Animal Use In Medical Research - Essay Example

Animal Use In Medical Research Introduction The use of animals has been widespread across the world for the medical research and testing. There aresome health hazards and diseases, which can be tested only on living beings. Before developing any treatment, the researchers have the duty of detecting the health problems associated with it. It is necessary to use animals for medical research since it is unethical to use humans for the same ((Touiton, Smolensky & Portaluppi, 2006). The researchers need to test the animals to know more about the health problems and the probable diseases that may occur in the human body. This allows the researchers to know more about the genetics of humans and to develop new medicines. Animals are considered as a good research subject for some reasons: Animals and humans are biologically similar. They both are inclined to same problems associated with health. They are used for the medical research purpose, as they have a shorter span of life. It is difficult for the scientists to control the environment for the humans, which is not the case with animals. The environment encompassing the animal (i.e., diet, lighting, and temperature) is easily controllable. Before developing any drug or medical procedure to cure diseases, animals are used for the research. Sometimes scientists do alternative research to develop drugs and medical procedures that do not include animals. If the new treatment seems to be favorable, it is then tested on animals. Then it is checked whether the treatment is secured and guaranteed. If the observed results from animal studies are satisfactory, then the humans are requested to go through the clinical testing. However, the use of animals in medical research has long been a bitter debate. On one hand, use of animals is considered unethical for the benefit of the human. In contrast, if the use of animals is curbed altogether, it would lead to disruption of the understanding of health diseases, which would influence the newly developed medical treatments. This paper presents two different perspectives on medical researchers and ethics related to the use of animals on whether the animals should be used in the medical research or not. Finally, the paper ends with favoring the perspective, which is most convincing. Perspective of Medical Researchers Use of animals in the medical research plays a vital role in the advancement of the medical sector. Since ages, man has depended on animals for his survival. All over the world, people are leading a better quality of life due to the development of new medical treatments and medicines. This is made possible only by the research on animals. Medical research includes acquirement of new knowledge and using animals for testing chemicals and compounds for ensuring safety and guarantee (Portaluppi, Smolensky & Touiton, 2010). According to them, no new medicine or drug can be introduced to the market or the patients, until and unless it is tested on an animal. The new drug, medicine or treatment all over the world is confirmed effective based on the tests done on animals (Green, Guyer & Institute, 2011). The surgery on animals is supporting the techniques of transplantation of organ and open-heart surgery. Experiments done on animals do the introduction of vaccines against diseases like polio, rabies, mumps, tuberculosis, and rubella. Also, advancement of antibiotics, insulin, HIV and cancer treatments are done on animals first. The animal research has made the most significant development in reproductive medicine like Vitro fertilization, oral contraceptives, and therapy of hormonal replacement (World Medical Association, 2001). Though many people are of the view that medical research done on the animal is brutal, there would be no possibility to develop so many medications that are found today. The researchers found that the benefits accrued by humans through the research on animals are much more, compared to the losses suffered due to the less number of animals. According to a report by American Medical Association, 99% of the doctors in the US believe that use of animals in medical research has lead to increase in the advancement of the medical sector. Out of them, 97% of the doctors are of the view that the clinical and basic research requires the endless use of animals. Most of the scientists found that there lay no difference between the animals kept for an experiment to that of the humans that cannot be put to the test. A British Organization, Research Defense Society (RDS), stopped to fight for the testing of animals in medical research. It was of the view that all the complaints against animal testing are incorrect and that the testing of animals brings about important information about how the new treatments and medicines would work on the humans. The medical researchers believe that animals are used in medical research just for the advancement of people and medical knowledge (Giridharan, Kumar & Muthuswamy, 2000). To wipe out the untimely deaths and sufferings of humans and animals, testing on animals