A Balance Beam Holds on One Side a Person Dying and on the Other, an Animal Suffering - Essay Example

TABLE OF CONTENTS OPENING MENT p 3 A BRIEF HISTORY 4 THE WORLD BEFORE 4 RECENT STATISTICS 6 ANIMAL RIGHTS 8 IN DEFENSE OF ANIMAL TESTING 11 CONTROVERSIAL MISCONCEPTIONS 12 CONCLUSION 15 REFERENCES 17 A balance beam holds on one side a person dying and on the other, an animal suffering. Which do you think holds more weight OPENING STATEMENT: Introductions are usually long, winding statement of what the paper is all about. For a change, a simple scenario has been presented. Not for any other purpose but to invite the readers to reflect deeply on the issue at hand. Claudius Galen was a second century physiologist, philosopher and writer. He is also known as the Father of vivisection (http://campus.udayton.eduhuume/Galen/galen/htm). The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines Vivisection as "the cutting of, or operation on a living animal; also animal experimentation especially if causing distress to the subject (Merriam-Webster, pg.587)." He performed dissections and vivisection procedures on apes, goats, dogs, pigs and many other animals. Although he discovered vivisection, some of his anatomical assertions were inaccurate with respect to humans (http://campus.udayton.eduhuume/Galen/galen/htm). Since vivisection's discovery, experimentation using animals is a huge, never-ending debate. It has always been what it was pictured in the first page, a stand off. Medical advancement is equated to animal abuse. Animal right is then equated to human fatality. But is this the case Is the world standing at the tip of a knife This paper is aimed to answer three (3) questions: One: Is animal experimentation a violation of animal rights Two: Is there a direct conflict between animal rights and medical advancement And three: What should hold weight then, in the balance beam presented in the first page To be able to come up with a valid and ethical answer to these simple questions require a complex understanding of what animal experimentation is all about. A BRIEF HISTORY THE WORLD BEFORE A trial and error practice was used in the early civilization to test whether the animals, plants, fruits and vegetables they gathered were safe for consumption. The actual number of fatality can not be determined in the absence of recorded information but nonetheless, it would be noteworthy to know, how many people died in the attempt to survive. There were no concrete regulations as how to handle food and drugs (medicine and narcotics); the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 have limited itself to the correct labeling of food and drugs being sold out in the market. "Habit-forming drugs such as cocaine were not illegal as long as they were labeled properly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act)". This 1906 Act paved the way to the founding of the Food and Drug Administration in America. Incongruous at may be, this 'regulatory' body was in full operation until the Harrison Act of 1914, where the first attempts to eradicate excessive use of narcotic drugs was made. Still, there was no concrete way of regulating food and medicines in the market. As long as it was properly labeled, the effectiveness to its claim was left unquestioned. In 1937, The "Elixir Sulfanilamide disaster" paved way for pre-market safety testing law. As a backgrounder, S.E. Massengil Company, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, conducted a research of sulfanilamide using diethylene Sulfanilamide (DEG); it was called 'elixir sulfanilamide', has an 'anti-freeze' quality, which was poisonous to human. Harold Watkins, the company's chief chemist, added raspberry flavoring to the sulfa drug, using the DEG as a solvent. The company marketed the product during September and October 1937 this drug was responsible for the deaths of more than 100 people in 15 states, as far east as Virginia and as far west as California (http://www.fda.gov/oc/history/elixir.html). It did not undergo any safety testing. No more than one month after its entrance, the medication for streptococcal infection was pulled out, leaving behind a big lesson for pre-market safety testing. "The 1938 law changed the drug focus of the Food and Drug Administration from that of a policing agency primarily concerned with the confiscation of adulterated drugs to a regulatory agency increasingly involved with overseeing the evaluation of new drugs (http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/122/6/456)". After that consequential tragedy, the world would have been safer, or it was believed to be. The world witnessed another misfortune in the 1960's. Dubbed as the "Thalidomide Tragedy", Thalidomide is a sedative-hypnotic and can also cure multiple myeloma medication. It is a potent teratogen, formulated by a German Pharmaceutical company as "an antiemetic to combat morning sickness and aid them to sleep (http//www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style_health/article5683577.ece)". This was sold in the years 1957-1961 to almost 100 countries, using a variety of names and brands. Thalidomide is believed to be created by the Nazis as a part of their chemical weapons program, will cause severe birth defects when taken during pregnancy (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683577.ece) ". From 1956 to 1962, approximately 10,000 children in Africa and Europe were born with severe deformities because of Thalidomide intake (http://www.fda.gov/faq/features/2001/201_kelsey.html)." "As a consequence to the thalidomide tragedy there has been a marked upsurge in the number of animals used in testing of new drugs (http://www.pnc.com.au/cafmr/online/research/thalid2.html)". RECENT STATISTICS As reported by People for Ethical Treatment of Animals or more popularly known as the 'PETA' in their website, (http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet/display_asp10=126) the most recent statistical record of animal testing as of year 2005 are as follows: UNITED STATES: Total of 1.14 Million animals (excluding rats, mice, birds and other cold-blooded species) PLUS an estimated 100 million mice 84,662 were