What factors should influence decisions. about animal testing?

Transcription

1 Alexis Nelson English 1010 Kilpatrick 5 Nov Annotated Bibliography What factors should influence decisions about animal testing? Do you put make-up on frequently, paint your nails, take medicine, use household chemicals to clean, and hair spray your hair, etc.? Many of us do not think we are harming another being by helping our needs as human beings. Every year, over two hundred million innocent animals are injured or killed in scientific experiments across the world. Estimates are that 100 million animals are used worldwide for animal testing, 274,000 per day, or three every second. Animal rights and testing is a huge debate in the world today because of the controversial opinions that are held: if Animal testing should be done or not. Many animal lovers and non animal lovers are against each other because of the fact one thinks animal testing is more of a fraud, and the other thinking it more of a help to humans. People argue that these

2 experiments are ridiculous and senseless, and also billion dollar businesses that are funded by the federal government and the public s tax money, instead of being used for more important human studies. Animal testing, as defined in the online biology dictionary is the use of animals in experiments and development projects usually to determine toxicity, dosing and efficacy of test drugs before proceeding to human clinical trials. I have always had a love for animals ever since I was a little girl, wanting the career of becoming a veterinarian. Wanting to become a veterinarian I have always wondered the question what factors should influence decisions about animal testing? We as humans should care about the topic of animal testing because of the controversies of two sided opinions of against and for. Many believe animals are suffering, and it's cruelty, while others believe they are only here for human well-being purposes. But is it really necessary to subject animals to torturous conditions and experiments for scientific improvement to save human life? Draggan Sidney Ph.D. and Emily Monosson "Animal testing alternatives. In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment). 21 Sept Web 1 Nov In this article Sidney Draggan explains the different types of testing from the In vitro, vivo, and silico testing. In vitro testing is conducted in Petri dishes, in vivo is the conducting on living organisms or lab animals, and in silico testing is the study of substances or physical properties by a computer. Draggan explains how each of these model tests has limitations although the most problematic and controversial testing Vivo is used more frequently. Draggan states in silico testing will be the test that reduces animal testing, because in silico will be able to predict chemical effects. Many research and policy efforts are trying to find a different alternative to animal testing by taking out the in vivo. Draggan states that the public and private sector wants a different alternative than animal testing. To find a different way to study how a substance can harm humans or animals is very complicated. Draggan explains that animals are

3 good models to have when learning about chemical substances and how the organism reacts to it, because human testing is not allowed. Animals are used in the evaluation of very harmful substances, but without them as models scientists would lack a model for getting information for the decisions needed for human well being. Scientists are required by the state to go with the animal care guidelines for being compassionate, first considering an alternative to animal testing before an animal experiment, and the permission of the Animal Welfare Act. This article comes from the Encyclopedia of Earth, a very informative source. This article provides information for a logical appeal, with information from the types of tests performed to the responsibility Scientists have. The author Dr. Sidney Draggan seems credible because of the title of the Dr. in his name. Draggan is an ecologist and Science Policy Analyst, with a lot of experience and becoming a Senior Science and Science Policy Advisor to the assistant Administrator for research and development at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which makes him sound trustworthy. I found this an interesting article because of the different tests used to be conducted on different substances. This article is a logical appeal that displays great facts, placing itself in my eyes more credible because it is not opinionated, and therefore more reliable coming from a credible source. The good and bad are pointed out for animal research, making the article easier to read because you get to think about both sides. The paragraph in the article about protecting animal subjects I will use in my paper, because it states Scientist responsibility in following strict animal care guidelines. Faris, Wendy. "Animal Testing and You." TRU Animal Rights. TRU Animal Rights. Web. 1 Nov 2012.

