laboratories for further experimentation.
Acute Toxicity Test
Acute Toxicity test is used in animals to reveal the danger of exposure to a chemical by skin, mouth and also inhalation towards human (Cobbe 1883). Since it was first introduced, acute toxicity test known as poisoning thousand numbers of animals in Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) test, which are experimented until at least 50% of the animal subjects killed. Nowadays the usage of LD50 is reduced and being replaced by other several new drugs but still deadly. Instead of death, this experiment considers the sign of disorder in the animals that will determine the end point of the test, and terminate the test. Other tests involve smaller number of animals such as acute toxic class method and the up-and-down procedure (Cobbe 1883). Usually rats and mice are the animals which are involved in this fatal test.
The Brutal Experiments
Commonly known as poisoning test or lethal dose, the test conducted involve various dangerous steps that only death can terminate the procedures. For a substance to show the toxic effects, it must be absorbed by the cells in the body and circulated via the blood vessel to the site where it exerts toxic effects (Rowan 1984). As such, a chemical substance is forced by specially designed tube into animal's stomach or openings cuts into their throats. Other than that, it also can be injected under the skin which then penetrated into the blood circulatory system. During the experiment hour, animals will frequently experience extreme pain as the foreign chemical reactions occur inside the body system.
The scientists observe the changes that occur during the experiment hour. Examples of the reactions that can be observed include paroxysm, difficulty in breathing, skin eruption as well as excessive bleeding from the eyes, nose or mouth (Rowan 1984). The subjects of experiment are killed at the end of the test so that the necropsy can be conducted to detect the internal injure.
Unreliable Result of the Test
Same like eye irritancy test, poisoning dose tests are completely unreliable (Rowan 1984). The intention of acute toxicity test is to gain information on the biological molecular behavior which gave respond towards certain chemicals that had been injected. The results of the broad discussion on the significant of the LD50 value are still on debate. Many factors can influence the result of the dose injected. The LD50 rate is the statically obtained dose that when introduced in an acute toxicity test is supposed to reach the total death toll up to 50% of the experimented animals in an interval period of time. It is very difficult to refer information towards human responses to the same chemicals that the animals had been experienced. This is due to different species of animal exhibit broad different reactions toward the chemicals.
Computer Simulation-A Perfect System
Computer models can be used to excite diseases and help researchers understand how different substances can be applied to treat the diseases. These models are based on previous knowledge and data which then will be used in the computer to launch simulation or model for the same substance. As example, computer models gain the molecular component of to estimate the toxicity level of substances with the same chemical structure (Rowan 1984). Inventing a model structure needs complex and sophisticated calculations and a derived mathematical model is required for a particular disease. Computer stimulations are applied to replace certain type of animal testing, especially in education. This alternative provides beneficial information that is enough to justify the prevention of animal uses.
When it comes to animal testing, most people in this world do not intend to take this matter seriously. They consider animal experimentation is just another growing ladder in science achievement that will improve their life without any doubt or effects on one particular side. Animal experimentation cost much more than its sound. Decrease in number of animals is getting more critical from time to time. Some researches done by experts show severe reducing graph extrapolated from the statistic. For some solid reasons, this rise concerns among the experts themselves. For once in their life, have people ever thought these non-stop animal manipulating experiments will enormously effect the population of animal kingdom? In short, it is very much correct that we never appreciate what we have until we lost them.
We simply kill thousands innocent rabbits for their fur, we take billions lives of rats and mice for furniture polish without second thought , but remember, can we create even one? Each year, we lost outnumbered animals just because to create a better life now and for our next generation even though there are other alternatives available without involving life-taking scenario. Human should remember that they are not the only living organisms in this planet who posses priceless life.
The invention of toxichip through cell lines and bacteria cell is recommended as a scientifically approved alternative to animals testing due to it replaces the uses of animals in the laboratory.
