Ashtonstout.files.wordpress.com



Ethics of Animal TestingAnimal testing is a problem worldwide affecting every single person who uses cosmetics and medicine. Many are not aware of the suffering animals go through for us to be able to use toiletries and medication. While it is heartbreaking to think about, without animal testing many would have died of plague and disease. It would be extremely difficult or even impossible to completely stop animal testing. There are ways to reduce the use of animals in research and find better alternatives. One way is to limit animal testing to just medical purposes and find alternatives for consumer cosmetics. Beauty products and medication may seem completely unrelated, but both use animal testing as a way to check the safety of their products. Is using animal research for medical purposes okay, while testing on animals for cosmetics is wrong?There is a long history of animals being used in science experiments. Greek physicians such as Aristotle, Erasistratus, and Galen used living animals in their experiments (Hajar). In as early as 500 BC, Greek writings described the dissection of live animals. Just to give you an idea of how ancient the practice is. Before vivisection on animals, it was practiced on human criminals in ancient Rome. Then it was seen as unethical and replaced by the use of animals. Aristotle believed that since animals lacked intelligence, human ethics do not apply to them. His successor, Theophrastus, disagreed with him and argued that causing animals pain went against the wishes of the Greek gods (ProCon). Animal testing was used to help humans understand anatomy, physiology, pathology, and pharmacology. Ibn Zuhr, was an Arab physician in the twelfth century that first tested medical procedures on animals before trying them on humans (Hajar). Before 1933, consumer products were not being tested for safety. There were no laws or regulations set to ensure that the products people were using were safe. The release of Lash Lure mascara resulted in 17 American women to be blinded and one died from using the mascara. In 1937, a drug company in Tennessee came out with Elixir Sulfanilamide. A drug claiming to help pediatric patients. Over 100 people died from this drug, most of which were children. (FDA) Both of these products were not first tested for safety using animal testing or any other means. As a result of this and other dangerous products not being tested first, our congress passed the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act of 1938. This bill required manufacturers to prove that a drug was safe before it could be marketed. They had to submit application to the FDA and have it approved before their products could go on shelfs. (FDA Consumer)Animal testing first started to become controversial in the seventeenth century. Physiologist Edmund O’Meara argued that “the benefit to humans does not justify the harm to animals.” (Sun) In the nineteenth century, Theodore Roosevelt said “Common sense without conscience may lead to crime, but conscience without common sense may lead to folly, which is the handmaiden of crime.” (Hajar) There have been several debates about the ethics of testing on animals. Both quotes speak of the cruelty of animal testing. Animals cannot speak for themselves or give consent and that is what makes it unethical. In 1980, the public became aware of animals being used to test the safety of cosmetics. The most infamous of animal testing is the Draize eye test. This is when an animal, mostly rabbits, have substances like soap or drain cleaner, dripped 3418840485900into their eyes and are not treated for days. This can cause redness, irritation, swelling, discharge and eventually blindness. They are killed after. Henry Spira made the public see what was happening and encouraged consumers to speak against this inhumane procedure. He ran newspaper ads charging beauty companies with animal cruelty. While these companies were not charged with cruelty to animals, if a regular person was to treat any animal the same way, they would be arrested. After this incident, cosmetic companies began to research alternatives and animal testing in the cosmetics industry remains greatly reduced. The Draize eye test is still legal to perform. (The MSPCA–Angell)A cosmetic is defined as a substance that can be applied to the human body for cleansing or changing appearance. It does not affect the body’s structure or function. Using animals to test the safety of cosmetics is not legally required in the United States. However China and Brazil require cosmetics to be tested. So if the company sells overseas they are not considered cruelty-free. (HSUS) Testing for cosmetics can be challenging, even though they are only applied to the surface of the skin, such as lotion, the compounds can be absorbed through our skin and into our body. It is possible for the ingredients to seep inside through our skin and right under the skin is our blood vessels. The components can travel through our bloodstream, heart and lungs to eventually reach our liver. While using a cosmetic one time may not cause a noticeable change to our health, years and years of using a certain cosmetic could wear down on the body and put your health in jeopardy. (Mone) This is why they needed to be testing, but testing the effects on animals after years of use is expensive and time-consuming.Another use of animal research is for scientists to find cures for diseases. But where do they get animals inflicted with human diseases? Scientists injure the animals on