After studying multiple views on animal testing I have come to realize my personal view has now changed since the start of my research. Before undergoing heavy study into animal testing I believed that all types of animal testing should be stopped, but now I believe that the idea is very beneficial and should only be done when the rights of the animal are considered. In the coming years, hopefully, more regulations can be passed to ensure that all animal’s lives are protected during experimentation. Although most animals are treated with care and no pain is dealt to them when undergoing testing, it would be a lie if I stated no animals are harmed during the process. Animal testing is extremely useful in developing life-saving drugs and medicine.
…show more content…
Kehinde (2013) explains how chimpanzees and monkeys were used “For the study of hepatitis B and poliomyelitis leading to the development of effective vaccines against these diseases (pg 54).” Without the use of animals many drugs that help cure illnesses would not be possible, or it would have taken much longer to find and possibly could have led to major harm in humans. With the use of genetically modified animals, it has become much easier to find cures for illnesses and diseases. Modifying animals results in being able to test on something that closer resembles a human. Using these modified animals allows scientists to take more efficient tests and allow them to get a more fair and reliable result at the end of their experiment. Effective treatment has been developed for different types of cancer, such as breast cancer and prostate cancer with the use of genetically modified animals (pg …show more content…
The first R, and the only one I choose not to agree with fully represents replacement. Replacement stated as “Employing non-sentient material which may replace methods which use conscious living vertebrates. (p. 115)” Kolar tries to tell us there are many viable alternatives to replace animal testing but never really gives any specific ones considering none have been proven to be as effective as testing on an animal. The next R is reduction, “lowering the number of animals used to obtain information of a given amount and precision. (p. 116)” I agree with this R because it has been proven that the amount of animals, and the time spent on animals, are unnecessary. According to Collin Berry in his article Hazardous products: Cut animal wastage in toxicology testing(2015) “Studies using rodents for their full lifetime continue, despite evidence that 90-day tests have the same predictive value. (2015)” The final R in “The 3R’s Concept” is refinement. Kolar explains refinement as a “decrease in the incidence of severity of inhumane procedures applied to those animals, which have to be used. (p. 116)” I highly agree with this statement considering my whole premise on the belief of animal testing is that the animals are treated fairly. As a whole, this concept is a reliable way to make sure animals are treated fairly in their respective research
Kehinde (2013) explains how chimpanzees and monkeys were used “For the study of hepatitis B and poliomyelitis leading to the development of effective vaccines against these diseases (pg 54).” Without the use of animals many drugs that help cure illnesses would not be possible, or it would have taken much longer to find and possibly could have led to major harm in humans. With the use of genetically modified animals, it has become much easier to find cures for illnesses and diseases. Modifying animals results in being able to test on something that closer resembles a human. Using these modified animals allows scientists to take more efficient tests and allow them to get a more fair and reliable result at the end of their experiment. Effective treatment has been developed for different types of cancer, such as breast cancer and prostate cancer with the use of genetically modified animals (pg …show more content…
The first R, and the only one I choose not to agree with fully represents replacement. Replacement stated as “Employing non-sentient material which may replace methods which use conscious living vertebrates. (p. 115)” Kolar tries to tell us there are many viable alternatives to replace animal testing but never really gives any specific ones considering none have been proven to be as effective as testing on an animal. The next R is reduction, “lowering the number of animals used to obtain information of a given amount and precision. (p. 116)” I agree with this R because it has been proven that the amount of animals, and the time spent on animals, are unnecessary. According to Collin Berry in his article Hazardous products: Cut animal wastage in toxicology testing(2015) “Studies using rodents for their full lifetime continue, despite evidence that 90-day tests have the same predictive value. (2015)” The final R in “The 3R’s Concept” is refinement. Kolar explains refinement as a “decrease in the incidence of severity of inhumane procedures applied to those animals, which have to be used. (p. 116)” I highly agree with this statement considering my whole premise on the belief of animal testing is that the animals are treated fairly. As a whole, this concept is a reliable way to make sure animals are treated fairly in their respective research