I think that it is acceptable If no harm is caused to them and it is necessary (absolutely beneficial) to conduct such experiments. Alternatively, can animal experiments provide reliable information for curing or treating human ailments and illnesses? What is your view?
Dear @Mahmoud, the use of animals for scientific research is a challenging issue because it is related to harming animals with or without intuition. I think that it is acceptable under the following conditions: If no harm is caused to animals, it is necessary, and should be wisely used and in it's minimum occurrence.
Dear @Mahmoud, the use of animals for scientific research is a challenging issue because it is related to harming animals with or without intuition. I think that it is acceptable under the following conditions: If no harm is caused to animals, it is necessary, and should be wisely used and in it's minimum occurrence.
Now the world is opting for cell lines for most of their research.
Though use of animals for some of the pharmacological research (with ethical clearance) cannot be avoided!!!
Thank you dear @Godfred for participation. You think in some cases once ethics approval is sought prior to commencing any research involving animals, it is practiced by some researchers. .
When you are developing some novel medicines it is expected that you will use animals for testing. The ethics involve here is future protection of animal power
It is really not acceptable. One shouod look for other ways and means.
dear Mahmoud, There should be a code of ethics for using animals for scientific research or at least some kind of regulations to show what is right and what is wrong.
The Government is clear that there is a continuing need for properly regulated and ethically conducted research using animals where the harm caused to the animals
is justified by the potential benefits, and where no practicable alternative exists. We will continue to make this case and to improve understanding and awareness
of this issue.
http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/assets/document/0CA4CEAB-A50D-1987-13B1F095655BE911/working-to-reduce-th.pdf
I think research for brekthroughs in promoting better human health can be possible on living beings. So either we do it on humans or animals. The issue is that we need to prevent any cruelty to them, and be ethical as per the prescribed codes. But whatever code we agree to, we must create mechanisms to strictly enforce it.
I think it should be possible to try experiments on animals. It is similar to food industry. They get harmed (chopped off and sold) for food purposes and used for experiments done to prove some advancements in medicine. I don't try to say that "we should harm animals". All I'm saying is, animals that the experiments are done are in same level as the ones used for food industries. They are born, given food&environment and raised for these purposes. They " serve for it. If it wasn't that way, they would have been born and grown in different places and under different conditions. I still object the idea of taking animals from nature for research purposes and food industry (like hunting). But even in hunting, it just provides an acceleration towards evolution, by eliminatimg the slowest and weakest ones.
In conclision, I think they should be grown on a separate world for us to be able to do an experiment on them.
In either biology or medicine, using animals for conducting experiments has long been regarded as the first way to test the effectiveness of pharmaceuticals (used to protect human or animal health against various diseases/pests) and/or phytopharmaceuticals (used for controlling arthropod pests (insects, mites,…) and diseases damaging their host plants). However, interestingly, some regulations have always been adopted by national and international organizations in an attempt to avoid causing pain or harm to animals used in experiments.
For instance, the regulations adopted by the European Union concerning the use of animals for scientific purposes are potential examples. The related documents can be found through this link:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/index.cfm?fuseaction=public.topic&id=1423
Regards
Yes Dr. Mahmoud, use of animals for some of the pharmacological research (with ethical clearance) cannot be avoided!!!
But we should make sure they are not harmed and sacrificed unnecessarily.
In many universities animal experiments have been already removed from the undergraduate syllabus!!!!
Life on this earth has passed in a way of allowing man to be the master & animals to be under the control of this master. Animals are utilized in foodstuffs for man so why they would not be utilized in other services?
At once, we will think of the usage of animals in medical research when it is impractical or unethical to apply the research on the humans. Of course, it is absolutely wrong to expose human beings to health risks to follow the course of a certain disease under the excuse of protecting animals. It is unreasonable to sacrifice humans to save animals.
However, the living organisms ( may be called animals) turn the milk into yogurt or cheese , and fermentation reactors utilize the organisms to produce the antibiotic (Penicillin).
In polymer chemistry, research is going on to utilize bacteria in the production of polymers and there are first signs of success. Some scientists predict that a day will come when lot of laboratory work (in universities & in industrial plants) will be done by animals or living organisms for the elation of the precious human beings.
