Issue Exploration Project: How Moral is it to Use Animals in Testing?

Transcription

1 Gooch 1 Elizabeth Gooch Rebecca Blommer ENGL May 2015 Issue Exploration Project: How Moral is it to Use Animals in Testing? Self-Reflection I do believe I have achieved what I was meant to by the end of this course after writing this. Although this was, in my mind, one of the most far from enjoyable assignments I have written this term, it was still a good learning experience. Most notable of the experiences was that I really should not miss that much school or I will be far behind on the assignment and stress and cram a lot of it into one day. My writing process was not very memorable, as I honestly can not remember most of it; I do not know why. I do remember that it felt quit long and hard to keep focused on the paper for any length of time. I also became sick during writing this and so much of my grammar and writing conventions flew out the window. This is the first large research paper I have had to write and writing it was honestly about how I imagined it would be. I did get better at identifying fallacies (seen in the annotated bibliography) and I also learned how to site a great many things in MLA. I also found it interesting to see the differing opinions on my subject in detail. The title for the biggest struggle when writing this was a tie between how hard it was to keep writing when I really did not want to, and putting all of the sections together in a way that they flowed. My biggest success while writing this would have to be simply the action of finishing this whole paper. I know this self-reflection makes it seem like this whole process, and paper, was awful, I did enjoy my interview with both my mother and Zuma and learning about all the ways scientists

2 Gooch 2 must first get their experiments approved before they may begin testing if the test involves animals. I also enjoyed seeing the ways people are attempting to overcome the need for animals in testing at all with new technological advancements. Another thing I enjoyed was seeing what the other members in my core group decided to do for their topics and reading their essays was interesting and educational. This really did help me decide what rhetoric to use and not to use in my own writing; what sounded good, and what sounded absolutely horrendous put together. This does not mean I thought any of my peer s essays were horrendous. Almost all of the horrendous parts were from my essay; reading my peers essays merely helped me figure out how to fix them. I got better at identifying rhetoric within others writing through this. For the Conclusions part of my essay, I went back and did more research on some of the interesting technologies currently being researched and found some very interesting stuff. I am quite happy that I did that as without it, I would not have learned in much greater detail what kind of tech is currently being researched and how close it is to becoming a widespread treatment and experimental program. I also learned that getting a new and addictive video game that takes roughly two weeks to finish right at the end of the term is a very bad Idea. It most defiantly distracted me from my writing and I am sure I would have gotten more sleep if I had gotten it later and as such, my sentences throughout would be much easier to follow and would have far less typos within them. I will endeavor not to repeat this throughout my college career. Annotated Bibliography Driscoll, Sally; Finley, Laura Animal Experimentation: An Overview. Animal Experimentation. 2015, p1-1. 1p.

3 Gooch 3 PD N/A Web. April In the article, Animal Experimentation: An Overview, Sally Driscoll, co-author Laura Finley, outlines what animal testing is, groups and terms related to the topic, the history of animal testing, and many of the reasons why people oppose animal testing. Driscoll and Finley tell how many people oppose animal testing as a moral issue and how this has evolved throughout history. The two also explain some terms commonly associated with animal testing. This essay is geared towards anyone looking into animal experimentation in an academic sense. Driscoll uses academic language in order to get her point across and build herself a character that knows what she is doing and writing about. She also varies her style, putting in a list of defined terms in one part of the essay, and paragraph format at the beginning and end. Along with this, she varies her paragraph length. While I do believe Driscoll and Finley did a good job outlining the opposition to animal experimentation, they both fail entirely to explain some of the exact ways animals are experimented upon, and how animal testing helps, making this less of an overview, and more of an opinion piece in my opinion. I believe they were attempting to appeal the most popular viewpoint, the band wagon appeal; that animal testing is morally wrong, without even mentioning why people do not simply so something else if it is so wrong. While this is a well thought out essay on how animal experimentation is bad, it is not a good overview upon the subject as it claims to be. I will most likely use this simply for the definitions and history part. Wright, George; Hoagland, Steve Animal Testing Is Cruel and Immoral Regardless of the Benefits Associated With It. Animal Experimentation. 2015, p3-3. 1p PD N/A Web. April

