This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
Standing on Animal Testing and Alternatives
Countless animals are being killed for animal experimentation. Animals have been poison to death to test for toxicity test before been used on humans. Vaccines are being use on mice before been release. Many animals are suffering and dying in tests for sunscreen, household cleaners, and others products. I know how vital a human life is, but by looking for new alternatives instead of animal testing we can save animals lives as well. The government needs to keep approving and funding researchers to find more alternative methods. Animal testing has made many breakthroughs in the past decades in the same token technology has advanced greatly also, so we should be able to look for more alternative methods of testing.
There have been many obstacles stopping the progress of alternative testing methods by the panel Kristie Stoick specify that:
Stoick closely followed a panel that recently reviewed a series of alternatives for a rabbit test used to measure bacteria levels in blood products and other animals. The panel rejected the alternatives, which have been used in Europe for years. Stoick said that several of the panel's observations and recommendations “seem nonsensical, irrelevant or inappropriate. Too often it seems that panelists have unreasonable expectations regarding every minute detail of the alternative methods, without a clear understanding of the limitations of the current animal-based methods.”(In U.S., Few Alternatives to Testing On Animals)
Researchers are trying to find new alternative methods to be approved by the panel. By saying that she proves how the Panel is so close minded and that how the panel want to keep animal testing from going without looking for other alternatives. This makes it difficult for researcher to keep funding for new ways to alternative testing instead of animal experimentation.
William S. Stokes of U.S Panel points out, in a statement that his group “has successfully reviewed over 185 test methods” and that the four alternatives it has endorsed “has significantly reduced the number of animals required for safety assessment, and provided for improved welfare of animals used in safety evaluations” One alternative has saved “at least 36,000 animals annually, Stokes said (In U.S., Few Alternatives…1). Panel need to be more open minded and approve more alternative testing of methods that way we can save human lives as well as animals lives.
To prove how many people are beginning to notice that we need to use alternative test methods Gilbert M. Gaul describes that:
The controversy over the Botox test highlights the slow pace of government efforts to replace or reduce the large number of animals used by pharmaceutical companies, chemical manufactures and consumer firms to ensure that their products are safe for people. A decade after Congress created a panel to spur the development of non-animal tests, only four such tests have been approved out of 185 reviews, according to the panel's records. (In U.S., Few Alternatives…1)
This means that people have to usually know about what is going on so change can take place. If more people have the knowledge there is something we can do to change the course and find ways to look for alternative testing methods.
It is very horrible to know that many animals are been killed for our well being. One of the reasons people are not looking for more alternatives ways is that they feel comfortable and are used to the animal testing. People should get out of their comfort zone and let the alternative methods to be approved. According to Melvin E. Andersen of Hammer institutes for Health Sciences, the biology divisions reason to do animal testing is that they feel comfortable and are used to the same process, not because is it alright to do it. It is this kind of thinking that we are where we are and not moving forward and letting innocent animals keep been tested(In U.S., Few Alternatives…1)
To state that environment scientists are used to routine animal testing Leslie Pardue expresses that:
Although some environmental scientists rely on date gathered from animal testing, many of the researchers agree with animal welfare advocates who suggest that such tests can be replaced with no animal alternatives. Alternative models are often cheaper and more accurate than animal testing. Unfortunately, seeking alternatives has not been prioritized in research fields because animal testing is
routine and scientists are not often asked to reexamine their research methods. (Alternative to Animal Testing…1)
Scientist agree that there is different was that it will come out with the same result without using animal testing, however they feel too comfortable with the way thing are now that they do not want the animal testing to change even though it might be more beneficial.
There is a debate about animal testing. The opposing side believes that animal testing is vital for humans are necessary for product safety. There is an Act that we unfortunately use at the moment that everything has to be animal tested before going being prescribed to humans. Ronnie D. Lankford of Greenhaven Press supports, the Act has safety precautions that helps avoid any mistakes like the Thalidomide tragedy. It caused 10,000 birth defects in pregnant women and it was supposed to combat nausea during pregnancy. He believes it was because it had not been tested enough on animals (Animal Experimentation is Necessary…1). I agree with his point of view to save people, but I think they are other methods to accomplish the same results.