4 Wendy Faris states her opinion in this article, by being against animal testing. Faris states that Canada is a country that permits testing on animals with different products; Faris s purpose of this article is to bring awareness to the fact that there are humane alternatives to animal testing that can be less expensive to carry out. She explains that animal testing might be here for years to come, but all that we can hope for is for the safety in less suffering, and well being of the animals. To ensure that these humane standards are being enforced, we need to pressure and remind the legislators to enforce the standards, consistently. Faris explains that instead of an animal s pain and discomfort in tests, many of the humane alternatives like tissue cultures are being proven to be more accurate and utilizable results than that of animals. Faris reminds us Americans that just because a product label in the grocery store is not tested on animals doesn t mean that it is true, because they are not regulated by government. The one way that Faris says we can ensure whether or not a food product is not animal tested is to look for the leaping bunny symbol: used to symbolize that they are PETA approved. In this article it is an informative look at animal testing and also the humane alternatives for your every day products. This article is found on the TRU Animal Rights site, where many informative opinionated articles are written by members of the Law Students in Defense of Animal Rights Club making it more credible and trustworthy. The Author Wendy Faris is a second year law student that gives a logical appeal to Animal rights and what to look for in product labels. This article I found very reliable as an opinion source, although I didn t find any of this article too informative to my question of why test on animals when our value and theirs is equal? Faris only informed me what to look for in a product at the store, and we need to pressure legislatures to enforce standards consistently. I don t think I will add any of this article in my paper, knowing it would do no good to my question, but maybe the last paragraph where she says to look for the leaping bunny.

5 Mukerjee, Madhusree. "Trends in Animal Research." Scientific American. 1997: Web. 1 Nov Madhusree Mukerjee states that in the U.S the animals used are: primates, dogs, cats, guinea pigs, rabbits, hamsters, excluding rats, mice and birds. An estimated 17 million animals are used every year, with primates increasingly being used in experiments. Many main animals (dogs and cats) are being replaced by farm animals. Stated in the article by Mukerjee, Senator Robert Dole of Kansas was able to bring an amendment to act. The amendment established institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs) at each facility using regulated animals and required laboratories to exercise dogs and to ensure the psychological well-being of primates. (Mukerjee 79-93) Mukerjee explains how in 1986 an inspector from the U.S Department of Agriculture sought advice on primates being told that primates have no emotions, then in 1996 finding that primates have every emotion that humans have. Mukerjee states the Animal Welfare Act s amendments refer to all warm blooded animals, but the USDA s regulations exclude rats, mice, and birds. The USDA was sued by humane organizations for the lack of regulations, although the humane organizations won but the suit was thrown away for a non civil suit. Only the animals left out of these regulations being injured could bring a civil suit. Mukerjee brings up another controversy that happened in 1985, when the USDA failed to come up with a plan for dog and primate well-being. Facilities are to make their own plans, which excited Researcher but not so much the Humane Society. Mukerjee writes that in 1993 the NIH were directed by congress to come up with a plan, and their plan was that scientists need to decide for themselves what the best way to solve their problem is. European Union plans to split the animal use in half, but NIH found this unlikely. Propaganda is a battle with dissection in school and advocates fear without dissection fewer students would be attracted to or equipped for the life sciences. (Mukerjee 79-93). In the article Mukerjee brings up the fact Animal liberators need to accept that animal research is beneficial to humans. And animal researchers need to admit that if animals are close enough to humans that their

6 bodies, brains and even psyches are good models for the human condition, and then ethical dilemmas surely arise in using them. This article is a magazine article, from the Scientific American. The article is composed of several different writers from the Center for Animals and Public Policy, Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine in New England. Because this magazine article came from a veterinarian school of medicine, they sound like credible authors. Madhusree Mukerjee is a staff writer from the veterinarian school. He provides a lot of facts and dates from credible sources like the people in the USDA and Animal Welfare Act, etc. Mukerjee provides a lot of quotes, statistics, and findings from organizations and opinions that make this article a Pathos and logical appeal. I found this article to be very helpful to my paper because of the great statistics and input from various credible people apart of these huge organizations. This article gives me more of an idea why animals do not have more rights than what they have right now. I am going to use this article in my paper, because it gives me facts about different acts and organizations: USDA, Animal Welfare Act, IACUCs, etc. how they work and their background. Nathan, Fulkerson. "Testing on animals leads to important medical breakthroughs." Northern Star [DeKalb] 6 April 2011, n. page. Web. 1 Nov In this article Nathan Fulkerson explains that animal rights activists are most concerned with the conditions the animals undergo in experimentation. Animal testing will be the only way for human well being if no alternative for human testing is available. He states that animals are also improving their species from the solution for the diseases: polio, diphtheria, mumps, rubella and hepatitis.) Monkeys were conducted on for Deep brain stimulation which was effective in the treatment of Parkinson s disease. Fulkerson brings up the question So what should we do

