Adam Christian
Mr. Sidella
English 4
May 8, 2018
Animal Rights: Animal Experimentation The government needs to establish and enforce stricter regulations for animal experimenting, or end it if possible, to protect these living beings from the torture and pain that is inflicted upon them. Animals are subject to treatments and experimented on “in the name of science.” However, a lot of these experiments are conducted under terrible conditions, and the results cannot even be applied to human medicine and health. Also, with all of the advancements in technology we have made in recent years, we have plenty of alternative testing methods that we could use instead of animal experimenting. In experiments, animals are treated as just test subjects …show more content…
Scientists like to use the defense that their experiments will lead to advancement in human health and medicine, but in reality, most of the information gathered will not help us. The American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS) is a nonprofit organization that works toward eliminating procedures of groups that deal with animal cruelty. The AAVS declares that animal testing is not valid when testing treatments for human diseases because the treatments cannot reliably predict the outcomes when tested on humans. They stated, “…animal models have never been validated and the claim that animals are necessary for biomedical research is unsupported by scientific literature.” (Engdahl) An example of an unreliable experiment was a study conducted by Alfred Hospital and Monash University involving twelve greyhounds. The greyhounds were deliberately suffocated, and then had their hearts removed just to be transplanted again. All of the dogs in this experiment were killed. According to Humane Research Australia, the study was not conducted using human-biology based research methods, so the results “are only representative of the success of cold crystalloid perfusion and heart transplantation in canines, and therefore the results of the study have no direct clinical applications.” The major anatomical differences between animals and humans makes this experiment “inappropriate for …show more content…
Some alternatives include test methods and models based on human cell and tissue cultures, computer models and simulations, and stem cell and genetic testing methods. Alternative tests are actually more reliable and more accurate than animal tests. For example, experiments conducted using rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, mice, monkeys, and baboons showed no link between glass fibers and cancer. It wasn’t until after human studies revealed a link between the two that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) labeled glass fibers as carcinogenic. The New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS) stated, “EpiDem, and in vitro test derived from cultured human skin cells, was found to be more accurate in identifying chemical skin irritants than traditional animal tests. In comparison studies, EpiDerm correctly detected all of the test chemicals that irritate human skin, while tests on rabbits misclassified ten out of twenty-five test chemicals – a full 40% error rate.” People often make the mistake of believing that animal tests are more accurate than any alternative testing method, and that animal tests are essential to scientific research, when it is actually quite the
Mr. Sidella
English 4
May 8, 2018
Animal Rights: Animal Experimentation The government needs to establish and enforce stricter regulations for animal experimenting, or end it if possible, to protect these living beings from the torture and pain that is inflicted upon them. Animals are subject to treatments and experimented on “in the name of science.” However, a lot of these experiments are conducted under terrible conditions, and the results cannot even be applied to human medicine and health. Also, with all of the advancements in technology we have made in recent years, we have plenty of alternative testing methods that we could use instead of animal experimenting. In experiments, animals are treated as just test subjects …show more content…
Scientists like to use the defense that their experiments will lead to advancement in human health and medicine, but in reality, most of the information gathered will not help us. The American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS) is a nonprofit organization that works toward eliminating procedures of groups that deal with animal cruelty. The AAVS declares that animal testing is not valid when testing treatments for human diseases because the treatments cannot reliably predict the outcomes when tested on humans. They stated, “…animal models have never been validated and the claim that animals are necessary for biomedical research is unsupported by scientific literature.” (Engdahl) An example of an unreliable experiment was a study conducted by Alfred Hospital and Monash University involving twelve greyhounds. The greyhounds were deliberately suffocated, and then had their hearts removed just to be transplanted again. All of the dogs in this experiment were killed. According to Humane Research Australia, the study was not conducted using human-biology based research methods, so the results “are only representative of the success of cold crystalloid perfusion and heart transplantation in canines, and therefore the results of the study have no direct clinical applications.” The major anatomical differences between animals and humans makes this experiment “inappropriate for …show more content…
Some alternatives include test methods and models based on human cell and tissue cultures, computer models and simulations, and stem cell and genetic testing methods. Alternative tests are actually more reliable and more accurate than animal tests. For example, experiments conducted using rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, mice, monkeys, and baboons showed no link between glass fibers and cancer. It wasn’t until after human studies revealed a link between the two that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) labeled glass fibers as carcinogenic. The New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS) stated, “EpiDem, and in vitro test derived from cultured human skin cells, was found to be more accurate in identifying chemical skin irritants than traditional animal tests. In comparison studies, EpiDerm correctly detected all of the test chemicals that irritate human skin, while tests on rabbits misclassified ten out of twenty-five test chemicals – a full 40% error rate.” People often make the mistake of believing that animal tests are more accurate than any alternative testing method, and that animal tests are essential to scientific research, when it is actually quite the