4 Gooch 4 Animal Testing Is Cruel and Immoral Regardless of the Benefits Associated With It. by George Wright and Steve Hoagland is a piece telling of how animals are mistreated when being tested upon. It also poses some questions of whether or not humans have the right to treat animals in such a way. The intended audience of this piece is scholars who believe that animal testing is ok. The authors here appeal almost entirely to emotion, taking extreme cases of animal testing, and showing those. The two also speak of pets and how pets are animals and how much we love our pets. False dichotomy is incredibly strong in this essay; either you believe that animal testing is bad and you are capable of love, or you believe it is one hundred percent alright and you are a soulless monster who does not love or appreciate animals. This is very much not the case. While this essay does a good job of pointing out how awful animal testing is for the animals, it is a bit overdramatic, and false in some cases. The author asks about why the companies do not show their testing to the public, when, in my experiences, they do. All one must do is ask. In the middle of the piece Wright gets a bit off topic and starts speaking about the food industry. While this does pose some good thoughts, the food and pharmaceutical industries are incredibly different, both in their practices and legislation, and they are incredibly hard to compare correctly; a red herring. I will use this piece as an example of the exact reasons behind those opposing animal testing and a centerpiece to the points of the essay above this one. George, Patricia; Wagner, Geraldine Medical Experiments on Animals Are an Important Element of Drug Development. Animal Experimentation. 2015, p2-2. 1p. PD N/A Web. April Medical Experiments on Animals Are an Important Element of Drug Development. by Patricia George and co-author Geraldine Wagner is an academic article that points out the many ways

5 Gooch 5 that animal testing has helped humanity throughout history. The two start the article with how much medical practices have approved in recent times and then continue to expand upon exactly how this has been done and how animal experimentation had helped these improvements come to pass. The audience of the particular piece is anyone who believes that animal testing is, at all of its levels, immoral and should be stopped. The two authors appeal to logic and emotion in their piece by using academic language and facts, and by posing moral questions about humanity itself. George and Wagner vary their sentence and paragraph length throughout the piece. They also have a long bibliography at the end of the piece to show just how much they have researched the topic. However, much of this article uses over exaggerated diction to help their piece; making it seem as if without animal testing, we would all be miserable or dead; false dichotomy. Although the beginning to this piece was a bit rocky; the author alluding to parts of the article that were never written; the whole thing got back on track very quickly and did a good job of staying there. The writers obviously had an opinion and showcased that opinion quite well with nice examples of how the issue affects the real world and its problems. I will most defiantly use this as a direct contrast to the viewpoints of those who oppose this entirely.

6 Gooch 6 Introduction It has been happening for as long as we can remember. Using animals for our own purposes is nothing new. It is only that in relatively recent times the question has been posed; do we, as a species truly have the right to kill and use animals for our own benefit? This is often a hard topic to tackle due to all the moral debates that come along with it; when we are using living beings that can and do feel pain, do the costs of this pain outweigh the benefits? There are many perspectives on the issue of animal testing, varying from the idea that all animal testing is bad and should be abolished to those who believe that there are no reasons to get rid of animal testing, they are just dumb animals after all. Many people on both sides of the argument believe that there Fig 1. A small mouse is tested upon,vit Kovalcik; Shutterstock N.p, N.d, Web are only the two extremes, and that it is impossible to believe in anything else, when truthfully, most people s opinions seem to fall somewhere between the two. Animal rights began to gain traction in the mid nineteenth century, when the first society was founded; the Vivisection Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in At the time vivisection (the practice of performing operations on live animals for the purpose of experimentation or scientific research) was the only way to get reliable scientific findings due to the technological limitations at the time. Today vivisection is not only a huge social taboo but almost obsolete because of the huge technological advancements made in the latter part of the

