Use Of Animals In Laboratory Test example essay topic

The Use of animals for Laboratory Testing There has been an on going debate on whether to use animals for laboratory testing. There are people now saying the use of animals in laboratory testing is not necessary and there are other alternatives. Many of these people claim the tests that are performed on the animals are not particularly valid. On the other hand, others claim that laboratory testing has been depended on animals to achieve medical advances.

Whether or not the use of animals in laboratory test is a matter of opinion. It will take the necessary investigation and consideration to figure out what needs to be done. Taking a closer look at each issue will help to show the use of laboratory testing should not be used. There are three issues that show the use of animals in laboratory testing should not be used: cruel, unnecessary, and there are other alternatives. The most obvious issue not to use animals in laboratory testing is it's cruel to animals. Animals used in the lavatories are used for testing drugs, vaccines, and consumer products.

Million of innocent animals die each year to determine the safety of products for humans. "To my mind life of the lamb is no less precious that that of a human being. I should be unwilling to take the life of the lamb for the sake of the human body. I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man" (Vincent 13). There are 2.5 million animals used in laboratory testing each year in this country (Chea). The side effects of these tests are disturbing.

The side effects of the eye test are redness, swelling, ulceration, bleeding, and blindness. Acute toxicity test effects are even worse. They include convulsions, labored breathing, BrigmanPage 2 malnutrition, skin eruptions, and bleeding from the eyes. The side effects of the skin test are redness of the skin, inflammation, weeping, and scabbing. The animals may also suffer symptoms such as abdominal pains and cramps, vomiting, paralysis, diarrhea, difficulty breathing, and bleeding ulcers.

When all of the experiments are finished all of the animals is killed (Chea). Another issue of using animals in laboratory is it's unnecessary. History has shown that many important medical advances have been made by clinical research and close observations of human patients, not animals. A study done by Vincent, at a Animal Research Medical Center found that the researchers are doing useless lung experiments on dogs.

They would remove sixty-eight percent of those foxhound's lungs and forced then to run on treadmills with masks placed over their faces. To fit the mask, the dog canine teeth are cut down. After exercises are completed, the dogs are killed and their lungs are examined. "The conclusion that has been reached is that tremendous pain and suffering are being inflicted upon helpless animals under the guise of research, and the results being attained or admittedly on no benefits to mankind" (Vincent 17). In most cases the drugs will need to be tested on humans before the FDA will approve them anyway and it is know fact that not all drugs work the same on humans as they do on animals (Masci). Therefore, regardless of animal testing the consumer always becomes the so called "guinea pig" for any new product.

The most important issue is understanding why companies still test on animals when non-animal alternatives exist. In response to reducing animal use in laboratory testing, a growing number of alternatives test have been develop. In vito test (involving BrigmanPage 3 cell and tissue cultures grow "in glass" in the laboratory) are among the alternatives showing the most promise in product testing (Masci). "The companies can rely on the existing estimated six to eight thousand ingredients to formulate of new product in the event of a ban.

This is the only ethical option given the extent of animals suffering involved in testing weighed against the potential benefit of innovation in the field. Non-animal alternatives exist for almost every test" (Drayer 12). Test alternatives are faster, cheaper and often more reliable than animal testing. Obviously, it is clear that the use of animals in laboratory testing should not be allowed. We should protect these animals from these awful experiments.

What we do to animals we would never do to people. We understand that people have a certain rights that keep them from being experimented on by other people. What we don't realize is that it is impossible to justify rights for humans, who are a type of animal, and deny rights to non-human animals. Animals have the right to life just as humans have a right to life (Chea). When it comes to what is best for the animals, not using then in laboratory testing has found to be the answers to many problems that have risen within the years of debate.

Brig man Page 4

Bibliography

Chea, Terence. Animal Testing. New York: Pocket, 2000.
Drayer, Mary". The Animal Dealers". Animal Fair May 2000: 12-16.
Masci, David. Fighting Over Animal Rights. Minnesota: McGraw, 1999.
Vincent, Norah. "Animal Rights and Wrong". Animal Today Sept. 1999: 13-18.