mentative Persuasive EssaysThe Endless Torture of Animal Experimentation
Is using animals in medical research necessary? Some people would say yes, others would say no… but who’s right? No matter what one thinks or believes this question still remains, yet to be answered. At first this question seems like its answer lies within ones opinion and only that, but if you look closer there is a lot more to it than opinion. Feeling sorry for the animals is definitely where it starts for people who don’t agree with animal testing; but that’s not where it ends.
Scientists and medical researchers say that animal testing is the future to finding cures. They also believe it is cruel to use animals to test our products on but there are no other options. Using animals for testing helps them figure out what will work and not work on humans. Using animals can help find cures faster and help prevent more human deaths.
Although some people believe that’s true, I have a different opinion. While reading articles from different doctors, I discovered that using animals in the medical area hasn’t helped humans near what people think it has. Just because animals are living breathing creatures like us, doesn’t mean their systems are anything like ours. In fact, they’re not anything like ours. There has been testing after testing done on animals to help find cures and medicine that will work on humans. After all that… what do we have to show for it? A puzzle with missing pieces that we are not going to find… not this way.
Ray Creek, a board -certified doctor, explains why the use of animals actually slows down medical research. “The simplest explanation is that animal experiments provide misleading data. At best, they tell us a good deal about how animals experience disease, but they rarely tell us something of value that can be applied to humans. Animal tests provide additional data, but not a higher level of accuracy.” This very subject is something that I have always thought of, but never thought I was right. What good is it going to do us to use animals to test medicines on if it’s not even helping?
Another statement Ray Creek said was that “The General Accounting Office several years ago concluded that animal tests do not accurately predict how dangerous a drug will be in humans. In other words, drug tests on animals do not protect humans from harmful medications.” It is hard for me to believe that after the horrible instances which have occurred, that they would continue to use this procedure. Especially where it does no good, and harms defenseless animals as well.
The last thing that Ray talked about was focused on the study of AIDS. “One area where human data has contributed far more than animal studies is in the area of infectious disease research, specifically the study of AIDS. An animal virus can be 99.9% similar to its analog in humans and still be completely different. A virus is a long chain, like a long series of letters, and if you take out one letter you have an entirely different word. That is why animal viruses are useless as a research tool.” I really think that Ray’s point is a strong one. Using animals for the study of medicines ; specifically the use of AIDS research, is appearing to be useless isn’t it?
Using animals has helped research a little, but was it because they really worked… or was it merle a coincidence that they happened to work? If one also considers the pain of the animals involved… is it really worth it? Let’s let you decide. Here are a few stories told by Neal Barnard, M.D., that I would like to share.
“Ratsky is the name I gave a small white rat I took home from the collage psychology lab many years ago. My first lesson in animal rights was taught by this little animal. The introductory course in psychology at my college used rats that were deprived of water for three days and then put into a ‘Skinner Box’ (a box which delivers a few drops of water when a bar is pressed by the thirsty animal inside). At the end of the course, the rats are put together in a trash can, chloroform is pored over them and the lid is closed.” What was gained by this experiment? Probably useful information for the students performing the experiment, and that’s fine; but why did they have to kill them? There are other alternatives & other choices that those students could have made.
Neal shares another story about students who could also sign up to implant electrodes into a rat’s skull to show that electrical stimulation of the brain can affect behavior. “During the implantation procedure, a stereotaxic device holds the rat’s head still, its metal bars thrust into both ear canals, breaking the eardrums. My professor’s response to my concern about the effects of this procedure on the rats was a joke. ‘Well, I guess he won’t be able to listen to his stereo in the morning’. I was struck by the callousness of his remark. I was sufficiently desensitized myself that I proceeded without batting an eyelash.” This experiment is one that was totally unnecessary. The information gained here could have been gained some other way. That was a cruel ; sick way to gain some of information that could have been found in your book.
There are other ways they can get the information needed, even if it takes a little bit of research. Here is a prime example of what I am talking about. Callaways Chemical Plant in Columbus, Georgia had to determine which of its dozens of new chemical products each year should be classified as “corrosive”. In tests required by the U.S. Department of Transportation,( DOT) the company paid a commercial laboratory $400 to $1200 per test to shave the hair off a rabbit’s back, then drizzle on a sample of wounds minutes to days later indicated the sample’s corrosivity. Last year, the company found a way out of its dilemma in the form of Corrositex, an in vitro test approved by DOT in 1993 as a substitute for the traditional rabbit skin test. Developed by California-based In Vitro International (IVI), the test gauges corrosivity according to the time required for a chemical sample to break through a skinlike protein membrane. The method yields results within a few hours and for as little as $100 per test, according the IVI.
I wish that more companies would take the time to do what that company did. Realizing that animals are not hear just to perform experiments on, would be a big improvement in today’s society. A man named Pave Pasquarelli has AIDS & it was difficult for him at first to accept that fact that animal testing wasn’t going to be able to help him. In an article written by him in the Tribune News Service he said, “In their attempts to malign supporters of animal rights, these diseased minds claim that ‘many people with AIDS are staying healthy longer because of medications developed through animal testing.’ However, they offer no bona fide proof of such medications or types of animal testing that have proved ‘beneficial’ in bringing these medications to market. Even if such proof were offered, this does not give human beings the right to utilize other creatures’ lives for their own purposes or negate the pain and suffering endured by animals in lab tests.” Imagine what it must be like to have AIDS ; fully admit that one of scientists biggest hopes for helping you live… is a failure. It took a lot of guts for him to study up ; talk to doctors wanting to know the truth, ; being able to accept it.
Dr. Wendeline L. Wagner, a veterinarian at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, gave a speech at the annual meeting of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science in Minneapolis. Her speech was on about what to say to avoid conflict when asked the question “What do you do at work?”. In response they ask her “How can you do that?”, and her well knowing what they meant she responds with “How can I do what?”
“How can you kill animals all day?”, they ask. She responds with, “That’s a small part of my day.” Just hearing that makes my stomach turn. How someone can be so cruel is beyond me. She goes on in her speech saying that “rephrasing” peoples sentences makes all the difference. Here she gives an example of what to say. “For instance instead of saying ‘I kill animals all day and cut them apart to find out why they died’, say, ‘I determine the cause of illness and death in research animals.'” While that last sentence sounds much better, the first one is still true. It seems to me that’s kind of like putting a dog on a lake in a boat full of holes, the dog drowns and you want to give it an autopsy to find out why it died. It doesn’t make much sense.
At the end of her talk this veterinarian ends with how to manipulate concersations ; talk about things that gets their mind off of what they really do. “It’s also good to Manipulate conversations so as to discuss the things you’d rather talk about. For instance, we have an animal-care person who looks after our pigs. If someone asks him what he does for a living, he could just say, ‘I take care of pigs in research.’ But a better answer includes a little story. He might say, ‘I take care of pigs that are used in transplant studies, and boy, does that smell terrible at eight o’clock in the morning. But you know, when they get to know me and start gnawing on my boots and begging to have their backs scratched, it isn’t too bad.’ This makes the situation believable and diverts listeners.”
All I am saying is why subject these poor animals with endless torture if it isn’t necessary? According to more than a few Doctors, animal testing isn’t helping us progress and if anything it is slowing us down. So to answer my question I have addressed throughout this whole paper, no it is not necessary, nor helpful to continue to practice our medicines ; questions on helpless animals.