My take on this subject is that - animal research is mandatory to move the science and medicine forward. That said, all care must be taken to follow international ethical standards.
What we know from human brain and its function, plus most of the physiological functions comes from animal research. Additionally understanding the biology and behavior of every animals in turn useful for the conservation of the very same species.
Many of the animal activists do not understand the basis biology of 'survival of the fittest' and the 'food chain'.
As Darwin pointed out, 'It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change.
In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals because they succeed in adapting themselves best to their environment'.
Many of you might be under the impression that the animal in the wild means that they are happy! A herbivore species is often hunted by a carnivore! Smaller carnivore is hunted by a bigger predator to keep the equation balance! This is nature's law!
What we see often in sleep research is that, animals in wild sleep lesser than animals in captivity, due to lack of predatory activities.
Humans domesticated animals for his own good!
On one hand you will notice people do animal research. On the other hand, you will see people love domesticated animals such as birds, dogs, cats, rabbits, and horses! Some even have wild animals as their pets! Won't they happy in the wild and be free? Do they expect the human to love them?
On one hand, humans do research on animals for their own betterment of human race. On the other hand humans keep the animals in captivity to love them!
Which one is better?
Dear @Mahmoud Omid:
What I meant is, in hunting (as in natural lion/tiger attacks) the slowest and weakest animals (these are meant to have the recessive genes in animal kingdom except humans) are sacrificed, which provides room for animals (preys) that have dominant genes to have offspring, with less recessiveness. The way hunting drives evolution (microevolution, not macroevolution) is just by eliminating the recessive genes from gene pool, which is similar to the one done by tigers and lions. This, actually was not the point of my answer, but I just wanted to give credit for hunters right after putting my statement of objection. Also, if this is the way one provides animal species for study, then he/she cannot claim that the animals were "randomly selected", which is a very important statement to provide in animal studies in most cases.
@ Elbay, I am not sure if your statement (second posting) is accurate with regards to 'weakest' and 'recessive genes'.
The fastest land animal is the Cheetah which has a recorded speed of 96–120 km/h (60–75 mph) a fastest human has a record of 44.72 km/h (27.79 mph). The fastest in the animal kingdom is Peregrine Falcon (for flight) with a record of 389 km/h (242 mph). With such a record, any one would consider turtle as a slowest and weakest animal.
However, extensive fossil turtle deposits extending back to the Triassic have been found throughout the world, including Germany, India, Thailand, South Africa, North America and China. The earliest known turtle, named Proganochelys and discovered in Germany in the 1880s, was dated by evolutionists to 210–220 million years ago.
Are they not surviving still?
http://www.newsweek.com/how-hunting-driving-evolution-reverse-78295?from=rss
For cancer related research, especially when a usage and/or development of a new drug/therapy on human patients has not been approved by regulatory bodies (FDA, Health Canada etc) small and large animals are the only viable option. For example, developments of new cancer therapies and diagnosis that require a usage of gold nanoparticles can't be performed on humans. Hence, rats, mice, dogs serve as good to excellent animal models in ex vivo and in vivo experiments. Most universities have in place strict protocols for humane animal treatment. Animals do serve a noble role here by helping to save human lives.
death is inevitable in experimental animals. Invariably they will be euthanized based on standard protocol: https://www.avma.org/kb/policies/documents/euthanasia.pdf
NO INACCEPTABLE..
Sci Transl Med 7 November 2012:
Vol. 4, Issue 159, p. 159ra147
Sci. Transl. Med. DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3004249
Research Article
Bioengineering
A Human Disease Model of Drug Toxicity–Induced Pulmonary Edema in a Lung-on-a-Chip Microdevice
But of course as long as rats are cheaper than men..
Thank you dear @Pandi-Perumal. In my introduction to Genetic Algorithm, I always ask the students do you know why strongest, fastest, ... animals like Dinosaur were extinct long ago but dirty little rats are still with us even more than before! The answer, of course, as rightly pointed out by you previously is "survival of the fittest". Then we start explaining the "fitness function" and other GA concepts. When I asked @Elbay the question of "Do we have the right to eliminate "the slowest and weakest ones"?" I had this answer in my mind. Thank you for clearing this misunderstanding
Is it acceptable to use animals for scientific research?
