Introduction

There has been a contentious debate regarding the use of animals for commercial and scientific testing. Animals are used in assessing the safety of products that are meant for human consumption, the development of treatment and establishing the level of toxicity in medicines in the healthcare, commercial and biomedical sectors. The use of animals is harmful and ineffective as they do not suffer from the same ailments with humans (Hayelom 5). Most of the experiments cause animals pain and harm their quality of life. It is immoral, unfair and inhumane to use animals for testing yet, researchers continue to use them in their experiments. Animal testing should be banned as it is expensive, unethical and affects the quality of lives of the animals and scientists should use alternative methods in their research.

Discussion

To start with, animal testing opponents state that the practice is inhumane and cruel. The Humane Society International has reported that animals used in commercial and scientific testing are subjected to harsh conditions that injure them or lead to their death. They are exposed to forced breathing, water, and food deprivation, forced feeding, physical restraint and infliction of injuries to study the healing process. Further, they are killed using cruel means such as decapitation, neck breaking and using carbon dioxide asphyxiation. One of the unpopular methods that involve the use of animals is the Draize eye test that is popular in the beauty industry that studies the irritation caused by shampoos and a wide range of beauty products (Hayelom 7). The lethal dose 50 (LD50) test has also been found to be unethical and cruel as it entails testing whether a chemical being used in experiments can kill half of the animals. The animals that are used in experiments are not administered anesthesia. Animals that are subjected to this treatment include hamsters, guinea pigs, rabbits, and non-human primates.

Proponents of animal testing refute that it is inhumane and cruel by stating that it is has led to the discovery of life-saving cures. Most of the medical advancements in the past can be attributed to animal testing in the past century. The polio vaccine that can be associated with saving lives across the globe can be assigned to animal testing. Testing using animals has led to a greater understanding of conditions including tuberculosis, multiple sclerosis, malaria, leukemia, brain injury, and cancer (Willet 18). It has also played a vital role in the development of pacemakers, anesthetics, and cardiac valve substitutes. As a result, animal testing should be practiced as it has resulted in significant developments in healthcare.

Second, optional testing methods that do not involve animal use exist and this saves them from cruelty. Glass testing can be used in scientific studies and gives more relevant finding while compared to animal testing. Additionally, microdosing can be applied as it entails giving human volunteers controlled doses of the medicine to study their side effects (Willet 19). Human skin, for instance, Thin Cert and EpiDerm that mimics human skin cells can be grown in plastic wells and test tubes and offers better results than animal testing. Computer models including the virtual creation of molecular structures can be utilized without conducting cruel experiments using animals.

Supporters of animal testing have pointed out that there is no adequate method of testing the functioning of the body. The human system is intricate and can be studied best by using animals. While observing cell cultures in vitro testing has been found to be promising, it does not give the chance to evaluate interrelated processes taking place in the immune and endocrine systems. Studying the side effects of drugs needs a comprehensive understanding of the circulatory system to establish the impact that they will have on different systems (Willet 19). Conditions such as high blood pressure and blindness are challenging to establish using tissue cultures. The efficiency of computer models should be based on animal research. As a result, animal testing supports meaningful research in healthcare.

Third, animals vary greatly from human beings, and this makes them unfit test subjects. The cellular, metabolic and anatomic differences between human beings and animals make them poor models. It is difficult to find an animal subject that has a system that is close to human beings. Animals are different in terms of weight, height and genetic composition meaning that the research in animal testing is inaccurate. However, animals are suitable research subjects as they are like human beings in various ways (Willet 18). Mice and chimpanzees that are commonly used in animal testing are genetically similar to humans. Consequently, the findings from animal testing apply to humans and have resulted in the discovery of cures to ailments and the establishment of the safety of substances for human consumption. Most of the animal subjects are mammals that have similar organs with human beings including lungs, kidneys and the heart. Their functioning is substantially identical as they have a central nervous system and the bloodstream. Owing to the similarities between humans and animals, they are affected by the same illnesses and conditions including diabetes, cancer and heart disease.

Fifth, there is a common misconception that drugs that pass the animal testing stage are safe, but this is incorrect. Cases in the past have revealed inconsistencies in animal testing. For example, in the 1950s, a sleeping pill known as thalidomide caused babies to be born with severe defects in spite of successful animal testing. The tests that had been conducted on hamsters, guinea pigs, mice, and rats did not reveal similar results although high doses of the drug were administered. Additionally, the animal tests that were done on Vioxx which an arthritis drug showed that it had a protective impact on the heart of the mice subjects that were used (Willet 18). Vioxx was later pulled from the market as it caused cardiac deaths and heart attacks in humans. This proves that animal tests do not necessarily ensure the safety of drugs before their commercial release. Advocates of animal testing argue that animals should be used to stop the use of human subjects. The use of human volunteers should be discouraged as toxicity could damage their liver putting their lives at risk. It is also unethical to conduct invasive procedures on humans proving that animal testing is the safest approach.