According to Scientific Alternatives to Animal Testing, “Alternative to animal testing are primarily based on biochemical assays, on experiments in cells that are carried out in vitro (“within the glass”), and on computerized models and algorithms” (Advocacy for animals). Kara Rogers from University of Arizona analyzes, the vitro test is very useful and can be as accurate as or more accurate than animal testing. Vitro tests can be use to replace toxicity tests; LD50 test kills 50 percent of the animals. The vitro can also do cytotoxicity test that can help compare toxicity of chemicals in human cells and produces data more relevant to humans than animal testing (Scientific Alternatives….1).
William Russell and Rex Burch publish The Principles of Humane Experimentation technique. Kara Rogers indicates from University of Arizona, “This work introduced goals of replacement, reduction, and refinement: replacement of animal testing with other techniques, reduction of number of animals tested, and refinement of animal test to reduce suffering” (Scientific Alternatives…1). These has completely change the way we now see animal experimentation and how it should be changed. Even if it does not completely get rid of animal experimentation at the moment is it a start. We should continue to look for different ways and open the mind of the Panel to allow new alternative testing to pass through.
Jennifer A. Hurley of GreenHaven Press states, without animal experimentation we would not be alive and that we take everything for granted. She says that everyone has benefited from animal testing in some point in their lives (Animal Experimentation Is Always Justified). I agree that animal experimentation has made many breakthroughs but we can keep looking for more ways to change that. By staying stuck on what we already know we are not progressing. Technology is endless and there is so much to be learned. If we can clone sheep than we could definitely find more ways to use alternative testing methods rather than animal testing.
The process that will soon replace animal testing is by making replicas. Akira Takashima from Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology says, “We engineered each of the three cell types in the skin—keratinocytes, langerhans cells and fibroblast cells—in collagen matrix. We engineered each of them to express some sort of fluorescent signal. Detecting the fluorescence of different colors we can estimate what kind of stress or what kind of signals the cells have received. We are putting them in a three-dimension skin more like a matrix” (Professor Works to limit…1). The colors are red, green and yellow. Depending on the color it will determine the effect it will have on human skin.
In conclusion there is a lot of debate whether we should continue to use animal experimentation to continue saving human lives. I believe we should keep looking for more alternatives testing methods so in the future we might not have to use animals for experiments. I am not saying that now
Ahlstrom, Dick. "'Toxichip' system may replace animal testing." 01 December 2009. The Irish Times. 05 December 2009 <http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2009/1201/1224259787253.html>.
Gaul, Gilber M. "In U.S., Few Alternatives To Testing On Animals." 12 April 2008. The Washington Post Company. 05 December 2009 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/11/AR2008041103733.html>.
Gun, Matt. "Professor works to limit use of lab animals." 2009. The Independent Collegian. 5 December 2009 <http://www.independentcollegian.com/news/professor-works-to-limit-use-of-lab-animals-1.2036886>.
Haugen, David M. "Alternative to Animal Testing Should Be Pursued." 2000. Gale Cengage Learning. 05 December 2009 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabId=T010&proId=OVRC&doId=EJ3010002216&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=lincclin_mdcc&version=1.0>.
Hurley, Jennifer A. "Animal Experimentation Is Always Justified." 1999. Gale Cengage Learning. 05 December 2009 <http://findgalegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabId=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010088222&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=lincclin_mdcc&version=1.0>.
Lankford, Ronnie D. "Animal Experimentation Is Necessary to Ensure Product Safety." 2009. Gale Cengage Learning. 05 December 2009 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&doId=EJ3010002236&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=lincclin_mdc&version=1.0>.
Rogers, Kara. "Scientific Alternatives to Animal Testing: A Progress Report." 2007. Encyclopedia Britannica. 05 December 2009 <http://advocacy.britannica.com/blog/advocacy/2007/09/scientific-alternatives-to-animal-testing-a-progress-report/>.