 |
 |
 |
 |
Debates
Thanks to animal research, scientists
have discovered ways to save and prolong human life. Through
research on animals, the vaccinations such as polio were discovered,
organ transplants were perfected, and trauma surgery techniques were
determined. But despite the benefits achieved from animal research,
a great debate has ensued regarding the necessity of using animals
in research and testing. Below are some of the common questions
surrounding the debate of using animals in research to promote
animal and human health and prolong their life.
Q. Why do drugs, and other substances undergo animal testing?
A. From brushing your teeth first thing in the morning
to the art supplies used in your school projects; you are exposed to
a variety of consumer products every day. You use these without considering
how safe they might be for your health. You never give a second thought
to the safety of the products you use daily – shampoo, household cleaning
supplies, toothpaste – because animal testing has deemed them safe for
human use. Today, most products are safe, but that wasn’t always the
case. Thanks to stringent testing required by law, we are assured that
consumer goods are safe to use.
Testing helps save lives. Poison control centers receive almost
1.6 million phone calls each year related to accidental poisonings
from consumer goods such as household cleaners or chemicals. More
than 60 percent of these calls involve young children. Without
testing, we could not know what needs to be done in the case of
accidental ingestion or exposure. Research conducted on these
products helps doctors treat patients who have been accidentally
exposed to potentially harmful substances.
Testing protects people, animals and the environment. We need
to know that the products we use won’t harm people, animals or the
environment. Testing tells us that the shampoo we use won’t
seriously harm our eyes; that the chemical spill at a local plant
won’t harm the environment. More than 40,000 calls about animal
poisoning are received by poison control centers, mostly involving
family pets. Through animal testing, we learn how to safely use
products near pets, livestock and animals in the wild. Information
on accidental misuse or overdosing designed to protect humans also
protects animals.
Q. Why do we test cosmetics?
A. Adequate testing of each and
every product available today is a moral and legal obligation to the
public. Every day, your family uses cosmetics – deodorant, perfumes,
and makeup – that have been tested on animals. Without these tests,
your family would be at risk for serious illness every time they use
a product. We need to know that the shampoo you use every night, the
lipstick your mom wears, the shaving cream your dad shaves with are
all safe.
We should all remember the circumstances that led to animal
testing of consume products. As recently as a few decades ago,
people were routinely subjected to products that hadn’t been
tested and weren’t safe. Use of these products led to serious
illness and injury, including blindness and death.
Since more people are exposed to cosmetic products on a daily
basis than drugs, it is extremely important that these products
are safe in order to prevent tragic consequences. In order to
protect human life, almost every type of product requires
stringent testing. It’s not enough to know that a product is safe
for its intended use, however; we must also consider ways a
product could be accidentally used. We have to make sure products
will not cause harm years after their use.
Q. Why don’t we use "cruelty-free"
products?
A. The term "cruelty-free" is often misleading,
misused and misunderstood. Since federal law mandates that each product
on the market undergo stringent testing, the companies that use the
"cruelty-free" label either contract out for the animal tests
or use products and ingredients already deemed to be safe through animal
testing.
Also, be aware that researchers using animals in tests are
required to follow strict federal guidelines about the care and
health of every animal used in the project. These guidelines
forbid the misuse or ill treatment of any animal, and demand that
animals be kept from suffering as a result of any experiment.
Cruelty is not a part of any animal research project.
Q. Are researchers using more and more animals
every year?
A. Some people think researchers consistently use more
animals each year. But, in fact, the opposite is true. The number of
animals used in research has actually declined in the past 20 years.
As technology advances, researchers are able to rely on computer models
and other methods instead of animal testing.
Some estimates show a reduction in animal use as high as 50
percent. Since 1967, the number of cats used in research has
dropped 66 percent. For a variety of reasons, such as the increase
in non-animal testing and refinement of laboratory animal
medicine, fewer animals are needed for many research projects.
Q. Why aren’t computer models used instead of
animals?
A. Computer models are often used instead of
animal testing, or in conjunction with animal testing. However, a computer
simply can’t mimic the complexities of an entire biological system.
That’s why animals are used.
For more information on alternatives to animal testing, see the
following sites:
http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu
http://www.jhsph.edu/~altweb/
http://www.envirolink.org
There are alternatives to animal testing – mathematical models,
computer simulations and tissue cultures are used in preliminary
testing. But these procedures cannot reliably predict the effect
of a chemical on the combined organ systems of a human body.
Q. Do the experiments cause pain to the animals?
A. The use of animals in research is strictly controlled,
regulated through the United States Department of Agriculture. Federal
laws, including the Animal Welfare Act, regulate the elimination and
alleviation of pain, as well as other aspects of animal care such as
caging, feeding, exercise, and psychological well being.
The use of animals in research is a privilege and those animals
who are helping us unlock the mysteries of disease treatment
deserve the very best possible care. Because of this, the
scientific community advocates the highest quality of animal care
and treatment. Also, a well-treated animal, one without disease or
pain, will provide more reliable scientific results, the goal of
all researchers.
