Weebly



The Ethics of Animal Research and Its Consequences: A Review of the LiteratureAlexa Marlene ArzagaUniversity of Texas at El PasoAbstractResearch involving the testing of animals is a practice that has been done for years. To this day, it is still one of the most debated topics in the medical field. While it has many benefits, many may argue that it has more negative consequences than it does positive. The literature review will inform the reader on the benefits and negative effects of using animals in medicinal research as well as provide information from credible sources defending both sides of the argument. Statistical research will also be used to inform people on this practice that continues to create quarrel between many. The Ethics of Animal Research and Its Consequences: A Review of the LiteratureUsing animals in research is commonly practiced in today’s medical studies. It is using animals such as rats, mice, rabbits, etc. to test procedures, products, or medicines on them before releasing a new type of medical advancement into the public. Before it is released into the public, experiments have to take place. There is a certain type of procedure people who conduct this research have to follow, however, even with regulations and rules, people continue to argue that animal research is unethical or immoral. Using animals in research is beneficial because we don’t have to use humans to test new procedures on them and can reduce the amount of people who get hurt by a new product or procedure, but people who are against animal research will argue that it is immoral because we are giving the animals, the rice, mice, rabbits, etc., no choice or say in participating. This experimental procedure has both pros and cons and through conducting research in the topic one can argue valid points for either side. Even with guidelines, the controversy continues and is still argued over to this day. In order to learn more about animals used in research, some questions can be looked at and considered when talking about this topic:When and why did we start using animals in research?What have been the positive or negative effects of using animals in research to the public?Should we continue to use animals in research or use a different alternative?The following literature review will: provide information on this history of animal research and why it began, the positive or negative impact animal research has had on the public, and provide information on whether or not we should continue to use animals in research or use a different alternative than the one we have been using.When and why did we start using animals in research?Knowing the background and the reasons as to why using animals in research even began will help people understand its importance in today’s world. People are not informed about its history and some people may not even know that this is being practiced. Some people may not be aware that cosmetic products they buy may be tested on animals, which is why the public needs to learn about its background. Using animals in research can be traced back the Greek times. The animals that were first used in research were pigs. In a book called Laboratory Animal Medicine which gives an overview to animal research states that, “the reason why scientists began using animals was because they believed that if no research in live creatures was done, there would be no progress in the medical field” (Fox, Anderson, Loew, Quimby, 2002, p. 2). Of course back then the tests were not as advanced as they are now. The first measurement of blood pressure was recorded in the 1700’s using a horse. The criticisms of using animals in research goes back to England, then eventually came to the United States; they believed that the animals were different from humans; therefore using them was only hurting us as well as the animals. In an article by John Ericson called The Price of Killing off Animal Testing states that, “researchers are no strangers to the ethical dilemma” (Ericson, 2014, p. 106). The problem with animal research has been going on since it began people have opposed it, but many have also fought for it.In 1946, after so many antivivisectionists had protested and fought against animals being used in research, researchers had become concerned that antivivisectionists would become successful in closing down clinics that used animals therefore slowing down the progress in the medical field; so they created the National Society for Medical Research or better known as NSMR. NSMR had the support from the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) as well as 100 other organizations as said in the book Laboratory Animal Medicine (Fox, Anderson, Loew, Quimby, 2002, p. 8). Of course with these new research programs, rules had to be made and taught to students who’d wish to pursue a career in animal research. The first training program that was made available to students was started in January 1960, at the Bowman Gray Medical School. In July 1960 the second program was started in the UCLA Medical School. As the years went by different programs began to open in universities such as Tulane, Stanford, the University of Florida, etc. As more programs opened around the country, animal research became more popular to do. However there were still some people who opposed this practice. Knowing the background information and reasons as to why animal research began is necessary to understanding the topic. Although the practice has been revised and changed today, it is still active and common for animals to be used in research just with more modern and modified guidelines.What have been the positive or negative effects of using animals in research to the public?Research has evolved massively since it first started. Now many different animals are used for different tests. Researchers will argue that using animals in research is useful because we are not hurting humans. There are several reasons as to why animals are used instead of people some of them being: it is cheaper, it is faster, it does not harm people, and it is beneficial because animals have some of the same biological features as humans, as well as many others. However, people will argue that it is not ethical for us to be using animals in research when they don’t have a say in participating. Also, others may argue that animal composition does not resemble our own which is leaves the animals being used to have no real purpose.In this paragraph the positive aspect to this question will be addressed. In an article titled They See a Rat, We Seek a Cure for Diseases: The Current Status of Animal Experimentation in Medical Practice that addresses many of the positive aspects of animal research states that many researchers will argue that “animal experimentation is useful in exploring disease mechanisms, in validating and testing new targets for drug research and in providing insights into drug toxicity and interaction (Kehinde, 2013, p. 2252). This just means that many people agree that animal testing has been beneficial. Using animals in research has been vital to medicine and has now saved thousands of lives due to it. In an article by Andrew Rowan