Yes! Yes! Yes!
Alternatively, can animal experiments provide reliable information for curing or treating human ailments and illnesses?
Yes.
But there are exceptions, of course.
Kamal Eddin Bani-Han,
totally agree with you!
"If it is absolutely necessary for protection of human health and there is no alternative and with the application of codes of ethics and without causing pain or harm to these animals,"
It should be noted that the developing alternative methods, without the use of animals. But, unfortunately, many pharmacological, toxicological, and other pathophysiological studies currently can not be conducted without the use of animals (create a line of inbred mice and rats, etc., spending on it for many years).
On the topic of alternative methods:
It is possible to produce a tissue by the help of a scaffold and seeding cells, and it can be kept live by the help of microfabrication and bioreactors or microfluidics. It is still expensive but it can mimic the microenvironment of an organ/tissue of live human (not animal), which can decrease the errors in estimations done through using the same construct on live animals.
New answers gave evidence on the necessity of using animals. It seems there are disagreements on use of alternative methods as a possible solution.
We know that animals have feelings but they don't talk. Do we have rights to use them? Or are we (humans) taking advantage of that even it's the wrong thing to do?
Dear Mahmoud Omid!
You wrote:
"We know that animals have feelings but they don't talk. Do they have rights to use them? Or are we (humans) taking advantage of that even it's the wrong thing to do?"
It's true. I'm with a great love for laboratory animals, but we must understand that the results of experiments on animals have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, and still save as much. Unfortunately, experimental studies on animals can not be replaced by alternative methods.
Dear @Zabrodskii Thank you for your responses. One should not discouraged to follow the alternatives in Medicine as we are doing in Engineering. Nowadays, tissue and cell cultures, ... have become valuable additions to what is done to animals.
Anyway, animal research is a very controversial topic. The following excerpts from DLRM says why we should stop such experiments [1]:
Animal-based research cannot be extrapolated to humans because of species differences and is therefore misleading and counterproductive. Testing a drug or chemical on an animal provides no evidence that it is safe for humans: animals do not react in the same way to drugs and other substances as we do, due to differences in their absorption, distribution, metabolism, response to and elimination of drugs. Diseases which are induced artificially in the laboratory in order to evaluate drugs can never be compared to those arising spontaneously in humans. Following are just a few examples of drugs which have caused horrific harm to people, even though they had all been 'safety tested' on animals [1]:
OPREN
Hailed as a 'wonder-drug' for arthritis. Withdrawn in 1982 after 62 deaths and 3,500 serious side effects, in the UK alone, including damage to skin, eyes, circulation, liver, and kidneys.
CLIOQUINOL (also known as Entero-Vioform)
Given as an anti-diarrhoeal drug. Widely known to have caused 30,000 cases of blindness and/or paralysis in Japan alone and thousands of deaths worldwide. It caused a new serious disease called SMON.
THALIDOMIDE
Given as a sedative to pregnant women and marketed by Chemie-Gruenenthal as a "harmless tranquilizer for the pregnant woman and absolutely safe for the unborn child", it caused tens of thousands of birth defects worldwide. In adults, thalidomide also produced peripheral neuropathy (permanent nerve damage), not detected in animal tests.
ERALDIN
A heart drug given to patients for four years before side effects were identified, including blindness, stomach problems, pains in joints and growths.
Moneim A Fadali, MD FACS, Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgeon, USA. Patron, DLRM, states: "Animal models differ from their human counterparts. Conclusions drawn from animal research, are likely to delay progress, mislead and do harm to the patient "
It is imperative and urgent to end all animal experiments without delay, opening the way to a change in direction towards meaningful research, healing and protection, and thus restoring faith and respect in the medical profession.
Please see [1] for full debate.
http://www.dlrm.org/resources/alternative.htm
Dear @Mats. Thank you for enumerating the current stats on the issue of animal research. There are endless possibilities for producing 'irrefutable' evidence in support of any theory, through the use of various animal species. Following my previous answer by saying "animal-based research cannot be extrapolated to humans" here I present some examples:
1) There are 11,600 chemicals which have anti-cancer properties in mice, yet not one of these chemicals has been shown to have any anti-cancer properties in humans.