7 Gooch 7 last century. We have also seen a huge increase of results within the last century due to animal testing; the cures to such diseases as polio are the main ones. Technology is the main reason this is being debated more and more today. Many scientists and engineers are working to create a sort of artificial body for people to test on. And although it may seem like something from a scifi movie, people have already figured out how to 3-D print working human organs made up completely of organic substances. Advancements like this can be used for a multitude of opportunities, organ transplants being one, and although they have a ways to go, they beg the question of whether or not animal testing will be needed at all in the future, and how close is that future really? Literature Review There are many differing opinions when regarding anything that has to do with morals as everyone s morals are different. Although there are far more, this paper will focus on four main opinions: Animal testing is horrible and should be abolished; animal testing is perfectly fine; animal testing is a necessary evil; and, we no longer need animal testing. Most, if not all, people who are against animal testing are animal rights activists; people who believe that animals have just as many rights as we do and should be allowed to live their lives to the fullest without any outside interference. They believe that animal testing in all of its ways is evil. They adhere to a strict moral code and wish for animal testing to be banned regardless of any benefits it may or may not have. (Wright) Many people with this opinion, however, fail to see the millions of people animal testing helps, or simply ignore this fact outright, leading to much misinformation being posted about the issue. Wrights argument relies on mostly the emotion of the reader, appealing to like-minded people and anyone who can feel empathy when seeing cruelty to animals. While this is the main

8 Gooch 8 appeal to his argument, it is also where he falls flat. As stated before, failing to say who and what animal testing helps, and why the cruelty to the animals overrides how much animal testing can help. His diction is professional, but the piece is written with such emotion infused into it, it is hard to tell if this article is meant to be an opinion piece or not. The second point of view is held mostly by scientists and those who have been helped by vaccines derived from animal testing. Those with this opinion see no problem at all with using animals to benefit themselves and either do not care about the animals suffering, believe that animals are incapable of suffering, or simply put the suffering of the greater collective before that of the animals being testing upon. The main part of this opinion that turns people away, is the fact that many believe that, in order to feel like this, one must think that animals feel no pain. This is not always the case. Patricia George gives some good points on how animal testing has directly benefited millions of people and gives examples of how, along with the academic language used throughout her piece, gives herself credibility. (George) Along with this opinion, there are those who believe that animals can in fact feel pain but the benefits far outweigh the costs. A great many people hold this belief; Dr. Zang is one of them. She believes that the animals under her care should not be harmed unnecessarily, and should be respected for what they do for us and many other animals. Her credentials and work in fields that involve animal testing establish credibility. She appeals to anyone who had either of the opinions above with her statement that we should respect animals, and with the many ways she stated that animal testing has helped. This is probably the opinion that most people who experiment on animals hold. In many cases, scientists raise the animals that they later experiment on themselves, leading them to hold a greater respect for the animals.

9 Gooch 9 The last point of view is used mostly by people who haven t researched the new technologies in length. While yes, they are incredible, they are still in the experimental phase themselves and have a ways to go before they can be used in any widespread manner. The people who hold this opinion mostly do it because they want it to be true; they wish for a way around needless suffering, despite the fact the technologies have yet to reach a full working state. PETA believes this and stated it in their fact sheet for why animal testing is not necessary. However, the fail to state any examples of where any sort of new technology is being used for this purpose, leading to doubt. They appeal to people who wish for an end to animal testing, but still want the benefits that come along with it, and anyone who is not well versed in the subject of experimental technologies so that they may believe it. Commentary Over the last several decades, there has been much debate over the use of animals in research and testing. Those opposed mainly argue that animal testing is unethical and cruel to sentient beings. Those in favor argue that using animals is necessary for fuller understanding of complex diseases and for developing treatments and cures, as well as for ensuring safety of products intended for use in humans. While I absolutely agree that research animals are sentient and deserve to be treated compassionately and with respect, I also understand the value of understanding diseases, developing treatments and ensuring product safety. I am actually quite in the middle of this argument and even though I believe that the greater good allows research involving animals, if an alternative to animal testing were to appear, I would jump on it in seconds. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, is probably the single biggest opponent of animal research. Their top five reasons for opposing animal testing and research can