is necessary. If animal testing is prohibited, it would not be possible for the researchers to detect the sufferings that may occur in a living being. The medical researchers are of the view that people should accept the fact that their normal lives cannot be same if there are no products developed based on animal testing. According to them, the rights possessed by humans are more than that of the animals and hence, humans should have better medical facilities. Table 1: Major Advances in the Medical sector that depended on Animal Research 1960’s Corneal Transplants Rubella Vaccine Coronary Bypass Operations Heart Transplants Drugs to treat mental illness 1970’s Drugs to treat ulcers Improved sutures and other surgical techniques Drugs to treat asthma Drugs to treat leukemia 1980’s Immunosuppressant drugs for organ transplants CAT scanning for improved diagnosis Life support systems for premature babies Drugs to treat viral disease 1990’s Laparoscopic surgical techniques Breast Cancer Links Gene therapy for cystic fibrosis (Source: Giridharan, Kumar & Muthuswamy, 2000) In the last 100 years, the medical researchers have promoted many drugs and treatment that can cure both animals and humans. They have discovered much fundamental research that depends on animal experiments and testing (Neyt, Buckwalter & Carrol, 1998). The table above shows the major advancements of medical research based on the experiments done on the animals. However, the medical researchers are asked to follow the three sets of principles to avoid the adverse effects on animals. They are Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement (3Rs). This helps in the improvement of experiments used on animals, availability of better medical facilities and use of cell cultures instead of using full body of animals (Liljestrom & Garoff, 1991). Ethics related to Animal use in Medical Research The current constitution pinpoints the varied views and ethics of the people regarding animal use in medical research. The scholars in the past argued that animals should be treated politely, as cruelty to animals would result in destructive moral development. Use of animals in medical research is universal. They are kept for experiments to test the new drugs, medicines, and other products. Plenty of these testing or experiments hurt the animals, and this leads to a reduction in their life quality. Many people believe that it is wrong to use animals. For experimentation, it leads to deliberate moral problems. The experimenters of animals are conscious of these moral problems, and they try to ensure that the experiments are as tolerant as possible. In fact, the experimenters of animals agree with these ethical problems and assure that animals should not be used for testing if second tests give the valid result (Portaluppi, Smolensky & Touiton, 2010). There exist two views on the use of animals in medical research: People who are for using animals for medical research are of the view that animals should be used for experiments provided the pain suffered by them can be reduced to a minimum while they experiment. They believe that animals can be used for experiments if there is no other possible way to benefit humans. In contrast, people who are against the usage of animals in medical research are of the opinion that, it is not ethical to use animals for the benefits of human as it causes pain to animals. They believe that animal testing leading to the benefits of human is yet not proved. Even if the humans do get benefit from testing of animals, they can get those benefits from other alternative methods also. Some researchers believe that an experiment on animals give benefits to humans and hence, is morally admissible to hurt few animals. In contrast to that, some people believe that the number of animals used in the medical research is very high which is not rational on the grounds of moral problems faced. It is being estimated that near about 26 million animals are used in the medical research for experiments every year in the US. However, the US and some other countries are seeking to take initiatives to substitute animals with some other alternative methods for the sake of morale and good intellect (Touiton, Smolensky & Portaluppi, 2006) In 1988, the UK government introduced “local” authority, an Ethical Review Process at several institutions of research and experiments. The aim of Ethical Review Process is to benefit the animals by ensuring that the institutions that are possessed of the right of using animals are justified. It also aims to provide self-reliant advice related to ethics, especially in the case of the license of projects and supports to administer the licenses required for the well-being of animals and ethical issue. The authority also encourages analysis of ethics-related problems so that people are well aware of the sufferings faced by the animals and develop the broadest possible methods of Replacement, Reduction and Refinement (3Rs) in the use of animals for medical research (Rossi, Hallett, Rossini & Pascuat-Leone, 2009). Though the use of animals in the