2) Of the 32 drugs used to treat cancer in humans, not one of them has anti-cancer effects in mice. ['Science' 1997 No 278 p.1041]
3) One hundred milligrams of scopolamine leave dogs and cats unaffected, but five milligrams are sufficient to kill a human being.. [Source: 'Vivisection or Science?' by Prof. Pietro Croce]
4) Novalgin is an anaesthetic for humans, but in cats it causes excitement and salivation, symptoms similar to those occurring in animals suffering from rabies. [Source: 'Vivisection or Science?' by Prof. Pietro Croce]
Please see more example from the link in my previous discussion on this thread.
Thank you dear @Matt. In my previous answer I presented few examples just to show that the topic is indeed "controversial", contrary to your opinion:
They found from 11,600 chemicals which have anti-cancer properties in mice, yet not one of these chemicals has been shown to have any anti-cancer properties in humans. Of the 32 drugs used to treat cancer in humans, not one of them has anti-cancer effects in mice. I am happy with R2 values as low as 0.6 (i.e., 60% on how well data fit a statistical model) in some of my modeling but not 0%.Don't you think "100% perfection" is a bit exaggeration.
Somebody gave me a negative vote for agreeing with Mats Mats I Nilsson! Is this a sin to agree with somebody?
Clinical trials of new drugs are always carried out on lower order species before diffusing the use to human beings.
In the days to come there can some Computer simulations which can alleviate the use of these animals too, may be far fetched now.
To Mahmoud
Aren't we fighting against some semantics? One can also say, that in vitro cellular studies often produce results that are not reproduced in in vivo studies and thus call them irrelevant and controversial. But everybody working in the field understands the importance and limitations of in vitro studies.
The same arguments are valid for animal studies. Yes, there are limitations of animal models: some are better the the others. But it doesn't udermine the utility of such studies.
Regarding the impressive list on drugs that work for some animal models and do not in humans (and vice versa), I just want to remind my colleagues that this knowledge has been obtained only AFTER long experimental studies on the uncharted territory. Could we get this knowledge a priory, without performing all the studies? I think the answer is obvious...
To Serge.
No dear we are not fighting. But there is two sides in every discussions. Some are agree some disagree. For your information on irrelevant and controversial. issues here I put some Pro and Con issues on animal experiments.
PRO Animal Testing
1- Animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments
2-There is no adequate alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system
3- Animals are appropriate research subjects because they are similar to human beings in many ways.
4-Animals must be used in cases when ethical considerations prevent the use of human subjects.
5-Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing.
6-Animal research is highly regulated, with laws in place to protect animals from mistreatment.
7- Animals often make better research subjects than human beings because of their shorter life cycles.
8-Animal researchers treat animals humanely, both for the animals' sake and to ensure reliable test results.
9-Animals do not have rights, therefore it is acceptable to experiment on them.
10-The vast majority of biologists and several of the largest biomedical and health organizations in the United States endorse animal testing.
11- Relatively few animals are used in research, which is a small price to pay for advancing medical progress.
CON Animal Testing
1- Animal testing is cruel and inhumane.
2- Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals.
3- Animals are very different from human beings and therefore make poor test subjects.
4- Drugs that pass animal tests are not necessarily safe.
5-Animal tests may mislead researchers into ignoring potential cures and treatments.
6- 95% of animals used in experiments are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act.
7- Animal tests do not reliably predict results in human beings.
8- Animal tests are more expensive than alternative methods and are a waste of government research dollars.
9- Most experiments involving animals are flawed, wasting the lives of the animal subjects.
10- Animals can suffer like humans do, so it is speciesism to experiment on them while we refrain from experimenting on humans.
11- Medical breakthroughs involving animal research may still have been made without the use of animals.
Full information is available from the link.
http://animal-testing.procon.org/
Mahmoud,
Can you possibly expand point #2 " Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals," please? I think this sub-topic can be of a great importance and interest for anybody involved in animal studies.
