Thesis Statement
Doctor Edward Jenner has been accoladed as the founding father of the branch of medicine which deals with immunology. He has been the pioneer in discovering the method of vaccinating human beings to make them immune to the fatal disease of chicken pox. On observing the phenomenon that milk maids who have suffered from cow pox seemed not to succumb to chicken pox, he had decided to use a little boy for his experiment. He had taken some pus from one of the pox blisters of a milk maid, and had injected it into the blood stream of the boy. He suffered from cow pox and as usual he recovered given the nature of the ailment, which was curable. Next he decided to inject the virus that causes chicken pox into the boy. The boy fell sick but he recovered soon, by the medicines which were provided to him, unlike most others who died out of the disease. The inference of this particular experiment reaffirmed Doctor Jenner’s conviction that in order to safeguard oneself from some deadly disease, the body of that particular patient must develop some form of immunity naturally. Since it is always not possible for the body to develop immunity against the diseases, hence medicines have been developed which shall artificially prepare the body to deal with its fatal effects. Doctor Jenner had ever since then devoted himself to developing vaccinations to treat chicken pox, and he became an inspiration for other doctors to develop further on the path shown by him. It is however not always not possible to test the medicines and other products such as cosmetics on human beings in order before putting the seal of approval of being fit and safe for human usage. Hence scientists, chemists, biologists have resorted to testing medicated products on just chosen few animals who are highly resilient and can bear the trauma of the side effects of them. The idea of testing the safety level of medicated products before certifying them as fit for human being is not something which is quite novel and a quintessentially modern phenomenon. It used to be practiced as early as 3rd Century BCE. However, the contemporary practice of testing products on the animals have started gaining currency ever since the 19th Century AD.
The thesis statement of this particular argumentative essay is thus to provide an account of the benefits and inevitability of the process of testing the safety level of the medicated products on animals, before deeming it to be fit for humans to use or consume. There have been several incidents whereby large scale loss of human lives have been reported, and the reason can be majorly attributed to the skipping of the test of the products on animals before certifying them as fit for human beings. Though the idea of testing products on animals is highly contested by champions of animal lovers, yet there cannot be any alternative to the process as of now given its advantages and the fact that the ethical considerations and the concern towards conservation of animals are emphasized upon which has caused a gradual decline in the propensity of animals losing their lives or the treatment meted out to them in the procedure is not harsh at all.
Evidence
These factors have prevented looking for any other alternative to the idea of testing products on animals. Thus the main idea of this argumentative essay is to argue in favour of the testing of products on animals before certifying it as fit for human consumption or use by providing a detailed account of its benefits and supporting it with the ethical considerations that are adhered to while going about with the process.
Botting and Morrison in their article provides the information in their article that by testing on animals the chemists and druggists have successfully concluded that several antibiotics, antibacterials and vaccines are fit for human usage and consumption. Drugs for certain other deadly diseases like AIDS and malaria also have been developed by means of testing on animals, and scientists have concluded that there have been no alternatives to it. Even in the field of surgeries, to study and observe the effects of hemorrhage and hypertension, testing on animals have proven to be quite essential, especially for the case of kidney failure and open heart surgeries. They also address the fact that scientists observe ethical consideration like not testing thalilomide drug on pregnant animals, and there have been evidences that prove penicillin drug is not fatal to the guinea pigs, as their bodily functions respond to the drug the same way as humans do. Hence the arguments and the concerns of the animal lovers are somewhat baseless.
“Scientists never tested thalidomide in pregnant animals until after fetal deformities were observed in humans.” (Botting and Morrison)
Ferdowsian and Beck hint at the adherence of the scientists to the principle of 3 Rs while conducting researches on the bodies of animals. The principle stands for reduction, refinement and replacement of the existing techniques which seek to use animals for experimentation. However there are certain impediments in the path to develop alternatives to the chemical tests on animals. First and foremost is the factor that there are not enough researches which can prove that there are alternatives to the method of testing on animals. Second of all, which is the prime reason emanates from the fact that since there are no alternatives and the only option is to test on animals. The results however come out as quite positive since the genetic construction of animals are similar to that of the humans. The scientists cannot be blamed for testing on animals, as they are trying hard to find out alternatives but they are unsuccessful in their attempts to bring about a clinical procedure that can justifiably bear the same results with the same degree of effectiveness and accuracy.
The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, which emphasized reduction, refinement, and replacement of animal use, principles which have since been referred to as the ‘‘3 Rs’’. These principles encouraged researchers to work to reduce the number of animals used in experiments to the minimum considered necessary, refine or limit the pain and distress to which animals are exposed, and replace the use of animals with non-animal alternatives when possible. (Ferdowsian and Beck)
Garattini and Grignaschi, adding to the arguments of the scholars mentioned in the previous paragraph lays the evidential claim that as of now the best possible method of testing the effectiveness of a drug or the method of treatment for human patients is that of on animals. In fact, it is not possible to test the consequences of a drug or a particular method of treatment on mutated genes of human beings. Hence, scientist have developed methods which can enable the transfer of the mutated human genes on rodents for the sake of experimentation and that is less harmful as a method which does not affect the rodents used in the experiment directly. The test results of the experiments which used such humanized rodents bears even more accurate results and are more conducive for future purpose. The risk factor associated with the testing of medicated products and other methods of treatment is something which even the scientists themselves do not disagree. Hence they have taken steps so that they could arrive at methods which shall boost up the growth of the population of the animals being used for experiments, in order to prevent their population from getting depleted drastically.
