Introduction
The use of animals in the experiments and testing has for a long time been a source of debate among various people. Some people feel that the practice is wrong as it is unfair to the animals to use them for the sole benefit of human beings. Other people feel that it is necessary as it has provided considerable benefits which have proved to be lifesaving. This paper is going to make an argument for why it is okay to conduct experiments using animals. The paper will also evaluate the various arguments which have been put forward to discourage the practice of experimenting with animals.
Arguments for
One of the obvious reasons why it is necessary to conduct animal experiments is the benefits which are enjoyed by the experiments and testing. Despite the feeling that some people express that animal testing is cruel and unfair practice, there are numerous benefits which are enjoyed even by the critics themselves. Through animal testing, scientists are in a better position to advance their knowledge. The research puts them in a position to better understand the anatomy of animals and even of people themselves. This implies that there is a chance t improve the health of people and animals. Animal testing and experimentation also give the opportunity to understand diseases which affect us. This is enabled through the study of model organisms which have close similarities to the bodies of human beings (Wilson, et al., 19). Normally, researchers favor experimenting with rodents. This is because rodents are able to reproduce at a faster rate and their anatomy and temperament is representative of the objectives of the researchers during such studies.
Another reason why experiments with animals are in order is due to the numerous medical advancements which have been facilitated by the practice. Some medical practices which were not practiced traditionally such as organ transplant have been made possible through the experimentation with animals. The development of a vaccine for polio is also another example of medical advancement which has relied on animal experiments to make it come to fruition. Antibiotics, insulin, cervical cancer treatment and HIV treatments are practices which are quite common in the modern medical practice. The success of this practice has definitely saved a lot of lives (Doke & Dhawale, 226). One thing which is common about these practices is that their success has greatly relied on the input of animals. They may not have consented to their input in the experiments but they have surely saved a lot of lives through their noble sacrifices.
In the debate on whether animals should be used for experiments, it is normally filled with emotions and mixed feelings. One of the arguments that animals advocates make is that the experiments are heartless and demeaning to animals. In that sense, it is an argument worth considering evaluating which life is more important between the animals and humans. It is important to consider the importance that the animals play in experimentation for the good of humanity. It is with no doubt that few people if not none would volunteer for the experimentation. This is despite any amount of compensation be it in a monetary form which could be offered as motivation for the volunteering. We have also learned that it is necessary to understand the biology of people and animals in order to be able to make advancements in medicine. This factor, therefore, leaves us with the option of experimenting with animals. Sacrificing a few animals would, therefore, give us the opportunity to gain invaluable knowledge about our bodies which would, in turn, be helpful to human beings and even the animals themselves.
Some of the medical conditions which are experienced by human beings and other animals are complex. Such conditions such as asthma and cystic fibrosis are very difficult to study in a dead organism. They require an organism which is fully living due to the technical physiological factors which are involved. This factor points out to the necessity of a cell which would exhibit human-like characteristics which would necessitate the study (Franco, 241). Currently, such a discovery is yet to be made which leaves medical practitioners with the option of using animals for the greatly needed experiments. From the various researches which have been conducted on animals, it has been observed that the input of animals has been relatively little. It has however had tremendous significance in the medical practice. This has acted in providing great hope to human beings with various medical conditions which require extensive research on the functioning of our bodies.
It is also a legal requirement to test all drugs on animals before they are administered to people. This is a way which has proved to be quite effective in ensuring the safety of drugs which are exposed to people (Aeby et al., 1466). Therefore, through the testing of drugs on animals, we that the risks which could be associated with the drugs are minimized. This is a sure way of reducing the side effects which are caused by the drugs on people. Other risks which are mitigated through testing of drugs on animals are the human fatalities which are associated with poorly tested drugs. It is important to note that animals are applied when there are no better choices for the research. This implies that if there are better alternatives for medical studies, animals are never an option.
Arguments against
One of the arguments which are normally put against the use of animals for experiments and testing is the differences in the anatomies. Animal bodies are different from human bodies, this includes the rodents and the monkeys and any other animals which are normally used for the testing. The only animal which could be a perfect representative of the human body is the humans themselves. Since the humans cannot agree to the experimentation with their bodies, it, therefore, becomes cruel to use animals. The use of animal bodies to study the human body implies that the results which are obtained could be greatly unreliable. This can be observed from the various experiments with diseases and drugs. For example, rats normally have different cancers from those that affect people (Reddy, 51). This implies that studying rats for the treatment of cancer is significantly irrelevant to human beings. Another instance which points to the irrelevance of animal experimentation is an observation made by the Food and Drug Administration (Hajar, 42). Ninety-two out one hundred drugs which had been successfully tested on animals turned out to fail when administered on humans.
Another argument against the use of animals for experiments pertains to the cost factor which is involved in the practice. Normally, it is an expensive venture to experiment with model organisms. This is because the entity conducting the experiment is normally required to follow procedural regulations in acquiring the animal. This would involve getting the necessary licenses from animal protection agencies. They are also required to purchase the animals. The animals will be expected to be fed and be cared for. This means that the experiment has been financially invested in. this argument, however, comes short because such an investment which is considered beneficial to people would be easy to fund.
It is unnecessary to cause pain to the animals despite the advancements in technology. With the presence of computers which harbor sophisticated systems, research can be changed a lot which would remove the need for animal testing. The use of human tissue and cell cultures are also more focused options in the study of human bodies. This, therefore, implies that human has all the options to carry out experiments without involving animal experiments and testing (Ferdowsian & Beck, n.d).