Animals Be Used in Medical Research, Essay Example

British laboratories conduct experiments using over four million animals each year (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011). The animals used include horses, cats, dogs, rabbits, monkeys, and rats. Gernerally, they are used to test the toxicity of substances or investigate the effect of human diseases in addition to possible solutions. However, many people believe that this practice is unethical because animals have their rights to coexist with humans (Greek & Greek, 2010). Others believe that animal experimentation is a necessary aspect of research because it helps save human lives. Anti-vivisectionists and animal rights extremists continue to debate over the essence of such research. On one hand, animal research helps humans understand the effects of some diseases. As a consequence of this research, humans lead better lives because of animal science and subsequent treatments and medications developed from it. On the other hand, animals are occasionally treated in a cruel manner that is unnecessary for the types of experiments being performed. Thus, the essence of this document is to examine this argument from both sides and decide which is feasible in the current context; or if a middle ground is plausible. Ultimately, although animal research is unethical, cruel, and unnecessary, it is vital because the successful abolition of animal research will have severe consequences for scientific research.

Animal research is beneficial to humanity. It is imperative to note that advances in technology imply medical progress and we must study the practical implications of technology to ensure that it is safe for human use. The use of creatures in research has led to significant improvements in the quality and length of human lives. Several cases attribute to advancements in research that have improved human lives. First, cancer research has led to the development of new cancer drugs that account for over sixty percent gains against the disease (Greek & Greek, 2008). It is imperative to note that there has been a ten percent increase in life expectancy in the U.S. as a consequence of the increasing incidence of drugs that can be used to treat cancer. Prior to a series of animal studies, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery were the predominant methods for treating this disease. However, animal research has allowed scientists to create genetic and molecular interventions, increasing patient survival rate. For instance, lung cancer is a leading cause of death among both genders. In fact, it kills more people than a combination of prostate, pancreas, colon, and breast cancer. Leukemia was once a killer disease, especially impacting patients during their childhood. Animal studies helped increase the survival rate of individuals from 4% to 80% (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011). As such, detecting, preventing, and understanding lung cancer is possible by researching using mice models. Thus, using animals in research is necessary to cease human suffering related to disease. Figure 1 summarizes the different techniques that scientists use to conduct cancer research in animals.

Figure 1: The figure below depicts technologies used in therapeutic cancer research involving animals. a) “Sequencing for Gene Mutation; b) In situ Hybridization for Gene Amplification; c) Immunohistochemistry; d) Cell lysates Western Blotting; e) Fluorescent immunohistochemistry for tumor vascular density and subsequent maturation; f) Hierarchical Information Clustering for Gene Array Analysis to express tumor mRNA;Dynamic MRI for tumor Hemodynamic Analysis; h) Mass Spectrometry for Pharmacokinetic Analysis” (Workman et al., 2010).

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2883160/figure/fig3/

Animal research can also be utilized to treat viral diseases. HIV/AIDS is an incurable disease that has challenged scientists to find a cure. However, patients can continue living normal lives using present medication. Research utilizing animal models has aided in the development of drugs with relatively fewer side effects in addition to vaccines to prevent the diseases altogether. (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011). Third, preventing and curing stroke and a myriad of cardiac diseases has been challenging researchers. Animal research has also allowed scientists to develop cures and treatments for a number of other viral diseases including Hepatitis C, measles, polio, and more, nearly eradicating some of these viruses from the country or world.

Opponents of animal research claim that the use of living organisms are not vital to scientific research. As such, outlawing these techniques would lead to the development of better medical advances and superior technologies because primarily human systems would be used to this purpose. In particular, it is argued that cellular and clinical research would have been developed more carefully and respectfully rather than the existing black hole of knowledge if humans were used for research studies instead of animals. Animals used as models for research have body systems that are similar to humans, but not identical, leading to false conclusions occasionally being drawn from animal studies. For example, scientists against the use of animal research claim that disease specific mechanisms between the human and model organisms can occasionally differ (MacLeod, 2010). These professionals are also worried about the accuracy of such published studies because they may contain bias. Thus, it is important to consider that for animal research to work, it must be conducted in a manner that assumes differences between humans and the model organisms being used. Scientists that conduct animal studies must behave ethically to ensure that they generate meaningful results at the cost of animal life.