7 about animal testing s failures? Does the tragedy of thalidomide put a nail in the coffin of animal testing altogether? the answer was no from Pro-test: an activist group that are against animal testing. The drug Thalidomide did pass the test on animals only because the wrong tests were performed. Later when the drug was removed from the market and tested the right way this time, the results revealed that the drug gives the animal birth defects. A BBC News story calls for an animal free lab, given the 3 R s: Reducing, refining, and replacing. Fulkerson s opinion on animal testing, is since us humans exceed animals in smartness greater ethical concerns in the course of scientific tests than purposefully-bred lab mice. He believes there is a difference between animals suffering of human cruelty, and suffering for medical research. Fulkerson hopes that one day animal testing will come to an end, with the new technology of our world today. This article is opinionated and appealed as logic, because of the facts Fulkerson states, and his conclusion of being in-between for and against animal testing. This article comes from the Northern Star: a Daily student newspaper of Northern Illinois University in DeKalb. Because this source comes from a University site it seems credible and reliable. I find this article interesting because of the different diseases that were conquered, and the tests that have given humans a solution for like Parkinson s disease. I will use these facts of the diseases treated in my paper, which support my question. Sherrow, Michelle. "Top Cosmetic Companies Quietly Resume Cruel Animal Testing." Opposing Views. PETA, Web. 1 Nov In the article Michelle Sherrow states that the three cosmetic businesses Avon, Estee Lauder, and Mary Kay have done animal testing behind the backs of Americans, following Chinese government requirements after making a no animal testing policy. These were downgraded in the eyes of PETA. After being targeted and humiliated, these companies banned

8 all tests, Avon being the first. Non animal methods are available by the Chinese government. Sherrow explains that out of all three cosmetic companies Avon and Estee Lauder agreed with the tests, while Mary Kay took steps to work with the Chinese. PETA is already on the ball by awarding a grant to in vitro sciences, for the effort of non animal testing in china. In this article cosmetic companies are discussed, in how they eventually banned all tests on animals and agreeing to participate in the effort non animal methods after resuming to animal testing. Michelle Sherrow is a writer for PETA, which makes her sound credible. PETA is an organization that is against animal cruelty, which seems credible coming from an animal based source. Sherrow went to college to be a journalist, until she learned about the cruelty of factory farming. She stopped eating meat and decided to work to help end animal suffering, now she shops for non cruel shoes and bags. I don t think I will use that much information off of this article, by Michelle Sherrrow because of the shortness of the article and the fewer facts/ credible input. I think PETA is a great source, and I think using a little of the companies background information in my paper will make it more interesting. Shoss, Brenda. "The Multi-Billion Dollar Lie: Animal Experimentation." all-creatures.org. Circles, n.d. Web. 1 Nov Kinship Brenda Shoss made a great statement: If I told you something claims to save lives, but actually leads to injury or death; that taxpayers hand over $12-18 billion for it yearly; and that the only ones getting rich are corporate purveyors with a harmful product- you d probably get angry. But if I told you that something is animal research, chances are you d tell me about necessary sacrifices to save human lives especially the children In the article Shoss explains how animal testing is actually a multi-billion dollar business. Many great facts are given