Dear @Serge . The answer was given earlier . For example, please refer the previous answer given by @Godfred A Menezes in this thread
Dear @Serge, The 3Rs are a widely accepted ethical framework for conducting scientific experiments using animals humanely:
Replacement - use of non-animal methods
Reduction - methods which reduce the number of animals used
Refinement - methods which improve animal welfare
These are the points of departure described by the two English researchers W.M.S. Russel and R.L. Burch in their book [1] on the 3R principle, namely Replacement, Reduction and Refinement.
[1] W.M.S. Russell and R.L. Burch, The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique.
Will all the respect to provided examples of would-be alternatives to animal testing, I don't see anything practical. Even the best case scenario i.e. growing cellular cultures may work to some extent for in vitro studies. However, there are no alternatives or substitutes for studies that require ex vivo and en vivo animal tests, unless as Mats said we start making clones.
Dear @Matt, Thank you for your response again.
If as you stated "Importantly, the "researchers" responsible for the website you provided are not experts in any biologically related subject matter. " means those researchers don't know what they are saying! What would be their response? Probably, they would say "Scientists who defend animal testing have a built-in conflict-of-interest because they are paid to use animals for research."
The Pro and Con list I gave was a sample of different opinion from both side of debate. That website was just an example. There are many more websites you can search yourself and get similar answers.
Animal trials are necessary not simply to examine the drugs for any kind of potential dangers and ensure the safety of drugs and many other substances humans use or are exposed to regularly, but because the drugs themselves save lives as well as improve the quality of human life. The medical breakthroughs that have occurred as a result of animal testing are also considered reason enough to continue the practice, with the aim of reducing human suffering and saving human lives. However, the issue has become controversial. An ethical issue against animal testing involves the inability of animals to consent to the tests that forced upon them, with no choice and involves pain, suffering and discomfort. Several countries across the world have imposed astringent laws and regulations for animal tests. Considering pros and cons of the issue, it can be said that animals must not be abused. They should be used for testing of vital drugs and not cosmetic products. Alternative tools like in-vitro, cell-line should be opted for pharmacological studies and if necessary animals should be used in the deciding stage of the trial.
But for testing of cancer drugs it is important to induce cancer in the animal to test the usability of the drug. If "animals must not be abused", then we should stop cancer drug trials. And these cannot be done in -vitro (cell-lines), in-situ or in-silico. They have to be done in vivo to be sure of the systemic effect of the drug, rather than local effects
Excellent point, Elbay! I just want to add that while initial studies are often done in vitro, drug uptake is very different for in vitro and vivo. The main reason is the presence of the reticuloendothelial (i.e., immune) system that attacks all foreign species introduced to the body. The efficiency is lower, the delivery is compromised etc.Yes, one can learn some basics from tests on the ideal system (in vitro), but if there is no in vivo follow up it's the dead end.
I found a book (more than 200 pages!, see attached PDF) called "1000 DOCTORS (AND MANY MORE) AGAINST VIVISECTION" by Hans Ruesch. It has lots of information about Vivisection*. Basically, it gives quotes from medical doctors and medical researchers who explain why animal experiments are not 'science' and can in fact lead to many dangerous products and procedures that injure and kill millions of humans.The book concludes the number of experts who consider animal experimentation not merely useless but dangerously misleading, and therefore to be abolished, is much greater than they expected.
*Vivisection - the term is now being used to apply to all experiments on living animals, whether or not cutting is done.
I had a thought: is it worth talking about animals, when it comes to defeating diseases, when thousands of cows, sheep, pigs, etc. kill for cooking.
And hunters ...? These people just kill animals!
