13 page essay (difficult)

Mark Mendoza

Philosophy 5

May 2, 2012

Endara

Think Animal Testing Makes Medicine Safe? Think Again.

I. Introduction

From the popular brand name moisturizer on the shelf of a local grocery store to powerful prescription drugs administered from doctors, synthetic substances are tested on animals everyday in a practice known as animal research. Held in pharmaceutical establishments, medical universities, factory farms, and laboratories worldwide, animals are extensively used in studies ranging from the testing of new drugs to genetics, psychological behavior, medical research and even cosmetic testing. There is a wide range of criticism directed at this area of science. Many scientists have agreed that it is because of the use of animals in experimentations done throughout many decades that we have had many advancements in medicine. Despite this, Ingrid Newkirk of the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, disagrees and instead states that the methods involved are “cruel and inhumane” as well as the fact that it is unnecessary (Newkirk). So is animal testing really legitimate? The answer is no. We should no longer continue to experiment on animals for the sake of medicine.

II. Body of Paper (Why Animal Testing is Not Reliable.)

A. Case For Position

Numerous experts have debated that animal research is inaccurate for a number of different reasons. First of all, Anna Baldwin, a physiology professor at Arizona University, states that all animals that are experimented are usually under some form of stress from unnatural environments. Test subjects that are subjugated to physical or mental pressure produce different results compared to test subjects that are not. Therefore, animals’ response to treatments are different compared to if the experiments were held in more natural environments. Many professionals agree that if observations are inconsistent, they are not valid and could also be misleading. Aside from that, animals and humans have a completely different physiology. Not only that, but drugs that have gone through extensive research involving animals, such as Thalidomide, have been known to create health defects in humans (2007). With that in mind, results that are taken from animal testing may sometimes be misleading. The only reason for experimenting on animals is to ensure the safety of medicine for humans. We should no longer continue to test on animals for the sake of medicine.

1.Animals that are experimented are under stress.

2.When a test subject is under pressure, results vary.

3.Animals have different responses to treatments compared to if the experiments were done in natural environments.

4.If results not consistent, they are not valid.

5.Animals have a different physiology than humans.

6.Past drugs that were previously animal tested have been known to create health defects in humans.

7.Results taken from animal testing can be misleading.

8.Testing on animals does not guarantee the safety of medicine for humans.

9.We should no longer continue to test on animals for the sake of medicine.

B. Counter-Argument

Although there is sufficient evidence to prove experiments held on animals are

inaccurate, there are many individuals that still continue to disagree for a variety of different

reasons. First of all, we were able to discover numerous treatments that have been able to

alleviate or at least improve the conditions of several viruses and degenerative diseases such as

HIV. It is argued that most of those treatments were developed after a long period of countless

research and clinical trials on animals. Therefore, it is known that animal research allowed us to

come up with treatments to aid people with illnesses. Besides that notion, many people can agree that mammals are the test subjects that have gone through the most amount of testing. Not only do they possess several human attributes like breast feeding for instance, but their genetic make up closely resembles our own (Lackner). Because people think that animal testing is what aided us in discovering treatments and the fact that a lot of the researched test subjects have a similar anatomy to our own, it is therefore appropriate to assume that the findings are applicable

to us. In sum, it is debated that animal research should not be made illegal since it does not produce misleading results if done for the sake of humans.

1.Treatments to viruses were able to help alleviate symptoms of infections for humans.

2.Most of those treatments were developed from experiments held on animals.

3.Animal research is currently known to have come up with treatments to help people with illnesses.

4.Mammals are the test subjects that are researched the most.

5.Mammals possess human attributes and have DNA that closely resembles our own..

6.Results taken from research in mammals are applicable to humans.

7.Animal research does not produce misleading conclusions if it is for the sake of humans.

8.Animal research should not be made illegal.

C. Response to Counter-Argument

Despite the fact that there are overwhelming arguments that state that testing on animals is accurate and reliable, they are fallacious and easily refutable. First, even though our DNA is similar to that of most mammals that are treated, Ronald Veazey, of Tulane National Primate Research Center, states that our gastrointestinal tracts and microbial populations, which is where most of our immune system is located, are not identical. Furthermore, mammals such as primates, are usually immune to the responses that occur from human viruses and illnesses (Veazey 2008). Thus, the statement that research involving mammals is suitable for humans is

invalid. Not only that, but the dissertation that animal testing is what allowed advancements in the medical field is also questionable. There might have been a wide array of other contributors that might not have been taken into account like alternative therapy and stem cell research for instance. In addition, experts have questioned whether past drugs and treatments that have saved people were actually tested on animals or if they were developed by other forms of research. For these reasons, there is not enough evidence to prove whether animal testing has directly saved the lives of people. In short, the argument that animal research does not produce misleading results is not true and should therefore be stopped.

1.Mammals that are experimented are immune to most human viruses and illnesses.

2.Although our genetic make up may be similar, it is proven that our immune systems are not identical.

3.Research involving mammals are not applicable to humans.

4.There are other factors that could have led medicine to evolve that have not been acknowledged.

5.It is unknown whether most drugs that have saved people were developed without the use of examinations on animals.

6.There is not enough evidence to prove whether animal testing has saved people’s lives directly.

7.The argument that animal research does not produce misleading conclusions is not true.

8.Experimenting on animals for the supposed assurance of medicine must be banned

III. Conclusion

In short, we should no longer continue the practice of testing on animals for the sake of us humans. As stated, research involving animals has not been proven to assure the safety of medicine contrary to popular believe. Due to a number of knowledgeable arguments, many experts continue to spread the notion that animal research is accurate and feel strongly about that stance. However, despite that, they can easily be disputed. There are several reasons to believe that that stance is not the best option.

As consumers in California, we can divulge a powerful message to future generations by opting for more humane methods of science. Not only would we be able to support the well being of animals but the health of humanity in general. Maybe then will our fields of medicine and science truly advance the way it was meant to. It is time we realize that changes must be made in our society! For the future of medicine and the welfare of animals, choosing to put a stop to animal research is the best option.

IV. Bibliography

Baldwin, A. (2007, October 25). “The stressful life of laboratory animals.” Retrieved from <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-stressful-life-of-laboratory-animals >

Lackner. (2007). “Current Concepts in Aids Pathogenesis: Insights From the Siv/Macaque Model”. Annual Review of Medicine, 58:461-76

Newkirk, I. (2009). “Mother Nature”. Retrieved from <http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/Interviews/IngridNewkirk.htm>

Veasley, R. (2008, September 01). “Microbicide Safety/Efficacy Studies in Animals -Macaques and Small Animal Models”. Retrieved from <#