called The Benefits and Ethics of Animal Research he says that using animals in research has been helpful to mankind. In a portion of his article he gives specific examples where we can see the benefits that using animals in research has given us as humans. He says that “Open heart surgery-which saves the lives of an estimated 440,000 people every year in the U.S. alone-is now routine, thanks to 20 years of animal research” another example he gave was the “Development of treatments for kidney failure has relied on step-by-step improvement of techniques through animal experiments (Rowan, 1997, p. 6). These specific examples are proof that animals in research have been nothing but helpful. However there is another side to this argument that we also have to consider, which the negative aspect of it is.Although animals have contributed a lot to our medical advances, there are some consequences to using animals in research. In an article called Alternatives to Animal Experimentation in Basic Research which gives different viewpoints to animal research as well as provide definitions to inform the audience who reads this article says that a major problem to using animals in research is “the ethics which is the consumption and suffering of animals that requires justification” as well as “species differences” which are “considerable differences that are found between species or even strains of species, especially in comparison to humans” (Gruber, Hartung, 2004, p. 6). Ethics have always been a major dispute between the people because animals do not have free will when it comes to participating. Their rights are stripped from them and they are forced to participate. The species differences alarm many because people think that when these animals are being tested and their biological compounds don’t match ours they think that the medical research is not useful. Another debated aspect to this topic is the animals’ feelings which ties along with ethics. An article published by Scientific American called When Animals Mourn was about these researchers who followed around a dolphin in its grieving process when its offspring was taken away from her. The article states that they watched “a female bottlenose dolphin in obvious distress” as it was carried away from her (King, 2013, 62). Just as these researchers saw this dolphin mourn over her offspring, the rest of the animals drown in sorrow when their child is taken away from them. These children are the ones that are used in the experiments. Many people will argue that animals used in research are beneficial, but others will argue that it has negative consequences and should not be used. However, it is up to the individual to decide their opinion on this issue. The topic of animal research will continue to get debated, however there may be an alternative experimenters can use which leads us to the next question.Should we continue to use animals in research or use a different alternative?The main concern to this debated topic is whether or not we should continue to use animals in research. Part of answering this question involves receiving the public’s opinion as well as doing some research. Statistical data will be used in this part of the literature review to develop a conclusion to this ongoing debate. In order to create this conclusion, one must look at both sides of the argument and weigh the pros and the cons, and then base their opinion on this newly processed information. This topic will continue to get debated, but it is up for people to make their own opinions on this argument.Through primary research a survey was conducted through the website Survey Monkey that asked basic questions relating to using animals in research. The survey was available to the general public through the field of social media. A link was provided to be followed that led to the survey of 5 simple questions. The results shown in Figure 1 were surprising; in the question asked stating “Should scientists use an alternative to animal testing?” 94.74% of people answered “Yes”. That is a huge part of the population that agrees scientists should use a different method other than animal testing. Although these results do not predict the opinions of the overall population, this sample is enough to infer an average opinion of the population. Due to this response, one must find out what the alternatives to animal research are.Figure 1. A graph showing the responses to the question, “Should scientists use a different alternative to animal testing?”In the article by Andrew Rowan that was mentioned before states different alternatives or methods researches have that do not involve using animals. Rowan said, “Researchers have better methods at their disposal. These techniques include epidemiological studies, clinical intervention trials, astute clinical observation aided by laboratory testing, human tissue and cell cultures, autopsy studies, endoscopic examination and biopsy, as well as new imagining methods (Rowan, 1997, p. 3). As Rowan said there are different procedures that scientists could use; many of the procedures stated are available to most researchers. In the book by Smyth he as well talks about different alternatives, some which include “dummies, models and computers, chemical and physical methods, audio-visual aids, bacteriology, and immunology testing” (Smyth, 1978, p 216). Smyth also gives great alternatives; the most useful one today because of our modern age would be computers. Technology has advanced so much in the past few years that it would be possible to use computers and technology to replace animals and living species.Alternatives are available out there to be used, but it is up to the scientists and researchers to take advantage of them and replace the animal method. The opinion of the population along with the opinion of the medical field continues to collide and create conflict. This debate could continue for years.ConclusionAnimal research has been relevant for many years. It has been helpful, but as debated has also been hurtful. The ethics of animal research continue to be debated as well as using different methods and exactly what other methods to use. Animal research can be improved just like any other research method so that the validity of it may be completely accurate and useful to the general public. For now, animal research continues to be used and will continue to get debated.ReferencesEricson, J. (2014). Killing to stay alive. Newsweek Global, 162(8), 106-109.Fox, J. Anderson, L., Loew, F., Quimby, F. (2002). Laboratory Animal Medicine 2nd Edition. San Diego, California: Academic Press.Gruber, FP. Hartung, T. (2004). Alternatives to animal experimentation in basic research.Kehinde, E. O. (2013). They see a rat, we seek a cure for diseases: The Current Status of Animal Experimentation in Medical Practice. Medical Principles & Practice, 2252-61.King, B. (2013). When animals mourn. Scientific American, 308(7), 62-67.Rowan, A. N. (1997). The benefits and ethics of animal research. Indiana University. Retrieved from . Smyth, D. H. (1978). Alternatives To Animal Experiments. London: Scolar Press Ltd. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download