Many of you have alluded, 'without pain and harm to the animals'. I am not sure if I agree with the statement. Whether you like it or not, laboratory experiment will eventually will cause pain, suffering, and death. I am not sure if you're thinking euthanize an animal quickly without causing any pain. In acute experiments, the animals are anesthetized and experiments are carried out. In chronic animal experiments, the animals are restrained for long time (of course, without their will!) in order to conduct experiments. Animals underwent acute experiments, die on the same day; and the chronic animals deteriorate in health, becomes unfit for experiment, and eventually euthanized. Chronic experiments might results changes in physiology and behavior of the animals. How can someone argue there shouldn't be pain and suffering. Whether we like it or not, there will be pain and suffering. We may or may not identify. Even if we identify, we just overlook in order to carry out our experiments. We just have to accept that as a fact! Experimental animals are 'not volunteers'. They are kept 'against their will'! When you sign up as a volunteer in a study, you have the rights to withdraw anytime without giving any reasons. But experimental animals are not! We do experiments, keeping some bigger issues in mind. We want to solve certain medical issues, enigmas, and puzzles. That's the reason why we do experiments. I am not sure if there is an animals experiment, which is totally harmless. I am not sure if the experiment is completed, after sometime, the animals are given to a shelter or adopted by someone. This is rarely the case. They become unfit, and eventually euthanized.
I would appreciate how others view my arguments!!!!!
one way out can be that someone can preech good thoughts which people can follow and like to listen to....imposing ideas will not help.Its a very senstive subject..
Thats the reason I say someone can work on the thought process and embibe good thoughts. ? But one will never will he aboe to impose his ideas
Dear @Mats I would like to thank you for your explanation. But world is full of surprises! Do you know what is Yin Yang fish. It is also called dead-and-alive fish in Taiwanese cuisine. This is a dish which consists of a deep-fried whole fish that remains alive after cooking! This practice has received condemnation for cruelty inflicted on the fish. What Do You Think Of Eating A Cooked Fish That's Still Alive? Sometimes tradition needs revision, don't you think so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_Yang_fish
Animal experiments cannot be avoided fully, it all depends on experiment you are conducting, however their use can be minimized and that is being regulated by Ethics committees, but for some important experiments and like challenging for studying protection we need to conduct on animals since directly many experiments cannot be conducted and also clinical trials cannot be done on humans.
Animal research cannot be reduced to Zero, it is not cruelty o animals but for safeguarding health of humans and their companion animals, and is applied different disciplines of biomedical sciences including medical and veterinary.
Dear @Kuldeep Thank you for the answer. You are right by saying "Animal research cannot be reduced to Zero", but I believe that it can be minimized. Here I introduce a review paper available in RG which provide some reduction strategies in animal research.
Jasmijn de Boo and Coenraad Hendriksen, 2005. Reduction strategies in animal research: a review of scientific approaches at the intra-experimental, supra-experimental and extra-experimental levels, Alternatives to laboratory animals: ATLA, 33(4):369-77.
Article Reduction strategies in animal research: A review of scienti...
Dear @v Mahmoud, I am developing a review paper on Alernatives to animal experimentation, will send you a copy when published. Hope It will be a nice compilation with good perspectives.
Thank you dear @Kuldeep. Your effort in writing a review paper on alternatives to animal experimentation is truly appreciated. The number of views and responses to my question was overwhelming and satisfactory. I thank all participants. The answers laid good foundation and made awareness of new ideas to minimize such experiments among scientists and researchers. .
Animal experimentation is a prerequisite for several human health studies for safeguarding human health for which such studies can not be avoided completely. In several disciplines of biomedical sciences (including medical and veterinary sciences) animal experimentations are conducted.
"....Alternatively, can animal experiments provide reliable information for curing or treating human ailments and illnesses?"
In Unfortunately, neither today nor tomorrow without animal experiments biology and medicine can not do.
And in the 20th and 19th century, many researchers conducted experiments on himself.
The goal - saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of people!
Rightly stated by Dear Kuldeep, Ruchi, Sandip and others, using animals for biological/medical experimentation can't be fully avoided. There are several reasons and arguments, pro and against the use of animals in scientific experimentation. Regrettably, animal testing is the best way to test potentially new medicines and if initially successful, then by human testing too. It is considered more humane to do medical testing on animals first, then on humans first, for the obvious reason that human life is considered more precious than animals. Meaning the few animals that are sacrificed or tested upon is worth less than the many animals that are potentially saved or helped, However, the ethics and morality of testing on animals is often debated. Yet, animal testing has proven itself to be both practical and a reasonably accurate means of testing.
