In the early 1900’s, John Gibbon and his wife carried an experiment on cats and developed a machine that would work instead of the cat’s lungs and heart for approximately twenty minutes. Through a series of multiple animal experiments, the heart-lung machine was developed, which was used to do
This we have little control over but the scientist do! There is a different method for testing our products and medicines. The modern methods are sophisticated tests that use human tissue and cells. These and other non-animal methods are not caught up by the differences in species that make applying the tests to humans hard to do. Now here is something you won’t believe, these tests take less time and money to complete, plus they are more accurate results.
However, the current situation seems to be working well enough for researchers. New discoveries are still occuring at a rapid rate, and the slight differences in rats should remain because they are an accurate representation of mankind. Not all humans are the same and discoveries should not be based off of exactly one genetic combination. There are also various different companies that support the cloning of animals. These companies also benefit in some way from the cloning of animals.
Human volunteering tests are preformed on people that volunteer to be tested on for money. This method may sound a little unorthodox to some, but these people are volunteers and have a say in the matter unlike the defenseless animals. These two simple changes could easily save the 100 million animals that are tested on each year. On top of saving the innocent animals, the human testing alternatives will finally produce accurate information. Most animal tests fail to translate to humans, but human testing will actually help uncover new information that will be beneficial to mankind.
Animals should have the right to be free from unnecessary suffering and experimentation because they are innocent creatures. An argument for opposing the Animal Bill of Rights is that research will be slowed or stopped completely, resulting in the death of humans that could have been saved. The Animal Bill of Rights is not meant to stop or prevent experimentation on animals; it is meant to limit the extraneous suffering and torment animals go through in the name of development. Animals are innocent- it cannot defend itself against malevolent human intentions. The Animal Bill of Rights is meant to prevent the exploitation of animals and refute the justification that experimentation makes animal cruelty moral.
The authors rely on their personal opinions and firmly believe that there should be no more animals into existence. Yet, by preventing animals from prospering and living amongst humans, the authors are defying biological laws and cycles. In addition, the existence of animals is vital in the lives of many individuals. The article highlights the fact that animals are completely dependent on humans, however the reverse relationship is also possible. For instance, some humans with disabilities use animals to escort and guide them.
In addition, some of the experiments done on animals are improperly performed and cause extreme pain. Anesthetization, intubation, and euthanasia are some examples of lab procedures that need qualified training and proper skill. For example, neavs said, “if a researcher uses a paralyzing agent on an animal but does not monitor vital signs to make sure she/he is adequately anesthetized, there is a great chance that the animal is actually experiencing pain but unable to move.” Sadly, researchers often lack the training and sensitivity needed for proper animal testing and it’s taken out on the animals. Animal testing is cruel and inhumane and the harm and suffering needs to be put to an
95% of animals being used for animal testing are not covered by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). That is a high percentage of animals not protected and have a high chance of being mistreated. That is only a part of the problem when it comes to animal testing. The bigger issue is that the anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models for human beings. Their is no reason to test animals if it could mislead researchers from breakthroughs.
The three R(s) fuel the fire of the argument that alternatives should be used in place of animal testing. Kelly Overton, a renowned activist, claims in her article Stop Animal Testing that animal testing is an obsolete practice by comparing it to old telegrams and eight track tapes. There are many others like her that believe animal testing should be replaced with newer methods such as stem cell research. However, the ethical debate of using animals for testing pales in comparison to the ethical debate of using stem cells; more studies need to be conducted before stem cells can be fully utilized but it does have great potential. According to PLOS Biology, a renowned peer reviewed scientific journal, it is possible for alternatives to be used as a complementary resource with the research of toxicology but more research and time is needed before they can completely replace animal testing in most cases.