purpose. Laboratory animals are burned, injured and infected with diseases. Then scientists try many different methods to try and cure them. Most are unsuccessful, causing many more animals to be experimented on until they get on the right track. (Addams) While this research does help mankind, it is extremely horrific to think about and imagine being in that laboratory.There are alternatives to testing on animals. From previous animal testing, we have the data to know what ingredients are safe. There is no need to retest them. Today, there are over 50 non-animal tests that have been developed, with even more still in the process. New ingredients should be tested for safety by using these alternative methods. These methods give more relevant data and are also cheaper. Companies may have to invest in developing more alternatives but in the future they will be saving money by not taking care of these large amounts of animals. The requirements for laboratory animals are a healthy diet, adequate living space, and regular veterinary visits, not to mention the disposal if an ingredient is not successful. Conducting animal research may take months or years for accurate results, but with new technology, a computer can simulate the same test in days or even hours. Even though government regulates animal testing, certain species are excluded, such as rats or mice. They receive no protection and can be treated inhumanely, whether it is because the scientists don’t care or it is more cost-effective.Animal testing is still a concern because many science facilities feel they have no other options. They have been doing this for so long and its working. Researching new techniques and procedures to spare the lives of animals is not worth the effort to them, but they do have choices. There are in virto models, cell cultures, computer models, and new imaging/analyzing techniques. So what are these techniques and how are they better? In virto models are growth of the cell outside the body in a closed off, laboratory environment. These models can show us the outcome an ingredient has to a certain part of the body. This alternative has completely replaced the skin irritancy test and the Draize eye irritancy test. The cells and tissues from different organs can continue to grow and live outside the body for up to a few years. Alternative organisms can also be useful and can replace certain animals. An example would be using fungi, lower vertebrates (fish) and invertebrates (insects). While these things do not have many similarities to a human and do pose limitations, they are small in size and have short life cycles. Laboratories would be able to accommodate a large size, with little to no cost for food and care. Fruit flies are a common laboratory invertebrate. They have a short life cycle and are low maintenance. It has been observed that flies have a similar response to drugs as that of a mammal. (Sonali, Shashikant)Another alternative is the invention of a synthetic skin called Corrositex, a replacement test developed in Europe and the U.S. Instead of testing chemicals on animal skin, Corrositex would completely replace the need for animals. It would be able to test if a new substance would corrode or burn the skin. Computer modeling can also replace the use of frogs in a classroom. Virtual reality can be an option for students to practice on. They can also use plastic models or realistic manikins. Human volunteers can replace animals in cosmetic testing. Cosmetics are made for human use; why not try it out on a person who is willing? (John Hopkins University) This probably would be seen as unethical, to test products on humans, but what does that say about us testing on animals who are unable to give consent? Perhaps we can’t go that far, but there have been successful alternatives to animal testing.Before the pregnancy test we use now, in 1927, doctors had to use a live animal to determine if a female was pregnant. Usually involving rabbits or mice, the women’s urine was injected into the rabbit. After waiting a few days, if the woman was pregnant the rabbit’s ovaries began to grow larger. This happened because of a hormone only found in pregnant women’s urine. This test was reliable with an error rate of 2% and all the rabbits used died. It was believed that if the rabbit died, the woman was pregnant, but every rabbit died because their ovaries had to be cut out and examined. While it was possible to keep them alive after removing them, doctors decided in was not worth the trouble. Today we use the successful alternative. Women can buy over-the-counter pregnancy tests that test for the same chemicals but don’t involve a live animal and instead of waiting a few days, they wait a few minutes. (Mikkelson) So here is an example of a successful alternative that is more practical and efficient. While it is possible to completely rid of animal testing in the cosmetics industry, it would not be nearly as easy for medical research. Animal research has led to some major scientific breakthroughs. Completely stopping animal testing would endanger both the lives of humans and animals. Animal testing has provided us with a countless number of vaccines, treatments, and medical procedures. It was able to stop the spread of diseases such as polio and has remarkably improved human health and life expectancy.There are so many examples of ways we have benefited from conducting experiments on animals. Today we do not have to worry about catching small pox thanks to Edward Jenner. In May 1796, Jenner observed that the farm workers who