Research and the Role of Animals in Drug Discovery
Research in the discovery of new drugs is very important for the advancement of practice. Therefore, such research should be done in ways that leave no stones unturned. Thus, such studies include the use of animal models such as pigs before the compounds to be used as drugs are tested in human beings. The arguments concerning whether or not it is ethical to subject animals to drug testing are relevant in research aimed at advancing drug discovery. Scholars and other groups of people who fight for the rights of animals suggest that animals should not be subjected to conditions that make them uncomfortable such as drug trials. Based on the relevance of animals in drug research it is clear that for there to be any progress in the discovery of drugs and therefore improvement of medical practice, animals have to be used. Thus, the articles titled “An Animal’s Place” by Michael Pollan (2002) and “Lies, damned lies, and…science-based medicine?” by David Freeman (2010) can be put in the same conversation.
Michael Pollan's Perspective on Animal Rights
Michael Pollan talks about the rights of animals. According to the author, the many rights movements have led to the acquisition of rights by many people and also eroded a lot of cultural confusion as well as the tension that was there earlier due to little understanding. The author proposes that the animal rights movement has led to the establishment of the existence of another type of confusion. Many people think that animals that cannot protect themselves should be given rights and be protected by people. The author focuses on how animals should be treated unlike the arguments of many other animal activists. Michael Pollan begins the essay by offering examples of animals that are treated with a lot of respect such as dogs that get gifts for holidays like humans and compares them with others that are used for meat such as pigs. Therefore, the author asks readers to view the animals differently with different attitudes for the different animals. The author indirectly asks the readers whether the animals are supposed to be treated equally regardless of their species. The author brings the question of whether people should seek to have more equality with animals or explore a difference in attitudes in the treatment of animals. The effectiveness of the argument of Pollan is that it manages to make people think of whether the purpose of the animals in the lives of people should determine the attitude about them. The author also questions, whether the attitudes should be based on the contact people, have with the animals or not. The author questions whether people should change their attitude and stop eating animals or stick to an acceptable model and keep eating meat.
The Treatment of Animals and the Question of Suffering
Pollan also brings the question of whether animals should suffer. He does not claim that humans suffer more than animals. Instead, he says that some animals are made to suffer in the whole of their lives. Therefore, he questions whether or not it acceptable to breed animals for them to suffer. Pollan says that the lives of animals should differ based on human attitude, circumstances, and conditions.
David Freeman's Critique of Scientific Research
David Freedman's article focuses on the accuracy of scientific research that doctors use to develop treatments. According to Freeman, most of the scientific research that is published is wrong. The author suggests several reasons why the results of the studies are flawed. First, he claims that the researchers have professional conflicts of interest (Freedman 76). The author argues that the researchers published skewed results because they receive funding from particular sources and therefore offer the results to either get more funding or get tenure in universities. The author says that during the processes of scientific research, researchers take advantage of various stages to manipulate the results so that they favor their need. First, they choose topics that appeal to the people and those that attract. They also focus on issues that do not show the “soft” results rather than the “hard” outcomes to the institutions (Freedman 80). For example, drug companies favor studies that examine the self-reported symptoms rather than say whether the drug was responsible for the adverse effects on the patients. Freeman says that the publishers also have bias and decide what to publish based on their reasons rather than the quality of the research. The article casts doubt on medicine as it claims that the evidence used to support the practice is not accurate. In conclusion, the author says that people should not expect scientists to be always right. He says that it is fine to be wrong.
Argument for High-Quality Research and Use of Animals in Drug Trials
The article by Pollan offers an argument that seeks to ensure that the quality of research concerning drugs is of high quality. Just like Freeman claimed, that the accuracy of research is based on the quality of the study. Freeman supports his claim by offering statistics that prove his point. Freeman claims that 80 percent of trials that are not randomized are usually wrong. He says that 25 percent of trials that are gold standard is wrong and that 10 percent of platinum-standard randomized tests are wrong (Freedman 80). Therefore, it is clear that for the practice of medicine to be improved, the trails have to be of at least platinum standard. Pollan argues that animals should be used in drug trials and other purposes as long as the trials are not cruel to the animals and that the trails are beneficial to men. The argument by Pollan is unlike that of other animal activists who claim that animals should have rights that should protect them from being used in drug trials.
Importance of Accurate Scientific Research and the Use of Animals
I believe that scientific research should have the highest level of accuracy. Therefore, I disagree with part of the argument made by Freeman who claims that people should accept that scientists should not always be right. I believe that all measures should be taken to ensure that scientific research is trustworthy. The idea is that the practice of medicine is dependent on the faith of people in the accuracy of science. Therefore, telling people to accept that the inaccuracy is normal is like telling them to lose faith in medicine ad formal healthcare in general.
I think that the use scientific method should enable research to be accurate and that publications should only contain platinum randomized trials. Also, for drugs to be ascertained to be good for people, they must pass through all the stages of experimentation. Researchers should first, conduct lab tests and then animal trials before human trials. Therefore, animals should be reared differently and be regarded according to their purpose. Protecting animals against drug trials will leave science and especially biomedical scientists with no way of conducting quality research on medicine before using them on people.
Conclusion
In conclusion, drug research has to be of high quality to be accurate and therefore support advancement in the practice of medicine. Such improvement in the quality of drug-related research can only be enhanced by the use of all possible resources which include animals. Therefore, saying that animals should be protected against "cruelty" such as drug trials is pretentious. Therefore, Pollan is right in suggesting that the attitudes of people concerning animals should vary with the purpose of the animals.
Works Cited
Freedman, David H. "Lies, damned lies, and medical science." The Atlantic
306.4 (2010): 76-84.
Pollan, Michael. "An animal’s place." New York Times Magazine 152 (2002): 58-65.