10 Gooch 10 be summed up as follows: One: Animals are sentient, and it is unethical to place them in cages where they are intentionally subjected to pain, loneliness and fear. Two: The FDA itself says that animal research fails most of the time, so animal research is pointless. Three: Experimenters are intentionally misleading, so animal research is wasteful. Four: Computers and test tube methods of research are just as effective. Five: The world doesn t need another eyeliner, hand soap, food ingredient, drug for erectile dysfunction, or pesticide so badly that it should come at the expense of animals lives. (PETA) PETA is one of the most well-known agencies on that side of the argument and their points do deserve to be looked at. The third argument states almost outright that PETA believes all researchers are acting in bad faith. The implication is that research is being conducted on animals because those who do so are either by nature sadists or are just trying to get a buck and the best way to do so is to torment animals. I believe that those who conduct animal research are mostly like Banting and Best, the scientists who discovered insulin.(nordqvist) They conducted their research on dogs, not because they enjoyed tormenting dogs, or because they wanted to make money, but because they wanted to help human beings in need. PETA s fifth argument oversimplifies the problem. It implies that research is only for trivial wants, not actual needs. It discounts research on cancer or Banting and Best s: diabetes. While arguments three and five are weak, one and two are compelling, while four offers a solution. One is, again, somewhat oversimplified. Researchers do not intentionally subject animals to loneliness, pain and fear. In fact, in my interview with Dr. Ping Zhang, a scientist at the Veterans Affairs Hospital and University of Utah, I learned that all animal research must be done in accordance with an IACUC (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee) approved protocol, and that this protocol must account for any fear, loneliness, pain or distress the animals

11 Gooch 11 may be subjected to by the experiments that will be conducted upon them. For example, Dr. Zhang, who does kidney and diabetes research, must collect urine from rats. This requires housing them singly in something called a metabolic cage for a few hours. Rats are social animals and must be housed in groups in cages that are large enough that they can move around. She has to explain in her protocol exactly why she is subjecting these social creatures to loneliness even for a few hours, how she will look for signs that the animal is lonely, hurt or distressed, and what she will do if it seems the animal is overly lonely, hurt or distressed. My interview with Dr. Zhang reinforced my view that scientists are not sadists. It further confirmed that animal research is done for the benefit of something other than new eyeliners, PETA s concern number five. Kidney disease and diabetes are sources of immense human suffering. They are also the source of immense animal suffering, which brings me back to PETA s most compelling argument. Is animal research for the benefit of humans worth the cost to the sentient beings on which the research is conducted? This is the concern that gives me the most pause. Who is to say that human beings are more important than other sentient animals? Dr. Zhang s research is currently focused on a diabetes treatment that is intended for dogs. It turns out that not all research is just for humans. It also helps other animals. Banting and Best in 1920, through research on dogs, discovered insulin which saves the lives of hundreds of thousands of diabetic humans each year. Dr. Zhang in 2015 is working on a treatment for diabetic dogs, one she hopes will also benefit diabetic humans. While research on animals must be conducted ethically, I believe the benefits outweigh the costs. Additionally, after my interview with Dr. Zhang, I believe there are regulations and institutions in place that, if enforced properly, address the needs of the sentient animals that are being experimented on. I also believe that scientists have a healthy respect and love for the