medical research has lead to the advancement of the medical sector, it has always created a bitter debate across the world. The opponents of the use of animals for experiments and testing believe that the use of experiments on animals is brutal and irrelevant, no matter even if it gives benefit to humans. These opponents of animal experimentation do not have any intermediate groups. They want the total eradication of animal use in medical research. At the same time, if the animals are totally eradicated, it would lead to excessive and serious consequences for the medical research (Smith & Boyd, 1991). Some opinion polls like MORI (1999a, 2002, and 2005) and consequent polls like YouGov (2006) and ICM (2006) helps to know the general opinions of public’s mindset towards animal use (Drummond, 2009). The results of the polls show that higher proportion of the population: 84% in 1999, 90% in 2002 and 89% in 2005 have no ethical or moral issues regarding the use of animals in the medical research if it is for a useful and serious purpose. They find that the sufferings of the animals are reduced, and the researchers are always concerned about substituting the tests on animals through alternative models (Festing & Wilkinson, 2007). Moreover, the bioscience community accepts the fact that the animals should not be used beyond the ethical framework. Conclusion It is now evident that the medical researchers find the use of animals playing a vital role in the advancement of people and medical knowledge. They believe that abolition of the use of animals would lead to detrimental effects on the health conditions of a human. They find that the benefits accrued by the humans brought about by research on animals are much more in comparison to the losses suffered due to the less number of animals. However, to avoid the adverse effect on animals, the medical researchers follow three sets of principles – 3Rs (Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement). Contrary to this viewpoint, people who oppose the use of animals for medical researchers believe that the method is very cruel and unethical. People are usually puzzled by the inflexible attitudes of the opponents of animal use in medical research on one hand and the medical researchers on the other. At the end of the day, it is nothing but the benefits of the human that is kept in mind by both the sides. Thus, a proper compatibility should be present between the two sides. It is well known that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. Humans have both rights and responsibilities. The right to live healthy as well as right to protect the non-human beings, i.e., the animals that dwell in them. At the same time, animals neither have any such responsibility nor do they enjoy any such rights as enjoyed by humans. People are well aware of the theory of evolution which states that animals do have emotions and feelings. However, they too are capable of being hurt and feel pain. The experiments on animals should include techniques that minimize the sufferings faced by the animals. Europe and America have already brought these changes by creating University Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW) in the UK and Hastings Centre in the USA. These institutes ensure that the animals get the best facilities and conditions as per the current animal laws. References Drummond, G. B. (2009). Reporting ethical matters in The Journal of Physiology: standards and advice. The Journal of Physiology, 587(4), 713-719. Festing, S. & Wilkinson, R. (2007). The ethics of animal research. Taking point on the use of animals in scientific research, 8(6), 123-456. Giridharan, N.V., Kumar, V. Muthuswamy, V. (2000). Use of Animals in Scientific Research. Retrieved from http://icmr.nic.in/bioethics/Animals_biomedical%20research.pdf. Green, E. D., Guyer, M. S. & Institute, N. H. G. R. (2011). Charting a course for genomic medicine from base pairs to bedside. Nature, 470(7333), 204-213. Liljestrom, P. & Garoff, H. (1991). A new generation of animal cell expression vectors based on the Semliki Forest virus replicon. Nature Biotechnology, 9(12), 1356-1361. Neyt, J. G., Buckwalter, J. A. & Carroll, N. C. (1998). Use of animal models in musculoskeletal research. The Iowa Orthopaedic Journal, 18, 118. Portaluppi, F., Smolensky, M. H. & Touitou, Y. (2010). Ethics and methods for biological rhythm research on animals and human beings. Chronobiology International, 27(9-10), 1911-1929. Rossi, S., Hallett, M., Rossini, P. M. & Pascual-Leone, A. (2009). Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research. Clinical Neurophysiology, 120(12), 2008-2039. Smith, J. A. & Boyd, K. M. (1991). Lives in the Balance: The Ethics of Using Animals in Biomedical Research: the Report of a Working Party of the Institute of Medical Ethics. Touitou, Y., Smolensky, M. H. & Portaluppi, F. (2006). Ethics, standards, and procedures of animal and human chronobiology research. Chronobiology International, 23(6), 1083-1096. World Medical Association. (2001). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 79(4), 373. Read More