Introduction
Yearly, more than an estimated 115 million animals, excluding rodents, fish, amphibians, and birds, are used in laboratories during biomedical research and experimentation worldwide (Akhtar 407). The procedures may involve removing an animal\u2019s organ for experimentation, genetic manipulation, exposure to harmful radiation, forcefully feeding animals with untested substances and inhaling lethal gases among many more. Animal testing has existed since time immemorial; from the great Greek scientists, Aristotle and Erasistratus, to Ibn Zuhr, the Great Arab Physician (Hajar 42). The practice received a massive boost in 1938 when the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was passed that required testing of drugs on animals before they are sold after an incident that saw the death of more than one hundred US citizens upon consuming \u2018Elixir Sulfanilamide\u2019 (Hajar 42).
Debates on the Legality of Animal Testing
Today there exists heated debates all across the globe on the legality of animal testing. Animal activists and advocates have waged intense campaigns against animal testing including the 3Rs campaign; \u201cReplacement of animals with non-living models, Reduction in the use of animals and Refinement of animal use practices\u201d (Hajar 42). Scientists, on the other hand, have argued in support of the practice reiterating that animals provide the best route to developing products of high medicinal value to human beings. Significantly, the campaign against the method has been fruitful with the European Union banning animal testing on cosmetics in 2013 (Peggs 624). For various profound reasons, this paper will argue that animal testing should not be modified but somewhat done away with entirely.
Inhumanity of Animal Testing
First and foremost, animal testing is inhumane. The unfortunate animals used in research suffer and die for the benefit of human beings (Peggs 624). Today, millions of animals remain locked in cages, restricted in movement and waiting for their fateful day to suffer the brutality of humanity. The animals undergo what can be said to be torture and cruelty in human language; they are inoculated with viruses to test the capability of a newly developed medicine which no one can tell whether it\u2019s going to contain the infection. Some tests go to the extent of impregnating animals and killing them shortly to observe and study the development and survival of the fetus. Most animals are subjected to starvation, exposed to extremely harsh conditions and radiations, burnt alive and forced to inhale toxic gases (Akhtar 408). Unlike human beings, animals are not asked to give consent on the laboratory experiments, and there exists no insurance plan to cover them of the risks. Unfortunately, they suffer not for the benefit of other animals but human beings.
Invalidity and Unreliability of Animal Testing
Secondly, animal testing is invalid and unreliable because of its poor predictive form. Various products that have been accepted based on animal testing have proven inadequate and ineffective when it comes to handling human problems. \u00a0In this regard, human beings have severely suffered due to misleading results obtained from animal testing (Akhtar 414). A number of products have proved to be harmful to human beings but compatible with animals. For instance, Thalidomide led to fetal infection and deformities in newborns when used by pregnant women but had no such effects when experimented on pregnant guinea pigs and rats (Peggs 633). It is worth noting that the medicine had similar adverse effects on pregnant white rabbits further showing the unreliability and confusion of such tests. Similarly, some drugs are useful in treating human diseases but very dangerous on animals. Peggs gave an excellent example of such a case, \u201cSome cancer drugs that are used as effective treatments for human cancers were ineffective in treating cancer in mice\u201d (633). Therefore, animal tests cannot be relied upon to determine human care efficiently.
Costliness of Animal Testing
Thirdly, the whole process of animal testing is a very costly adventure. Undeniably, governments, non-governmental organizations and private researchers have continually invested millions of dollars in research processes. According to Peggs (627), \u201cReports suggest that testing a potential medicine can involve the use of up to 800 nonhuman animals at a financial cost of over US$6 million.\u201d With corporates and organizations concerned with making maximum profits everything in the current society has been commercialized. Animals are victims of this new trend and are specially bred for research purposes. Consequently, they require specialized conditions and treatment which require vast sums of money. The animals to be used are assigned hefty figures by the companies and corporations that have ventured into the breeding business for maximum profits (Peggs 641). The animals have to be fed, sometimes in special expensive diets, expensively treated and taken care of to keep them alive and in favorable conditions to enable successful experimentation. From an angle, the involved stakeholders support the activity, not due to the lives it is saving, but for selfish interests, deep-lying in the enormous profits usually accumulated. The procedures, therefore, though essential, prove to be a selfish move and an expensive route taken in handling human problems.
Lengthy Procedures of Animal Testing
Animal testing also takes a very extended period due to the lengthy procedures and experimentations involved.
There has never been a reported case of animal testing that lasted for hours or even a day. Instead, the tests take a very long period, usually months and years. For instance, New England Anti-Vivisection Society, NEAVS, reported, \u201cThe current \u2018gold standard\u2019 for testing a chemical to determine if it is carcinogenic is the rodent bioassay, which takes up to five years from planning to evaluation and review.\u201d Therefore, the experimentation and testing will usually take longer, and if there is an urgent need, the procedure will ultimately prove unworthy. The extended procedures will ensure more prolonged periods of suffering for not only the animal used but also human beings who wait for a solution to an immediate problem.
Ineffectiveness of Animal Testing
Last but not least, some of the drugs that have been tested using animals have never been used to treat a human ailment.
\u201cIn 2004, the FDA estimated that 92 percent of drugs that pass preclinical tests, including \u201cpivotal\u201d animal tests, fail to proceed to the market\u201d (Akhtar 410). In this regard, animal testing causes unworthy suffering to animals as a majority of the drugs passed do not serve the intended purpose. Therefore, it is useless to undertake these harsh procedures on our innocent animals.
Conclusion
In conclusion, animal testing is a procedure that can only be best described in terms of abolition. Despite ensuring the survival of human beings, it is an act of cruelty and heartlessness from human beings who ironically are supposed to take care of their environment. Additionally, the tests are unreliable, and a majority of drugs passed are thrown away. The procedures are time-consuming and siphon millions of money and other resources. In the words of Mahatma Gandhi, \u201cThe greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.\u201d The above mentioned are facts, which should conclusively inform the decision to ban animal testing globally and replace it with technologically based research on human cells.
Works Cited
Akhtar, Aysha. “The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 24.4 (2015): 407-19. Print.
Hajar, Rachel. “Animal Testing and Medicine.” Heart Views, vol. 12, no. 1, 2011, pp. 42, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3123518/#. Accessed 6 April 2018.
New England Anti-Vivisection Society. “Animal in Science/ Research: Limitations and Dangers.” neavs, 2018, https://www.neavs.org/research/limitations. Accessed 7 April 2018.
Peggs, Kay. “An Insufferable Business: Ethics, Nonhuman Animals and Biomedical Experiments.” Animals (Basel), vol. 5, no. 3, 2015, pp. 624-642, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4598698/?report=reader. Accessed 6 April 2018.