In addition, this report recommends further work to:
- Establish the production of toxichip in larger scale by analyzing market demand which correspond to set-up cost.
- Supply adequate funds for the product in order to reserve the uses animal as the subject.
- Research further on the toxichip gadget as the technology achievement nowadays has increased its level from time to time. As a result, the production of this alternative device can be made in large amount in short period of time and at the same time still perform the best service towards mankind.
Embryonic stem cell are the inside living cell that has not been differentiate yet in our body. These cells have the potential to replace the animal's cell requirement which involve animal scarification.
Adding up, this report suggests extra effort to:
- Eliminate procedure of the experiments which is not necessary in order to save time. Therefore, more embryonic stem cell can be produced.
- Fully utilize the undifferentiated cells without wasting them out by reuse the extra embryonic stem cells.
- Study more on the production of embryonic stem cells which can improve the outcome of the experiments.
- Apply the use of embryonic stem cells in all medical fields, replacing animal as the subjects. Significantly, this will help to prevent the animals experience pain and suffer in the laboratory since the productions of embryonic cells do not require any animal involvement.
Computer simulation more widely used nowadays. It involves a program or software to recognize toxic-injected molecular cells behavior. This alternative is strongly recommended as it much more easier to be done compare to animal experimentation.
In addition, this research project paper recommends additional work to:
- Standardize the application of computer simulation in all over the world by sharing the previous knowledge on animal testing.
- Improve the computer's system to boost up the specific details obtained.
- Establish the data gained from the computer modeling to be applied in further research. This can be done by discussing the results and continue the use of this alternative worldwide. Establishing the validity of this claim will impact on the demand of the market scale.
- Animal Experimentation Debatabase, 2000, Animal Experimentation, viewed 7 April 2009, < http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=7>
- Beston H, 1928, The Outermost House, Animal Experimentation Quotes, viewed viewed 4 November 2009, < http://www.quotegarden.com/a-rights.html>
- Bethesda A. 2009, Stem Cell Basis, "What Is Stem Cell ?" In Stem Cell Information, viewed 26 January 2008,
- Clarke, S.R.L, 1997 , The Moral Status of Animals, Oxford, viewed 2 July 2003,
- Coghlan 1996, "Pioneers Cut Out Animal Experiments," New Scientist, viewed 27 January 2009, < http://www.peta.org/factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.asp?ID=87>
- Dixton T. 2000, International Debate Education Association, animal experimentation, viewed 7 April 2009, < http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=7
- Edmund M, 1665, Animal Testing, viewed 23 January 2006,< http://www.search.com/reference/Animal_testing>
- Flynn R. 2008, Animals Right, All Expert, viewed 24 March 2008, <http://en.allexperts.com/q/Animal-Rights-2716/2008/3/Animal-rights-4.htm >
- Globe B, 1987, The Draize Eyes Irritancy Test, viewed 13 June 2009, <http://www.geari.org/faqdraize.html>
- Rowan, A.N, 1984, Mice, Models, & Men: A Critical Evaluation of Animal Research, State University of New York Press, viewed 22 April 2007, http://www.thenazareneway.com/vegetarian/animal_testing_toxic__tragic.htm
- Mail and Guardian Online, 2006, South Africa Animal Experimentation, viewed 5 March 2007, < http://www.mg.co.za/page/contact-us>
- Margel R, 2009, Quotations about Animal Rights, viewed 4 November 2009, < http://www.quotegarden.com/a-rights.html> McGraw 2000, Biology, Hill Americas, New York
- Newkirk, 2004, "Animal Testing Is Cruel and Does Not Benefit Medical Research." Animal Experimentation. Greenhaven Press, viewed 5 May 2003, <http://socialissues.wiseto.com/Articles/FO3020630169>
- Underhill LA, Dabbah R, Grady LT, Rhodes CT 1994, Alternatives To Animal Testing, viewed 21 January 2009,<http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/f?./temp/~rTzxQj:3>