9 for the unsafely drugs, 1734 human drugs are called ADR s (Adverse Drug Reactions (U.S. Food and Drug Administration records)) From the Journal of the American Medical Association it has been found that the ADR s are the 4 th leading cause of death, and over 2 million Americans are harmed annually. Shoss explains how Pharmacy brands are raking in around billions of dollars while generic brands are right behind them with billions also; they rush through animal experiments so you are getting your drug sooner. Shoss explains that many experiments cannot be done a second time and animals are blamed for the irrelevant cancers and other diseases. Shoss brings to our attention that animal researchers are awarded more than non animal research technologies. Shoss sees animal research as a Flawed science that delays medical progress and harms humans. This article is from the organization Kinship Circle, which is a nonprofit, focused in Animal Advocacy, Education, and Disaster Aid. This article from Kinship Circle is more opinion based because of Brenda Shoss conclusion of animal researchers. This article source seems credible even though it is opinionated. Shoss has a great love for animals and is very passionate about what she does as an animal activist. I found this opinion article very informative and interesting, because Shoss states many statistics. She gives credit to the credible sources she has found her information from, making me think of her as credible. Even though it is hard to find an opinionated column completely trustworthy and reliable, I will choose from the facts that were credited to different sources to put into my paper. I will also add to my paper the opinion of Shoss as an animal activist, and how she sees animal testing.

10 Animals are being tested every day whether it is right or if it is wrong is your opinion, and you re the one that can help. Wendy Faris and Brenda Shoss a writer for Kinship circles are against in their opinion for animal testing because animals every day are suffering and living in poor environments. Faris gives us ways as a community to help the animals to have a better life and limit animal cruelty. Nathan Fulkerson is in-between the subject not wanting animal cruelty, but wants the best for his kind as a human. From these three perspectives you are able to build an opinion for yourself, of whose side you are on. Animal testing, like many of the issues we face today, is not only hard to support, but hard to difficult to argue against. It is hard to support and argue against animal experimentation due to the facts that Fulkerson backs up, the great remarkable knowledge we have today from testing on animals.

11 What factors should influence decisions about animal testing? All three critics believe that there are other alternatives that can be used on other than animal testing to carry out that is less expensive. Human alternatives are brought up in all three articles, although animal testing is still being used. Faris states that Common sense when it comes to animal testing would be a major help to deduce testing, although like Nathan Fulkerson says "it is not as if scientists are willfully ignoring those methods because they can experiment on a rabbit instead." Faris and Brenda Shoss are against animal testing and suffering, while Shoss is more heavily against the testing Faris explains how there are other alternatives and better ways to test. Shoss states a great way of viewing animal testing as "If I told you something claims to save lives, but actually leads to injury or death; that taxpayers hand over $12-18 billion for it yearly; and that the only ones getting rich are corporate purveyors with a harmful product- you'd probably get angry. But if I told you that "something" is animal research, chances are you'd tell me about "necessary sacrifices...to save human lives...especially the children." Faris states that animal testing is the practice that might continue for years to come, so Fulkerson says that because of this and the fact that humans are the only other alternative, animal testing will be necessary for the well-being of humans and other animals and the improvement of science. Shoss does not want any more animal testing done even if it will be for years to come especially when majority of the experiments done in animals are wrong, and in fact harmful to humans. Although Shoss and Faris are against testing, Faris states that if it is going to happen we might have to start somewhere and pressure the public and legislatures to ensure the right standards and practices on animal safety and that it is being strongly enforced. Fulkerson explains the three R's: reducing, refining and replacing. These principles are to limit the amount of animal testing and use alternatives when needed so that, just like Faris says that these

