There is no denying that using animals in the progress of medical research and study is necessary. That being said, the current rulings and principles of this form of scientific research are being challenged by different countries worldwide. In one such case, a U.K. clinical trial was done to limit the use of animals in their study of the TeGenero leukemia drug. “Of the new European tests, for example, five detect pyrogenic contaminants in drugs—bacteria that infiltrate injectable or intravenous drugs during manufacturing and cause lethal immune reactions. The tests rely on cultured human white blood cells and might replace two existing, more expensive methods—the Limulus assay and testing on rabbits” (Sinha). When this was first discovered,
…show more content…
Having said that, I find it absolutely obligatory for the either government or medical establishments to put a fair and sensible restrictions and margins on the traditions and conducts of these types of tests. The idea of an animal suffering is not a pretty image, but neither is a human being suffering. Suffering is a very loose term; feeding a cat tuna is suffering for a dead fish. The point being that everyone and everything suffers in some way or another at least once in their life. Animal testing can be brutal, but there are a multitude of other possibilities and exceptions for these protests and disagreements. Proponents of animal testing say that it has enabled the development of numerous life-saving treatments for both humans and animals, that there is no substitute method for researching a complete living organism. Yet, since most people don’t want to harm animals, there are some legally binding acts, such as the AWA requires that each research facility develop an internal institutional animal committee to "represent society 's concerns regarding the welfare of animal subjects." The group must be comprised of at least three members. One member must be a veterinarian and one must be unaffiliated with the organization. Even so, that is just one of the potential limitations for these routine procedures. All in all, I’m not saying that we humans should only care about animals and drop everything to participate in these experiments ourselves, but I am saying that it wouldn’t and couldn’t kill people to at least tone down some of the force and roughness of these
Having said that, I find it absolutely obligatory for the either government or medical establishments to put a fair and sensible restrictions and margins on the traditions and conducts of these types of tests. The idea of an animal suffering is not a pretty image, but neither is a human being suffering. Suffering is a very loose term; feeding a cat tuna is suffering for a dead fish. The point being that everyone and everything suffers in some way or another at least once in their life. Animal testing can be brutal, but there are a multitude of other possibilities and exceptions for these protests and disagreements. Proponents of animal testing say that it has enabled the development of numerous life-saving treatments for both humans and animals, that there is no substitute method for researching a complete living organism. Yet, since most people don’t want to harm animals, there are some legally binding acts, such as the AWA requires that each research facility develop an internal institutional animal committee to "represent society 's concerns regarding the welfare of animal subjects." The group must be comprised of at least three members. One member must be a veterinarian and one must be unaffiliated with the organization. Even so, that is just one of the potential limitations for these routine procedures. All in all, I’m not saying that we humans should only care about animals and drop everything to participate in these experiments ourselves, but I am saying that it wouldn’t and couldn’t kill people to at least tone down some of the force and roughness of these