In order to guarantee the best possible treatment, each
institution that uses animals must establish a animal care and use
committee (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee or IACUC),
which oversees, inspects and monitors every potential experiment.
This committee includes members of the scientific community, an
outside member of the public and a veterinarian.
Q. Why use animals at all?
A. There are striking similarities between the physiological
systems of humans and various species of animals. Much of what we know
about the immune system has come from studies with mice. Research on
dogs has provided a great deal of information about the cardiovascular
system.
Don’t forget, too, that animal research helps other animals.
Vaccines for parvovirus in dogs and feline leukemia in cats were
possible through animal testing. Research on animals has also
provided methods to bring some species back from the brink of
extinction.
Without animal research, virtually every medical breakthrough of
the past century would not have been possible. Thanks to the
animals used in research, we have discovered vaccinations for
polio, how to transplant organs, how to transfuse blood, how to
deal with patients involved in serious trauma, such as a car
accident. Research has shown us how to prevent cancer and heart
attack through nutrition and exercise. The creation of insulin for
diabetics, hip replacement surgery, dialysis for kidney patients,
all have come from animal research.
Continuing the Debate:
For more information on both sides of the
animal research debate, the following sources may be helpful. All
the resources listed should be available at a large community or
university library. The Internet resources are available on the
World Wide Web.
Catalog of Subject Headings:
- Animal Experimentation
- Biotechnology
- Animal Rights
- Cosmetics Testing
- Animals, Care Of
- Diseases – Animal Models
- Animals, Exploitation
- Dissection
- Animals, Treatment of
- Laboratory Animals
- Beauty and Cosmetics
- Medical Research
- Bioethics
- Vivisection
Call Number Areas:
- SF406
- RB 125
- QL51
- QH 332
- HV 4915
Magazine/Periodical Index:
- Animal Agenda
- Laboratory Animal Science
- PETA News
Selected Book Titles
- Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and
Education. QL51.2.U6A48
- Animal Factories. SF51.M37
- Animal Rights and Human Obligations, 2nd Ed.
HV4711.A56
- Animal Smugglers and Other Wildlife Trades. QL82.N53
- Animal Rights: Opposing Viewpoints. HV4711.A58
- Contribution of Laboratory Animal Science to the Welfare of
Man and Animals: Past, Present, and Future. QL83.I.36
- In the Company of Animals. SF411.5.S47
- Laboratory Animal Husbandry: Ethnology, Welfare and
Experimental Valuables. SF406.F69
- Rights, Killing and Suffering. TX392.F85.
- Scientific Perspectives on Animal Welfare. HV4704.S34
Other Sources
Ethical and Philosophic Aspects
- Beauchamp, TL. The moral standing of animals in medical
research. Law Med Health Care 1992 Spring-Summer; 20(1-2): 7-16
- DeGrazia D. The moral status of animals and their use in
research: a philosophical review. Kennedy Inst. Ethics J 1991 Mar;
1(1): 48-70.
- Gluck JP, Kubacki SR. Animals in biomedical research: the
undermining effect of eh rhetoric of the besieged. Ethics Behav.
1991; 1(3): 157-73.
- Matfield M. Animal research within an ethical framework. ATLA
1992 Apr; 20(2): 334-7.
Animal Rights
- Anderson JH. Animal rights and research: common sense must
prevail. Radiology 1992 Sep; 1184 (3) 647-51
- Caldwell Jr. Patients’ rights versus animal rights
(editorial). J. Fla Med Assoc 1992 Jul; 79(7): 439-40
- Goodwin FK. Animal rights: medical research and product
testing: is this a "hand together or together we hang" issue?
Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci 1992 Jan; 31(1): 6-11
- Smith SZ. Animal rights and experimental medicine (editorial)
J Ky Med Assoc 1992 Aug: 90(8):381
Replacement, Reduction, Refinement
- Balls M. The replacement of animal testing: ethical issues and
practical realities. Int. J Cosmet Sci 1991 Feb; 13 (1) 23-8
- Bruner LH. Alternatives to the use of animals in household
product and cosmetic testing. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1992 March 1;2000
(5): 669-73
- DeLuca Am, Kranda KC. Environmental enrichment in a large
animal facility. Lab Anim (New York) Jan:21(1): 38-44
- Whitney RA Jr. Research and development to enhance laboratory
animal welfare. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1992 Mar 1; 200(5):663-6
- Spinelli JS. Preventing suffering in laboratory animals.
Scanned J Lab Anim SCI 1991; 18(4):159-64
Other Aspects
Animal Experiments: the great debate. New Scientist 1992. Apr 4 (134(1815):25
and others.
A series of 18 non-referenced articles by medical and social
scientists, veterinarians, bioethicists, science writers and animal
rights advocates. The series aims "to air a broad spectrum of
opinions and provide a variety of perspectives on what is sadly
becoming an increasing polarized debated."
Web sites
|
 |