were catching cowpox from their cows, were protected from smallpox. He realized that the cowpox disease could be spread and would eventually protect those who had it from small pox. This discovery led to smallpox vaccines. Animal testing also led to the development of a polio vaccine. In 1908, Dr. Karl Landsteiner and Dr. Erwin Popper were able to replicate the disease in monkeys. This made it possible to study 0697230how the disease was spread. Then in the 1950s, by experimenting on mice, rats, and monkeys, a polio vaccine was created, saving millions of lives (Illmen). So animal testing has ultimately changed the course of history had these diseases been allowed to spread. This research shows that the benefit animal testing has done for human health is impossible to ignore. A good solution for animal research in medical procedures would be to try to reduce the number of animals being used and use other alternatives when possible. The 3Rs campaign has essentially the same goal. The 3Rs is a campaign to regulate testing on animals. The first step is the replacement of animals with non-living models, second is the reduction in the use of animals, and finally the third step is refinement of animal use practices (Hajar). So there is replacement, reduction, and refinement, the 3Rs. It helps to limit the number of animals being experimented on. Knowing it is impossible to completely rid of animals used in research, they want all laboratories to take steps to make sure no animal lives are taken without real need for it. While there are laws and regulations in place to protect the animals, there have still been cases of abuse on laboratory animals. Eliminating animal testing completely is sure to set back the creation of new medicines and medical procedures. Above I have already listed possible alternatives to animal usage and in some circumstances these would be really great and possibly more effective and cheaper. Why stop animal testing? What reasons do we have other than the concern for animals and their safety? Think about it, what do we have in common with the animals we are using in our experiments? Mice and rats are the most common laboratory animals, probably because they are easy to breed, which is more cost-effective and the governments regulations do not apply to them. The problem with using rats is that there are not many similarities between them and humans. These differences can provide inaccurate results, so testing on different species is unreliable. Testing on animals isn’t efficient; they take a long time and are very expensive. These tests can take several years and millions of dollars to do. There must be a better way to test the toxicity of chemicals. Researchers have been working on a virtual replica of the human body and organs. To test the effects on an animal would take years and it has, but if our scientists are successful, they will be able to trace a virtual path and discover how a certain ingredient of a cosmetic is absorbed through our skin; how it travels through our body, and the long term effect it would have on a human. (Mone) This method would be just as good if not better than testing on animals. Using our new age technology is so much more logical. It is relatively cheap and much faster with more accurate results.The most obvious argument against animal testing is that it is unethical, just like it is unethical to experiment on a human subject without their consent even if they are unable to give consent. The experiments performed are incredibly invasive and if you were to watch, disturbing. It’s not right to value one life or creature over another. Where do laboratories get all these different species? There are two types of purchases scientists make. Class A and Class B. Class A dealers are more common, with most of the animals coming from breeders. Class B dealers use different sources, for example an animal shelter. Class B may be a better option because breeders are more expensive. No matter where they are coming from, they still suffer the same fate. These animals could have once been your pet. They will also go on Craigslist and pose as a family wanting a pet. (Addams) You are blissfully unaware and think that your previous pet will live a happy life in a loving home. You could not be any more wrong. Mostly all will die, some instantly because only their organs and tissues are needed and harvested. A few will die from as a result of being tested on and those that survive the ordeal are euthanized anyway. Animal testing causes millions of animal deaths around the world. This issue had gotten so severe that no one knows exactly how many animals are killed for animal testing in the U.S. Since testing on mice or rats goes unreported, even though they make up 95% of laboratory animals. Estimates have ranged from 17 million to 100 million. It is shocking that millions of animal lives are taken that people do not know about. (Lin) They are euthanized instead of being treated for their injuries. They suffer inhumane treatment and are purposely injured without the use of pain relievers. This has drawn criticism from consumers all around the world. Most of the time animal testing does not lead to the development of new products. The ingredients are deemed unsafe and testing stops there. Animals are dying with nothing to show for it. Some of the tests are completely unnecessary. It is also extremely expensive. Housing all these different species is costly, especially when they are just being killed in the end.Laboratory animals die every single day, any animal