Modern technology enables us to cultivate in vitro almost every kind of cell from all animal species including man. These cells can provide very useful preliminary information or help us understand how chemicals interact on the cell metabolismor functions, such as secretion of proteins, motility or enzyme activity. (Garattini and Grignaschi)
Mangipudy, Burkhardt, and Kadambi, expressing concern about the safety and security of the patients’ safety and security, opine that the test of chemicals should be done on animals. Their evidences and justifications provide a balanced approach in finding a midway between a midway between the attempts to the finding of alternatives to testing on animals and the vitro and vivo paradigms. They talk of the pre-clinical tests being conducted on animals to be not viewed upon as a negative thing. They opine that it enables the scientists to get an estimate of the levels of toxicity and hence they can tone down the dosage of the drugs as per the requirements. The level of tolerance of toxicity in human beings is however not as high as that in the animals, hence the risk of experimentation is much more on human beings than on animals.
The results of these preclinical safety studies can lead to termination of compounds due to unacceptable toxicity concerns or, conversely, they can provide important information on how to safely proceed into clinical trials based on careful monitoring
Liebsch provides statistical data which shows that the number of tests conducted on animals have significantly reduced between the years 2000 to 2005. This proves the fact that the scientists are still proceeding with the task of finding the alternatives to conducting experiments of live animals. The organizations by the names of ZEBET and ECVAM are making their efforts in living up to the principle of 3 Rs as mentioned earlier in one of the paragraphs. However they are yet to arrive at any concrete alternative, but the efforts show positive results that in near futute the need to experiment on animals shall be done away with totally. At the same time Liebsch also makes the point that as of now for testing the effects of toxic substances, the alternatives to testing on animals is not yet developed.
ZEBET is also pursuing inhouse research and develops modified or new bioassays that would be suitable to replace animal experiments or to reduce animal numbers subjected to particular in vivo assays. At the same time, ZEBET is pushing for validation of alternative methods developed through our own efforts or by any other research group or consortium dedicated to
establish alternative methods. (Liebsch)
Botting and Morrison hints at the various deadly diseases which have been made possible to cure in their article. Ferdowsian and Beck, and Liebsch make a point that the scientists are still finding ways to arrive at a worthwhile solution, though their analysis is countering the dependence on medical tests on animals to certify a product safe for human use. Although Ferdowsian and Beck, and Liebsch provide a counter argument to the logic of using animals for experimentation of the safety levels of products, they conclude by acknowledging the fact that as of now it is the only feasible means, and the scientists are trying hard to find alternatives. Garattini and Grignaschi provides scientific evidence that it is as of now the safest and the most effective method to test the effects of toxicity and for determining what is appropriate for humans. Mangipudy, Burkhardt, and Kadambi provides an account of how the changes in the contemporary period have reduced the level of dependency on animals. On an overall basis it can be said that the concerns of the animal rights champions are definitely justified and the scientists are not heartless persons who show no concern towards animals. They are definitely trying to balance out the shortcomings in the testing on animals.
Conclusion
In the concluding section it can be said that contemporary approach is quite balance and the concerns of the scientists and the animal rights champions are on similar lines. However, it cannot be denied that till date no other method is effective as the testing on animals and the process is way more humane and ethical in contemporary times than it used to be. The number of animals being sacrificed for the sake of experimentation has reduced drastically. The lookout for alternatives to testing on animals is still underway and is increasingly gathering success exponentially. That testing on living beings who can neither convey their consent, nor can they reject the moves is definitely not ethical, but the very fact that they have been able to make breakthrough discoveries in the field of medical science is worthy of the mention and the credit. Simply because the process of testing on animals is as of now the safest, most effective and the only available option that dependency on it cannot be abandoned.
References
Botting, Jack H., and Adrian R. Morrison. “Animal research is vital to medicine.” Scientific American 276.2 (1997): 83-85.
Ferdowsian, Hope R., and Nancy Beck. “Ethical and scientific considerations regarding animal testing and research.” PloS one 6.9 (2011): e24059.
Garattini, Silvio, and Giuliano Grignaschi. “Animal testing is still the best way to find new treatments for patients.” European journal of internal medicine 39 (2017): 32-35.
Liebsch, Manfred, et al. “Alternatives to animal testing: current status and future perspectives.” (2011): 841-858.
Mangipudy, Raja, John Burkhardt, and Vivek J. Kadambi. “Use of animals for toxicology testing is necessary to ensure patient safety in pharmaceutical development.” Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 70.2 (2014): 439-441.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
