Animal Experimentation: Does the end justify the means? BY kale 1395 Animal experimentation has played a vital role In obtaining selecting research for both human and animal health. The involvement of animal models used in experiments for the benefits of humans, has triggered several debates and controversy concerning animal welfare, the reliability of the experiments, the effects on humans and many other topics (Johan & Reagan, 2001). Several of these tests have involved the experimentation for human drugs for specific illness and diseases.
This assay will be focusing on whether the end Justifies the means of experiments conducted on animals for the development of drugs for humans. There have been many discoveries developed through this process, although there are also many negative outcomes this method has encountered (Johan & Reagan, 2001 This essay will discuss the human benefits received and the negative impacts on both humans and animals. By analyzing these three aspects, the evidence provided will evaluate whether the end does Justify the means of this method.
The development of various drugs have been assisted by animal testing which has paved numerous lives and become medical discoveries. Animal models have been used in animal laboratories to manipulate their bodies and induce the symptoms of the specific disease which is attempting to be cured. After gaining those symptoms, potential drugs are given to these creatures In order to reveal the effect of the drug. A successful example of this Is a case of testing drugs for Parkinson disease.
Initially, the mice were Induced with the symptoms of the disease. The data received from these experiments revealed the cause of the disease which was the lack of an essential substance of the brain, dopamine (Vogel, 2007). Drugs were developed based on this information, and became a well known cure of this disease. It successfully worked in human bodies and translated into a number of effective cases. As this topic has attracted much controversy, many attempt to Justify why they believe this method Is appropriate.
An example showing a comparison of a similar drug effect on humans and animals is the Presort Forced Swim Test. The mice were given anti-depressants and were introduced to a cylinder submerged into water. The et and tail of the mice were unable to touch the bottom of the cylinder. Once fully immersed into the water, the mice began attempting to climb out of the cylinder. Although, the material of the cylinder did not allow the mice to be able to climb, after a struggle to escape, the mice eventually gave up and stopped moving.
They then began floating passively, sucking their nose up for air. Portola elaborates that the mice were undergoing more hope of success, suggesting that this is exactly what occurs when humans take anti-depressants (Iceland et al. 2011). Another viewpoint of this method is admittedly acknowledging that animal experimentation should not be practiced due to the risk factors concerning both animals and humans. Although some may acknowledge that animal testing has negative outcomes, such the medical break-thorough mentioned above, are used to validate the method. Tastes that he intends to enable rules, such as – frequent thematic reviews on animal experiments, sharing data obtained by animal tests and encourage the usage of other testing techniques (Haw 2009). Although, he argues that Vaccines and drugs or hepatitis B, diphtheria, measles and rubella along with asthma have all been produced from data received from experimentation on primates. Many lives have been saved due to these vaccines and drugs which would not have been possible without the use of animal experimentation (Haw 2009).
On the one hand, evidence suggests that this method has had its fair share of achievement, although on the other hand, there are a number of attributes to consider when analyzing the success of this method. A significant number of human lives have been affected by drugs plopped from experimentation of animals, this then leads to the question of whether the data retrieved from these experiments should be regarded valid enough to Justify the overall negative effects on humans?
Animal models have been used for several experiments involving drugs for cures for humans, although a vital aspect of this process is the negative effect encountered by humans. In some cases many mistakenly assume a drug is safe for humans after its testing has been effective on an animal, but in reality some drugs become toxic, iatrogenic or lethal to human bodies (Doyle 2009). Evidence has shown that animal testing is not dependable for drug safety in humans, as there has been approximately 92% of effective drug testing in animals which has led to failed experiments in humans (Doyle 2009).
An example of an unsuccessful experiment using animal models for the development of a drug, is the painkiller Vision, which reduces substances causing pain, fever and inflammation in the body (Engel & Jennie 2010). The experiment results showed effective outcomes on rats and mice, although were not effective in humans. The drug caused an estimated 320 000 heart attacks, tropes and heart failures. In 2004, the drug was eliminated from the U. S market due to the outstanding harmful results. (Engel & Jennie 2010) Another similar case occurred with the pain killer Phoenician, which was also taken off the market in Australia in the 1971. Morgan 2005 ,p. 231). Other similar painkillers which were initially tested as successful on animals, have been taken off the market due to the amount of deaths or health issues of its consumers. (Morgan 2005,p. 231). Many argue that this method should be completely stopped, as there is such evidence to how its ineffectiveness on humans. From the evidence provided, it is clear that there have been a significant amount of human deaths and health issues caused by drugs derived from animal experimentation. However, humans are not the only ones who are physically and emotionally affected by this process.
As mentioned above, many believe that animal experimentation is a necessary method for saving human lives in terms of drug development, although many argue that animal experimentation is unable to predict human outcomes, and is an unreliable indicator. This debated topic hen leads to the question of whether the results received of animal experimentation used for drug development, Justifies the harmful and painful conditions animals are required to undergo. Experiments, there are also countless animals which have had negative outcomes due to the harsh conditions they are required to suffer during experimentation.
There have been numerous experiments conducted on animals for the development of drugs for humans which have failed, this is then used as evidence to show those drugs are not valid for human bodies. Although, do the conditions the animals are squired to experience validate the aim of the experiments? A case study in London 2006 attempted to investigate the drug TUGBOAT cans 2006). The experiment initially showed negative effects on the monkeys which were given the drug, although the experiment continued on six volunteer individuals, of which two ended up in a coma cans 2006).
This case study demonstrates animals are as equally affected as humans are by this method of drug development. A case study involving drugs which are commonly used as therapeutic agents for arthritis was experimented to establish the effect on mice. The mice were initially protected from the development of arthritis with the treatment of Promethean (Burke & Michael 1985). Despite the scientific data gained from these experiments, some mice resulted with the early stages of arthritis (Burke & Michael 1985).
Consequently, these experiments frequently misjudge the risks involved regarding the animals, as it has been proven it is quite likely for the animals to result to psychological or physical harm, if not death, yet the experiments continue (Johan & Reagan, 2001). In addition, it is evident that these experiments encounter both positive and negative actors throughout the process of this method. Without the use of this method, many drugs frequently used by humans for the cure of specific illness or disease, would not be here today.
Evidence has been presented which displays that using animal models for these experiments are reliable and show effective results to an extent. However, the negative aspects which are encountered throughout this method, are essential to acknowledge while Justifying this act. The amount of death rates and health issues which have arose for both humans and animals from the use of this teeth, represents that there is not an appropriate balance between the positive and negatives. After all, animal modeling is regularly Justified morally from the data gained from it.