Dear all,
Good day,
Yes, for the main goal to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Also we can't begin by humans for biological/medical experimentation.
Regards
Hi Mahmoud,
Think my answer to your question will be similar to the one I'd provided in the following RG link. Wishing you all the best.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_support_using_animals_in_experimental_research
Regards,
Fung
Co existence in the ecosystem with equal respect for each element is necessary.
I think animal testing is reliable as far as humans, because we are all animals, not much difference in the make-up.
If for some reasons we can not test directly on human beings, then it is advisable to test on animals first. I guess this is the best way out for the time being, we essentially choose the less dangerous and harmful route. In the future, maybe we don't even have to test on animals because of the advancement of technology, that would be great.
Why Are Animals Used in Research?
Human beings use animals for a wide variety of purposes, including research. The approximately 260 million people in the United States keep about 110 million dogs and cats as pets. More than 5 billion animals are killed in the United States each year as a source of food. Animals are used for transportation, for sport, for recreation, and for companionship.7
Animals are also used to learn more about living things and about the illnesses that afflict human beings and other animals. By studying animals, it is possible to obtain information that cannot be learned in any other way. When a new drug or surgical technique is developed, society deems it unethical to use that drug or technique first in human beings because of the possibility that it would cause harm rather than good. Instead, the drug or technique is tested in animals to make sure that it is safe and effective.
Animals also offer experimental models that would be impossible to replicate using human subjects. Animals can be fed identical and closely monitored diets. As with inbred mice, members of some animal species are genetically identical, enabling researchers to compare different procedures on identical animals. Some animals have biological similarities to humans that make them particularly good models for specific diseases, such as rabbits for atherosclerosis or monkeys for polio. (The polio vaccine was developed, and its safety is still tested, in monkeys.) Animals are also indispensable to the rapidly growing field of biotechnology, where they are used to develop, test, and make new products such as monoclonal antibodies.
Researchers draw upon the full range of living things to study life, from bacteria to human beings.8 Many basic biological processes are best studied in single cells, tissue cultures, or plants, because they are the easiest to grow or examine. But researchers also investigate a wide range of animal species, from insects and nematodes to dogs, cats, and monkeys. In particular, mammals are essential to researchers because they are the closest to us in evolutionary terms. For example, many diseases that affect human beings also affect other mammals, but they do not occur in insects, plants, or bacteria.
Far fewer animals are used in research than are used for other purposes. An estimated 17 to 22 million vertebrate animals are used each year in research, education, and testing—less than 1 percent of the number killed for food.9 About 85 percent of these animals are rats and mice that have been bred for research. In fiscal year 1988, about 142,000 dogs and 52,000 cats were used in experimentation, with 40,000 to 50,000 of those dogs being bred specifically for research and the others being acquired from pounds.10 Between 50,000 and 60,000 nonhuman primates, such as monkeys and chimpanzees, are studied each year, many of them coming from breeding colonies in the United States
http://www.nap.edu/read/10089/chapter/3
“If you want to test cosmetics, why do it on some poor animal who hasn't done anything? They should use prisoners who have been convicted of murder or rape instead. So, rather than seeing if perfume irritates a bunny rabbit's eyes, they should throw it in Charles Manson's eyes and ask him if it hurts.” ― Ellen DeGeneres
It is good because we would recorded so many death before the breakthrough in research
An estimated 26 million animals are used every year in the United States for scientific and commercial testing. Animals are used to develop medical treatments, determine the toxicity of medications, check the safety of products destined for human use, and other biomedical, commercial, and health care uses. Research on living animals has been practiced since at least 500 BC.
Proponents of animal testing say that it has enabled the development of many life-saving treatments for both humans and animals, that there is no alternative method for researching a complete living organism, and that strict regulations prevent the mistreatment of animals in laboratories.
Opponents of animal testing say that it is cruel and inhumane to experiment on animals, that alternative methods available to researchers can replace animal testing, and that animals are so different from human beings that research on animals often yields irrelevant results.
http://animal-testing.procon.org/
Did You Know? From: http://animal-testing.procon.org/
I don't like it, but there are MANY reasons which justify that practice. I wish we were able to find other solutions.