12 Gooch 12 animals on which they conduct their research. Dr. Zhang pointed out a poster that hangs in the animal research facility. It shows a picture of a rat and states saved more lives than 911. Dr. Zhang says the poster is there to remind us both of why we use animals, and what we owe them. Solutions and Conclusions The arguments of those who believe there should be animal research in order to advance knowledge of disease and of those who believe there should be no animal research because animals are sentient creatures whose lives have value and deserve respect both have merit. We need valid research methods that give meaningful, relevant results, but we also need to respect other living creatures and not sacrifice animals unnecessarily. Fortunately, scientists are coming up with better ways to conduct research that uses fewer animals. Previously, I had mentioned that a major reason for the need for research animals is that, animals are used in research when there is a need to find out what happens in the whole, living body, which is far more complex than the sum of its parts. In some cases, such as the kidney or the heart, a single organ is so complex that working with just a single subtype of cells from that organ in vitro is insufficient to generate much meaningful information about the interactions of that cell type with other cell types or structures of just that one organ. For example, working with kidney tubule cells alone will not tell us much about how kidney glomerular cells work with kidney tubule cells, while working with a whole kidney might. Usually, one needs a whole animal to have a whole functioning kidney. 3D printing of organs is one way of overcoming such an obstacle without having to use research animals, or at least being able to postpone the use of research animals until more information is gleaned. As stated in a recent Nature Biotechnology article, 3D bioprinting has already been used for the generation and transplantation of several tissues, including

13 Gooch 13 multilayered skin, bone, vascular grafts, tracheal splints, heart tissue and cartilaginous structures. Other applications include developing high-throughput 3D-bioprinted tissue models for research, drug discovery and toxicology. (Murphy) In other words, 3D bioprinting has already advanced to the point that several tissue types have been duplicated well enough to work as transplants in humans, and this technology is being used to reduce the number and replace the use of research animals in some instances. This technology is not a full answer to the problem of the use of research animals though. As also noted in the same article, compared with non-biological printing, 3D bioprinting involves additional complexities, such as the choice of materials, cell types, growth and differentiation factors, and technical challenges related to the sensitivities of living cells and the construction of tissues. Addressing these complexities requires the integration of technologies from the fields of engineering, biomaterials science, cell biology, physics and medicine. Thus, 3D printing will help, but with highly complex systems, such as a kidney, the technology still needs much work from scientists in multiple disciplines. Another technology that is helping reduce the number of animals needed for meaningful scientific advances is computer simulations to simulate a working human body. Some of these involve trying to make switchboards using small bits of cells, rather than silicon, from each organ that work as a human body. Some of this work is being carried out at Harvard University. As explained in one article, these simulations might look like simple pieces of plastic, but when they are filled with cells, they take on a life of their own, modeling the way whole organs work for drug discovery and disease research. These synthetic organs on chips could one day replace some animal studies and speed understanding of disease and wellness. This article cites the example of lung chips that simulate how lung tissue reacts to infectious agents, airborne

14 Gooch 14 particles, and toxins in a way that is truer to real life than standard cell testing in a lab dish. (Gammon) While 3D printing of human organs and computer simulations are not fully developed to the point that they eliminate the need for animal research, they certainly are already helping to reduce the use of such animals.

15 Gooch 15 Works Cited 1. Driscoll, Sally; Finley, Laura. Animal Experimentation: An Overview. Animal Experimentation. 2015, p1-1. 1p. nd Web. April Gammon, Katharine. Organs On A Chip Might Soon Simulate The Entire Human Body. fast company. Fast company, 19 February Web. 24 May George, Patricia; Wagner, Geraldine. Medical Experiments on Animals Are an Important Element of Drug Development. Animal Experimentation. 2015, p2-2. 1p. nd Web. April Kovalcik, Vit. Shutterstock. Photograph. N.p, N.d, Web. 4 May Murphy, Sean: Atala, Anthony. 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. nature.com. nature.com, 05 August Web. 22 May Nordqvist, Christian. Discovery of insulin. Medical News Today. Medical News Today, 15 September 2010, updated 19 May Web. 22 May PeTA, dir. Anti Animal Testing youtube.com. Web. 20 May PETA. Top Five Reasons to Stop Animal Testing. PETA. PETA. 11 May Web. 12 May Wright, George; Hoagland, Steve. Animal Testing Is Cruel and Immoral Regardless of the Benefits Associated With It. Animal Experimentation. 2015, p3-3. 1p nd Web. April Zang, Ping. Personal interview. 15 May