12 principles will ensure animals are experiencing the best during all stages of testing with the reduction of animal suffering. Shoss and Faris state that animal testing is not always accurate especially when the same results being recorded did not need testing. Shoss shares the fact that around 1734 drugs that were "proven" safe for humans were actually recalled due to ADR's (Adverse drug reactions) causing 100,000 deaths. Because of all of the misfortune in animal testing and failure that is blamed Shoss says, Faris brings up the fact that as more and more research is being done human alternative testing are found to be more accurate and reliable than animal subjects. Faris says that the human testing is the experiment of tissue cultures. Shoss and Faris's perspectives are closer related than that of Fulkerson's perspective of animal testing. Shoss and Faris are against animal testing and there suffering, although within different degrees of being against while Fulkerson is not to say biased towards animal testing but views animal testing to be a somewhat good thing. Shoss believes that every discovery done in animals are always wrong while on the other hand Fulkerson has a different view that animal testing has led to many remarkable discoveries that have boosted human well-being. Fulkerson states that Deep brain stimulation experimented in animals have been remarkable in the treatment for Parkinson's disease, and other diseases like "polio, diphtheria, mumps, rubella and hepatitis". Not only have they helped in the well-being of humans but animals also. Summarizing the perspectives of the three critics, Faris and Shoss are more related in that way; Shoss is against but explains more of how alternatives would be better. Shoss Is more heavily against stating that animal testing is "about flawed science that delays medical progress and harms humans." and Fulkerson is not biased for animals but because he is human he puts more value in human lives but would like to see animal testing end. He doesn't think humans have the rights to torture animals but there is a difference between animal suffering between cruel ways and obtaining medical knowledge.

13 Works Cited Draggan Sidney Ph.D. and Emily Monosson "Animal testing alternatives. In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment). 21 Sept Web 1 Nov Faris, Wendy. "Animal Testing and You." TRU Animal Rights. TRU Animal Rights. Web. 1 Nov Mukerjee, Madhusree. "Trends in Animal Research." Scientific American. 1997: Web. 1 Nov Nathan, Fulkerson. "Testing on animals leads to important medical breakthroughs." Northern Star [DeKalb] 6 April 2011, n. page. Web. 1 Nov Neavs,. "Animals in Research." Neavs. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Dec < Shoss, Brenda. "The Multi-Billion Dollar Lie: Animal Experimentation." all-creatures.org. Kinship Circles, n.d. Web. 1 Nov 2012.

14 What factors should influence decisions about animal testing? Animal s everyday are being tested and even killed by suffering. Animal rights and testing is a huge debate in the world today because of the controversial opinions that are held: if Animal testing should be done or not. We as humans should care about the topic of animal testing because of the controversies of two sided opinions of against and for. Many believe animals are suffering, and it's cruelty, while others believe they are only here for human wellbeing purposes. Animals should not be tested on, when our value as humans and theirs is equal. Many of you have heard of animal testing before, but do you really know what goes on behind all of the products you buy? From make-up, household products, industrial and agricultural chemicals, pesticides, paint, and food additives. Every year, over two hundred million innocent animals are injured or killed in scientific experiments across the world. People have been working to help prevent cruelty towards animals being tested in research for more than a hundred years and get laws passed, such as the Animal Welfare Act and the Health Research Extension Act. Why are animals considered to be subjected to being tortured and brought to pain by acts of research for the well-being of humans, when in reality some of these experiments are fraud and are now actually recalled for the harmful effect on humans. Animal testing is fraud because of