Though a combination of newer in vivo and in-vitro techniques, animal testing is yet required for repeat dose toxicity, carcinogenicity of drugs and certain behavioural studies. It seems therefore that animals are not entirely dispensable, especially in pharmacological and clinical research. This necessitates the need to practice the principles of 4Rs [Replacement-Reduction-Refinement- Rehabilitation] in animal experimentation and intensify our efforts in developing and validating suitable alternatives to their use.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4071700/
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
See, the philosophy of "Mahatma Gandhi" about treating Animals:
"The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
The terms equality, justice, love and compassion do not merely apply to us, but to the animals and birds as well.
There must be a strict delimitation and regulation to allow experimentation with living things in general and particular animal beings, including considering the objectives of the research, the actual need for animal testing and cognitive abilities recognized at the present time science of these animals.
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
"There is a growing scientific consensus that animals have emotions and feel pain. This awareness is going to effect change: better treatment of animals in agribusiness, research and our general interaction with them. It will change the way we eat, live and preserve the planet."
----- April Gornik
About Cosmetics Animal Testing
Did you know that in many parts of the world, animals in laboratories are still suffering and dying to test cosmetics such as lipstick and shampoo? They have chemicals forced down their throats and dripped into their eyes and onto their shaved skin. It's the ugly secret of the beauty industry that Humane Society International’s #BeCrueltyFree campaign is determined to end
http://www.hsi.org/issues/becrueltyfree/facts/about_cosmetics_animal_testing.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/
Testing Cosmetics and Household Products on Animals Banned
In a huge victory for animals, the European Union (EU), India, ... have banned the sale of any cosmetics or cosmetics ingredients that have been tested on animals. These marketing bans mean that companies all around the world will have to abandon animal testing for cosmetics they want to sell in these huge markets. The bans follow vigorous campaigning by PETA, its international affiliates, and members and supporters that included public protests, phone calls, and tens of thousands of e-mails.
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/cosmetic-household-products-animal-testing/
Fact Sheet: Cosmetic Testing
Q: Why do some companies still test cosmetics on animals if it's not required?
A: Some companies choose to develop and/or use new, untested ingredients in their cosmetic products and to conduct new animal tests to assess the safety of these new ingredients.
For more Q&A about cosmetic testing please refer to:
http://www.humanesociety.org/issues...c_testing/qa/questions_answers.html
Should animals be used in research?
Animals, from the fruit fly to the mouse, are widely used in scientific research. They are crucial for allowing scientists to learn more about human biology and health, and for developing new medicines.
The use of animals in scientific research has long been the subject of heated debate. On the one hand it is considered morally wrong to use animals in this way solely for human benefit.
On the other hand, removing animals completely from the lab would impede our understanding of health and disease, and consequently affect the development of new and vital treatments. Although sometimes these studies do reduce the quality of life of these animals, thorough regulations are in place to ensure that they are carried out in a humane way.
http://www.yourgenome.org/debates/should-animals-be-used-in-research
The legitimation of the animal-research debate challenges one of the most important and widely used scientific approaches to discovery about the human body and its diseases. Animal experimentation is often considered as much of a sine qua non to research as the Bunsen burner. But animal protectionists reply that the importance of animals to research is overrated, and that their pressure has exposed profligacy among experimenters.
https://harvardmagazine.com/1999/01/mice.html
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
"The Pros and Cons of Animal Testing
Animal testing is extremely controversial, so let’s review both the advantages and disadvantages of animal testing.
Reasons For Animal Testing
Reasons Against Animal Testing
Please, see the link ...
http://www.philforhumanity.com/Animal_Testing.html
Absolutely Not!
is my very personal opinion.
But then, we talk of Principle of Justice, beneficence e.t.c. e.t.c..i think it has only the so called human beings in its scope!
About medicines & cosmetics being tested on animals, ..Why not test it on human beings who can very well understand and might be willing to consent for the same rather than use poor animals (who are literally at our mercy) who are in no way concerned about if the daamn cosmetic works or not OR even if we find the cure for a disease.
regards
rathish
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematical Sciences
- Statistics
- Probability
- Probability Theory
- Reliability