in that lab has no hope of surviving. Most do not get a painless death. Scientists do not use chemicals to humanely put the animal down because it is expensive. Sometimes they will break their necks, killing them. The most common way is to suffocate them with carbon dioxide. It happens fast and is much cheaper. They are not only killed to end suffering but sometimes a perfectly healthy animal is killed for being the wrong gender, having a surplus, or if their ID card is lost or damaged making them useless for research. (Addams)There are many organizations and animal rights activists, one of the most known being PETA. They are working every day to stop the use of animals in medical research. An argument against animal testing is that there are alternatives out there that can be used to replace testing on animals entirely. Scientists that support testing on animals argue that it would not provide the same results and can never replace testing on animals completely. Some may see it as unethical because animals cannot provide their consent to be tested on like a human can. The experiments are forced upon them and often results in them dying. The animals suffer from pain and discomfort from the tests. This is a key part of the experiment, to see the side effects the drug may cause and the use of pain relievers may provide inaccurate results (Murnaghan). One solution to this is to stop testing on animals for cosmetic purposes all together. While it does not happen often, in order to sell overseas a company must allow their products to be tested on animals. This really makes it seem that they are choosing profit over decency and compassion. Not using animals to test ingredients is possible to do. And if you really aren’t sure how safe it is for human use, do you want to be putting it on your skin anyway? There are so many natural ingredients out there that are already proven safe for humans. The truth is, this is makeup. It is not life or death and everyone can live without it. With medicine you can understand the need for it. The alternatives and cruelty free brands make you feel better about wearing and are better for you. 461010000 While scientists are taking their own steps to reduce the number of animal being experimented on, there can really be no change unless consumers take the steps too. Promising to use cruelty-free products will show companies that this is what we, the consumers, want. They will then change their policies according to demand. So while many people say animal testing is wrong and doing it for cosmetics is even more so, they do not commit to using cruelty-free products. They do so often with the excuse “one person can’t make a difference” or “it is too hard to fully commit”. Both of which are false, Henry Spira making people aware of the Draize eye test is a great example of one person making a huge difference. Many can look to this act as inspiration and hope for the future. His passion for animal rights seemed to make everyone look at the world differently. Beauty is not a justified reason for animal cruelty. To this, many people would agree, but most of those people do not take action. “What difference can one person really make?” is not an argument anymore.Making this change not only benefits the animals and eases their suffering. It is better for the environment and is also healthier for our bodies. Natural ingredients that don’t need tested sound much better than putting chemicals on ourselves and will be better for us in the long run. The biggest reason we need this change is simply ethics. What are we teaching future generations? While now days it is not a priority, showing others care and compassion really is important. It makes for a better world to live in. The kindness you show to someone that can never repay you shows true character. While no one seems to agree on the topic of animal testing, we cannot live without it. That does not mean to continue mindlessly killing animals, but to really understand the sacrifice they are making for us, unwillingly. Maybe showing others the truth behind animal testing, both the good and bad, will convince them to make a change. Animal testing has led to major discoveries but that doesn’t make it right to do and we should only do so if the need is great enough. There is not one solution or easy fix, but steps should be taken to reduce the number of animals being tested on and we should at least know just how many we are killing annually. John Hopkins University (2016) “FAQ’s (Frequently Asked Questions), Rachel. “Animal Testing and Medicine.” Heart Views?: The Official Journal of the Gulf Heart Association 12.1 (2011): 42. PMC. Web. 26 Feb. 2016.. "Animal Testing ." . 10 Dec. 2015. Web. 26 Feb. 2016.Sun, S. (2012). The truth behind animal testing. Young Scientists Journal, 5(12), 83-85. doi: MSPCA–Angell (2016) Cruelty-Free Labeling. (2012) The 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Humane Society of The United States, HSUS (2014) Fact Sheet: Cosmetic Testing issues/cosmetic_testing?qa?questions_answers.html?credit=wb_id329654370#alternativesMone, Gregory. (2014) New Models in Cosmetics Replacing Animal Testing. pages 20,21 Addams. (2015) I Tested Drugs on Animals: 5 Insane Things I Learned K. Doke, Shashikant C. Dhawale (2013) Alternatives to Animal Testing: A Review, pages 223-229 Mikkelson (2015) The Rabbit Test Lin. (2014) Why It’s Wrong to Test on Animals Murnaghan (2016) Animal Testing Timelineaboutanimaltesting.co.uk/animal-testing-timeline.html ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download