Fifth, the findings from animal tests could be misleading causing researchers to pay no attention to potential treatments and cures. Some chemicals that are harmful or ineffective on animals are effective when used by humans. For instance, aspirin is a dangerous drug when used on some animals while it has worked on humans over the years. Intravenous vitamin C is efficient in the treatment of sepsis in people while it failed in mice (Willet 18). This means that human beings could be missing out on valuable therapies that have failed in animal testing. Supporters of animal testing show that the practice has been beneficial to the animals too. Vaccines have been tested on animals over the years and been used in the treatment of diseases including parvovirus, anthrax, tetanus, leukemia, infectious hepatitis, rabies, distemper, and feline. Animal therapies that are developed through testing have led to the discovery of remedies that address hip dysplasia and glaucoma. They have also been pivotal in saving rare species from extinction such as Koalas, Tamarins and the black-footed Tamarins.

Sixth, animal rights are violated in testing as most of the experiments specifically in the beauty industry do not adhere to the Animal Welfare Act. Asides from this, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) does not cover species including birds, fish, mice, and rats that are commonly used in research (Hayelom 24). These animals are susceptible to mistreatment in the beauty and medical sectors where they are widely used.

Promoters of animal testing state that animal testing is highly controlled as laws have been put in place to protect animals from abuse. Local and state laws have been put in place to control animal testing. These laws were introduced in 1966 with the aim of protecting animals used in research. The AWA calls for standard inspection by veterinarians and specifies that minimum housing standards are met such as access to clean water and food, appropriate temperature and the structures with the right size (Willet 18). All projects that use animal subjects should be approved by the IACUC (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee). Research institution initiatives are willingly assessed by the AAALAC (Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care) for their adherence to animal rights. Institutions that are funded by the US Public Health Service that is abbreviated as PHS should abide by the existing animal protection rules.

Seventh, tests results from animal subjects may not be the same in human beings. It has been observed that most of the drugs that are found to be effective in animal trials fail in clinical trials. This has been confirmed in the cases of HIV vaccines that have succeeded in non-human primates but failed for people (Maguire and Eric 44). Stroke drugs that were found to be effective in animals failed in human beings. These assertions are supported by studies conducted by PNAs (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America) that found that the drugs that were used to reduce inflammation in humans failed in spite of being successful in animal testing. The low success rates of animal experiments in research questions the use of animal research to study the safety of human beings.

On the other hand, animals make suitable subjects because they have shorter life cycles and have led to the discovery of successful treatments in the past. Supporters of animal testing assert that laboratory tests have short life spans of up to three years and can be utilized to research the impact of genetic manipulation and treatments in different generations. Rats and mice are valuable in the comprehensive research of cancer and other illnesses whose cure has not been established.

The eighth argument is based on ethical and religious grounds. As previously mentioned, the animals that are used in cosmetic and medical research are subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment (Maguire and Eric 23). Ethically, this goes against animal rights and is morally wrong. On the other hand, religion is based on the determination of whether an act is right or wrong. Animal testing is judged to be wrong as it is viewed to be abuse of the creation. On the contrary, religious traditions support animal testing as humans were placed in charge of the creation. This is based on the argument that man was given dominion over creation. Judging from a Muslim, Christian and Jewish standpoint, it can be argued that animal experimentation is right as long as it does not harm them.

The ninth argument is based on the evidence that animal testing is attributed to a high level of waste and results in flawed findings. Animal testing requires significant investment in terms of money and time. The government spends a substantial amount of money on animal experimentation, and some of these studies have not resulted in positive discoveries. A peer-reviewed study showed that significant mistakes were found in UK and US studies using primates and rodents. Most of the studies did not meet the random choice of animals. Additional flaws were found in the control groups, unexpected technical issues, and inaccurate data interpretation (Maguire and Eric 33). Most of the animals that are used in biomedical research are killed, and they are sacrificed for substandard analysis. Biologists and specialists in biomedical research support animal testing as an essential contributor to the developments that have been attained in the scientific field over the years. It has also been observed that only a limited number of animals are used in scientific studies which are seen to be a small price to pay for scientific advancements.

Finally, opponents of animal testing argue that the practice has failed in preventing common and horrific cases of animal abuse in laboratories (Maguire and Eric 34). For instance, there were blatant violations of the AWA in NIRC (New Iberia Research Center) that entailed the intimidation of primates using a shotgun. Primates were also exposed to a high level of psychological stress. Lawsuits have been brought forward against institutions such as the SNBL (Shin Nippon Biomedical Laboratories) for the violation of AWA where primate subjects were exposed to hyperthermia, suffocation, and hypoglycemia resulting in their deaths. On the contrary, supporters of animal experimentation state that institutions adhere to the ethical standards and animal protection regulations in their activities.

Conclusion

The discussion shows that animal testing is unethical, cruel and wrong due to the lack of proper controls in experimentation and the inconsistencies in findings. Consequently, the practice should be discouraged as it harms animals and has failed to come up with effective cures in some instances. Animal testing specifically in the cosmetics sector has been found to misuse the subjects that are later killed using cruel means. Researchers in the scientific and cosmetics sectors are advised to use advanced methods to study the effects of medicines on the human system and use human volunteers to test the efficacy of drugs. Animal experimentation should be banned to protect the rights and welfare of animals.

Works Cited

Hayelom, Henok. Animal Testing. Stop Using Animals for Scientific Research. , 2017. Print.

Linzey, Andrew, and Clair Linzey. The Ethical Case against Animal Experiments. , 2018. Print.

Maguire, Timothy J, and Eric Novik. Methods in Bioengineering: Alternative Technologies to           Animal Testing. Boston, Mass: Artech House, 2010. Print.

Willett, Julie A. The American Beauty Industry Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, Calif: Greenwood,    2010. Print.