One particular solution to the discrepancy between humans and model animals is the use of transgenic animals. The use of these organisms continue to explain how mutant genes are necessary for solving medical issues. In this context, they useful to create an understanding as to how protein molecules interact and their role in curing diseases (Greek & Greek, 2010). On the same note, advances in such technology are bound to aid in curing central nervous system complications. It is worth noting that before studies in this kind of medical intervention became available, it was believed that creating interventions for nervous conditions was not achievable in a scientific laboratory. However, animal research has enabled researchers to develop stem cells that can replace nervous tissue. For this reason, it is impractical to claim that such advancements in medicine are unimportant on the basis that they affect the lives of a specimen. In this essence, it implies that despite activists’ sentiments, such interventions will continue to occur in medical laboratories unhindered due to the clear benefits that they provide.

The issue of animal rights versus the need to use animals for research to save human life has become a legal matter as well as an ethical one. In particular, the medical research that deployed animals and humans in research at the beginning of the nineteenth century had led to litigation (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011). Laws were put in place to prevent unethical research in humans, requiring that researchers and medical professionals apply the concepts of justice, beneficence, and respect in practice. By the same token, laws were established to protect animals used in research projects in the U.S. and Britain. As shown in figure 2, As indicated, the U.K. uses more animals in research than the U.S. and Netherlands combined. Numerous inconsistencies in research exclude rats, birds, and mice from a group that also includes the “well-protected” cats and dogs. As such, the former consist of more than ninety percent of all animals used in scientific research. Thus, it is currently legal to use animals in research, but it is easier and more legal to use some model organisms compared to others. Scientists tend to prefer to use smaller model organisms due to the fear of litigation. While animal rights activists argue that the protections that were put in place for animals were not enough, it appears that their use is the only reasonable alternative to human use in experimentation.

An excellent example of when animal research should be used is when a given scientific research question will have an adverse impact on human populations or individuals. It is imperative to note that in such cases, laws uphold human principles to protect the populace at the expense of the scientific question. In contrast, animal research does not seem to follow a similar course. As such, the precedence is usually taken by the scientific question to the detriment of animal subjects in research. In spite of uncountable articles from scientists that relate to animal research ethics, the inherent differences in animal and human research do not serve to articulate the rationale for core distinctions between the two groups. In this context, researchers and lawmakers take into account animal issues as they relate to humans. In other words, animal protection laws do not necessarily defend their subjects (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011). On the contrary, they evaluate the benefits of using animals for human gain rather that fundamental rights of animals.

Animal research fails to recognize the cognition and emotions of animals used in experiments. It is imperative to note that animal sentience is currently understood better than decades ago (Greek & Greek, 2010). In light of this, the potential for animals to perceive harm is greater than anticipated, deeming a reconsideration of existing animal protection legislation. It is essential noting that animals have perceptions of distress and pain. Because we now understand how to minimize animal pain for purposes of experimentation, it is more reasonable for us to be able to defend their use. On the contrary, the deprivation of fundamental psychological needs, diseases, and invasive procedures are potential causes of harm that scientists seem to overlook when dealing with them in research. While we should not cease using animals in research, it is reasonable for scientists to make consideration that will ensure their ethical treatment in practice. Many regulations are currently present in laboratories across the country to ensure that this will be the case (Macleod, 2010). Figure 3 shows that the correlation between animal and human behavior is also a pressing concern in animal research studies.

Animals experience pain and suffering despite the fact that scientists overlook these condition as subjective experiences. It is worth noting that emotional states such as pain in humans are experienced by animals as well. As such, they share physiological, neurological, anatomical, and genetic characteristics with humans. In this regard, psychopathological factors such as environmental, developmental, and generic risks that humans exhibit are also shared by animals (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011). For instance, pain is operated in a more organized sub-cortical neural circuit than fear; hence, it has been associated with numerous species. Even elephants and chimpanzees exhibit stress disorders. Furthermore, animals also show self-awareness and play behavior. They are flexible to learning strategies, prospecting, imagining, and reasoning casually. In this essence, respecting their distress or pain is imperative; thus, invalidating animal-based research (Mandal & Parija, 2013). As such, there are mounting concerns as to the implication of laws that seem to favor humans. As such, it is an infringement of animal rights because they share nearly the same genetic composition of humans despite the fact that it is inferior. However, inferiority alone is inadequate to imply that humans should mistreat animals. On the contrary, allowing them to develop naturally is a boost to their existence and balances the ecosystem.