15 the fact that majority of the tests done in the lab cannot be repeated a second time. Animal testing should be illegal, and alternatives to animal testing should be considered. Animals are tested every day with numbers of 274,000, 100 million animals worldwide, with three animals per second. Before some of the animal s deaths they burned, forced to inhale toxic fumes and poisoned, shocked, put in restraint devices being immobilized, starved, addicted to drugs, brain damage from holes drilled into their skulls, bones crushed, and skin burnt. To add to the torment of the cruel experiments, animals in laboratories are deprived of what is natural and important to them. They are socially isolated in small boxes, and traumatized psychologically. The controversy of animal testing has been around since the seventeenth century. The topic came about when people didn't like the way testing was being conducted, and the feeling that the animals in the labs are treated like nothings. Logically I do believe animal testing has it's pro's and con's because on the other side of the opinion some remarkable knowledge has come from animal experimenting, and until technology happened that was the only alternative we had. I understand that animals were the only way to experiment at the time, but I think that now technology is better and there is different ways to run experiments from animal replicas to gain better control and record facts better, instead of pet animals that we love. Because of technology and its growth hopefully new alternatives will come out. According to a few critics animal experimentation is seen in different ways. Brenda Shoss is a writer and animal advocate for Kinship Circles, who believes animal testing, should be put to an end. Shoss points out that animal testing is a multi-billion dollar business that is fraud causing failure to blame for cancer and diseases. Shoss explains how 1734 drugs over the U.S have been found recalled because of ADR's (Adverse Drug Reactions) being the 4th leading cause of human death. Shoss points out that pharmacy brands are raking in the dough, rushing

16 through experience to lay their product out fast. It is stated that majority of the experiments done cannot be repeated a second time. Wendy Faris the second critic is against animal testing, and clearly states that there are more humane alternatives to animal testing that can be less expensive. The best we can do Faris says is put pressure on the legislatures to ensure standards are being enforced and animal suffering is reduced. Faris states that animals should receive the best care during their experience in the lab, for their well-being. Nathan Fulkerson the third critic explains that if there are no alternatives to animal testing, then animal testing will be the only way. He states that animal testing has done us good for finding solutions to diseases, and the correct treatment of Parkinson's disease. Fulkerson States the three R's: reducing, refining, and replacing. These R's are put into place to reduce animal testing and to use alternatives if possible. He thinks that putting animal suffering to an end would be great, but since there is not a way yet, he is for his own kind as a human to protect us. He believes there is a difference between animals suffering of human cruelty, and suffering for the purpose of medical research. As my position in this debate is being against animal testing, I agree with all three critics but more of Wendy Faris and Brenda Shoss's perspective seeing as they are more against the testing. I agree with Faris that Pressure should be put on Legislatures to ensure the practices and standards are enforced for the animal s well-being. Faris states ways we as a community can help and ensure animals are living the best life they can. As for agreeing with Faris I also agree with Brenda Shoss a former animal advocate, that majority of animal experiments cannot be performed a second time because animals during testing endure stress and fear that can affect the results of the testing making the results meaningless. I agree with the question Shoss asks: "Why do National Institutes of Health pay billions of taxpayer dollars on medical schools for animal experimentation?" especially if every discovery or experiment in an animal is done wrong. What

17 would the students be learning? If the only reason is animal research is rewarded more funding faster. I don't think billions of dollars should go into animal research in schools if the actual results are not exact. Nathan Fulkerson is part of both sides of the debate; I agree that animal research has given us some remarkable information that has helped human s disease wise. I see his point when he says he s not biased but since he is human he will put more value into humans. When Fulkerson states that there is a difference between suffering for cruelty and the suffering to build medical research, I believe there is a point where we as humans have to do what we have to do, but suffering is suffering and I don't want to see animals go through that. As I have always wanted to become a veterinarian since I was a little girl, I have always had a passion for animals and it hurt me every time I had to hear of one in pain or in suffice. It is important that us as humans have well-being and live as happily as we can, but also should animals be given the same right, as they too are sentient beings with feelings and need for love. Animal testing due to the stress and fear hasn't always had the best results, especially when an animal s response to something can be different to a human s response. As technology has improved over the last few years I am happy to hear that animal testing has been hindered now that alternatives are starting to be found. Tissue cultures from humans from what Wendy Faris has stated in her article, has been proven to be more reliable. Having tissue from human will not hurt us as humans but the results won t have a chance of being altered from different emotions that we wouldn't encounter. I volunteer in an animal hospital and love seeing animals leave feeling better, and happier. I would like to see in the future more alternatives to animal testing, because many innocent lives don't deserve to die every day when they have no say in the doing.