Animal Experimentation

AnimalExperimentation

Researchon animals usually known as animal experimentation is an old practicedating back to about 500BC. Annually, about 26 million animals in theU.S are used for substance testing. These animals including rats,pigs, rabbits, mice, dogs, cats, and sheep to mention a few, areutilized to produce medical treatments, asses drug toxicity, assesssafety of beauty products and other products meant for humanconsumption and other medical, health care and commercial purposes(Dees 586). Proponents of animal experimentation usually cite theimportance of research using animals in improving human life.Regardless, the use of animals in experiments is unnecessary andresult to suffering and death of millions of animals involved.

Animalexperimentation is cruelty to animals and in fact inhumane. Animalsused in experimentation are usually subjected to forced inhalation,forced feeding habit, starvation, prolonged sessions of physicalrestraint, injured to study effects of certain injuries and possibleremedies as well as killing by suffocation, decapitation orneck-breaking among other ways. For example, the Draize eye test isa common experiment used to test cosmetic products like shampoo’sirritation effect is carried out in rabbits. In this test, rabbitsare incapacitated and their eyelids pinned to remain open so that theproduct being tested does not spill from blinking. The most commontest is the LD50 which is meant to establish which dose will killhalf the animals being used in the test (Michael and John 46).According to the United States Department of Agriculture, 97,123animals were subjected to pain during experiments in 2010 while noanesthesia was given (ProCon.org N.P).

Animalexperimentation is basically useless since there are other viableoptions. For instance, most companies dealing with beauty productshave opted for other ways of testing their products not using animalsubjects. Synthetic human skin such as the two commercially usedmodels of ThinCert and EpiDerm are created from films of human beingskin cells developed either in plastic wells or test tubes and canbring out more accurate outcomes than animal experimentation(ProCon.org N.P). In addition, computer models like the virtualrebuilding of human molecular structures are used to predict thetoxicity of products without necessarily using animals. For instance,James Hickman a professor from the University of Central Floridacreated a tech that imitates typical human muscular function and itsinteraction with assorted treatments not involving animal or humansubjects (Croswell N.P). F Hence animal testing is just unnecessary.

Notall drugs that pass drug animal test are safe. The effects of drugson animals have proved to be different from that of humans. Forexample, animal tests on Vioxx, a drug meant to treat arthritisexhibited a shielding effect on the heart of mice, yet it led to morethan 27,000 cardiac arrests and deaths before being withdrawn fromthe market.

Supportersof animal testing argue that animal testing have facilitated severallife saving treatments and cures. On the contrary, this statementdoes not hold water. In fact an editorial in the reputable Journal ofthe Royal Society of Medicine refutes this assertion as it lackedevidence. Majority of experiments on animals are only carried outfrom curiosity and are not relevant to health (PETA N.P). Forexample, since 1971 when former U.S President Richard Nixon assent tothe Conquest of Cancer Act, the U.S has continued losing the war oncancer. The nation has spent an excess of $200 billion in taxes,private funding and donations on cancer. Regardless, over half amillion people die annually due to cancer, a 73 percent rise sincethe ‘fight’ began (PETA N.P). Thus, using animals in researchhave shown no significant progress in providing life savingtreatments or cures as supporters of the practice try to argue.

Inconclusion, animal testing is a practice that has been in place foryears. Animals suffer indiscriminately as humans try to justify theiruse in medical research and testing other consumer products.Subjecting animals to inhumane treatment in morally wrong and shouldbe stopped as modern technologies have provided other alternativesfor testing of substances. Ultimately, there is no concrete evidencethat animal testing has improved human life as shown in this essay.

WorksCited

MichaelA. Kamrin and John H. Montgomery, Agrochemicaland Pesticide Desk Reference,2000.

ProCorn.org.Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing? N.D.Web. 2/3/2016. &lt http://animal-testing.procon.org/&gt

Dees,Richard H. &quotAnimal extremists` threats to neurologic researchcontinue: Neuroreality II.&quot Neurology86.6 (2016): 586-586.

PETA.Animal Testing Is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint. Web. 2/3/2016. &lthttp://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-bad-science/&gt

CroswellAlexis. 5 Reasons Testing on Animals Makes No Sense. 4/12/2013. Web.2/3/2016. &lthttp://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/5-reasons-testing-on-animals-makes-no-sense/&gt