Despite the fact that it might seem unethical to use animals in research, scientists have found several ways to minimize their usage in research. First, reduction refers to methods that allow scientists to obtain information from a smaller population of animals than in outdated strategies (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011). As such, it tends to reduce the number of animals used in research. It is imperative to note that these strategies include modern imaging techniques to lessen the possibility of killing several animals to source for the best tissue or find impacts of a given disease. On a similar note, sharing resources and data minimizes the need for setting up several laboratories for research (Mandal & Parija, 2013). Additionally, improved experimental design and methodologies reduce the death risk among animals. Second, refinement refers to improved procedures that lessen pain among animal subjects as well as reduces distress and suffering (Workman et al., 2010). As such, it allows for the general improvement of animal welfare strategies. For instance, methods such as improved analgesia and anesthesia for pain relief and improved living conditions of these animals have been successful at reducing the effects of invasive procedures on animals in the past (Mandal & Parija, 2013). Third, rehabilitation refers to rehabilitative and after-care services for animals after experimentation and should be provided to ease animal suffering (Workman et al., 2010). In this regard, it implies that researchers using animals for experiments follow a moral code that requires them to handle the animals after use. In fact, some countries mandate that researchers be ethical to animals to avoid disposing of them after use (Mandal & Parija, 2013). In this consideration, used creatures can be rehabilitated to return to their former state (Workman et al., 2010). It is imperative to note that replacing used animals with their live counterparts reduces their survivability in the ecosystem because scientists rarely breed animals to release into nature for ecosystem sustainability. In this case, it is worth noting that they have devised two methods to reduce the need for replacing animals used in research. First, relative replacement involves using invertebrates such as Nematoda (nematode worms) and Drosophila melanogaster (fruit flies). In this consideration, the population of invertebrates by far exceeds that of vertebrates, especially mammals such as rodents. For this reason, using nematodes and insects in research tends to leave room for current favorites to return to their natural ecosystem after use and without the implication of a replacement. Figure 4 summarizes the experimental use of animals in Canada in years 1975 and 1992.

Conclusion

In conclusion, science lacks essence when it is limited to descriptive studies of nature. Despite the fact that there are advancements in medicine, these are impractical if the core goal is distorting ecological balance. In this regard, animal research is necessary even though it deprives specimen their right to life and emotional freedom. Human laws tend to favor the populace against scientific experiments that threaten the existence of individuals or entire populations. It remains important to protect human life during this process because this is the ultimate goal of medical research. However, it is also beneficial to treat animals in an ethical manner because they are contributing to our ability to survive. Studies have shown that testing medicine is better done on animals than human subjects because it is easier to test therapeutics in mass. However, it is less reasonable to study body systems in animals to understand the human anatomy because there are major differences. Thus, it is important for scientists to be more selective about their decisions to engage in research and to ensure that all animal experiments are purposeful and are created in a manner that will minimize harm to the animals being used.

References

Ferdowsian, H. R. & Beck, N. (2011). Ethical and Scientific Considerations Regarding Animal Testing and Research. PLoS One, 6(9).

Greek, R. & Greek, J. (2010). Is the use of sentient animals in basic research justifiable? Philos Ethics & Humanitarian Medicine, 5: 14.

Macleod, M.R. (2010). Can Animal Models of Disease Reliably Inform Human Studies? PLOS Med, 7(3) : e1000245.

Mandal, J. & Parija, S. C. (2013). Ethics of involving animals in research. Trop Parasitol, 3(1): 4–6.

Workman, P., Aboagye, E. O., Balkwill, F., Balmain, A., Bruder, G., Chaplin, D. J., Double, J. A., Everitt, J., Farningham, D. A. H., Glennie, M. J., Kelland, L. R., Robinson, V., Stratford, I. J., Tozer, G. M., Watson, S., Wedge, S. R., & Eccles, S. A. (2010). Guidelines for the welfare and use of animals in cancer research. British Journal of Cancer, 02(11): 1555–1577.