subjected to pain and distress, without pain relief CANADA Total of 2.32 Million animals Broken down into: Curiosity driven research 50% Medical/veterinary research 35% Teaching 4% Testing 11% 167,000 animals subjected to experiments caused by severe pain near at, or above the pain tolerance threshold of animals. UNITED KINGDOM Total: 2.45 Million Experiments Broken down into Curiosity driven research 51% Medical/veterinary research 43% Teaching 1.7% Testing 4.3% It is hard to determine the actual number of animals experimented in the laboratories, for in the United States alone, of more than one thousand testing facilities, no less than 10% have not filed an actual report( http://www.all_creatures.org/saen/fact_annex_2007.html) of the exact number of animals being experimented. With this huge number of animals concerned, one would ask, is this required or supported by the law The particulars are misleading; although the FDA does not require animal testing for food, drug and cosmetics, the regulatory board, as part of their guidelines would ask for at least two (2) toxicity results before a product is allowed to penetrate the market. As a result, it has been an unspoken rule to have animal experimentation as a 'default' test. Thus pharmaceutical companies would readily opt for pre-market animal test than risk the FDA disapproval. Although there are many alternatives that are more accurate and effective, many companies still prefer animal testing. This testing is routinely performed to provide legal defense for adverse effects of a certain drug, and could say they have 'done all prerequisites' therefore making the manufacturer free of any liability or claim. "Experimentation on animals in laboratories generally falls into one of three categories-toxicity testing, education and training, and basic or applied research. It is a common misconception that most tests on animals are carried out with the aim of finding a cure for cancer, AIDS, or other devastating human diseases. Surveys clearly show that the public accepts animal experimentation only because it is believed to be necessary for medical progress.(1) But according to some national statistics, nearly two-thirds of all animal research has little or nothing to do with curing human diseases or advancing human medicine.(2) The reality is that much of this research is little more than curiosity-driven cruelty (http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.aspID=126)." ANIMAL RIGHTS Animal right was first heard in the United Kingdom in the early 1970's by a group of Oxford academics, also known as the "Oxford group". It believes in the individual interests of non-human animals, and fight for its protection and recognition. One of the founders of this Oxford group was Peter Singer, who wrote a book in 1973 entitled, " Animal Liberation" and has become the bible of all animal support organizations (http://en.wiki.org/wiki/animial_liberation_movement) until this day. Speciesism is a very important term in this issue. Defined by the American Heritage English Dictionary as the "human intolerance or discrimination on the basis of species especially as manifested by cruelty or exploitation of animals", it makes clearer the vision of the said fight for animal liberation. Moving forward to the year 2008, there are so many groups and organizations that have formed together to fight the abuse of animals and their use in laboratories. PETA is one on the forefronts of animal protection groups, though there are over a thousand associations all over the world who has in one way or the other initiated the same movement, as inspired, or in coordination with bigger animal liberation groups. This is a continuing process of educating the consumers and demanding that animal experimentation be stopped. A little over thirty years and the vision of Peter Singer have finally gained a following. Even with these vigilant groups lobbying for the abolishment of animals in testing laboratories, it has not been put into a complete halt. On the other hand, laboratories have come up with alternatives, in lieu of live animal experimentation. So a research without animals is possible, but not very popular. Some alternatives are as follows: In Vitro Research. Using a variety of human tissues, scientists are studying diseases such as cancer and diabetes. Cell and tissue culture are used to test product safety and affectivity. In Silico Technology. Computer simulations of molecular structures can predict the toxicity of certain substances, including their potential to harm or benefit an individual. It can go further to predict metabolism and birth defects among others. Micro dosing. Using human volunteers, the effect of drugs is assessed by giving small doses to produce whole body effects. Through maximizing clinical researches, the experimentation of animals can be reduced. Another alternative if only the pharmaceutical companies are not very competitive with each other is that, they share the results of their experiments and publish not only the 'success' of their observation but as well as the blunders of their research. Through the availability of materials, lesser trial and error procedures will take place. This is the right opportunity to present an excerpt of animal cruelty that came across in the making of this paper: Horny turkeys. In the 1960s two Penn State researchers, Martin Schein and Edgar Hale, did a significant amount of research on the sexual behaviors and preferences of turkeys. That's not particularly weird in itself, scientists are always studying the sex lives of animals. Their weirdest experiment involved a model female turkey with detachable parts, which was presented to a male. The male's sexual interest was then gauged. Then the scientists removed progressively more parts from the model. You might expect that, after a while, the male turkeys would lose interest in this stripped down version of a turkey hen. You'd be wrong. Even when only a head on a stick was left, the male turkey was still aroused. Animals on Acid. Speaking of unnecessarily exposing animals to chemicals, quite a few scientists were tasked with seeing what would happen if you gave animals loads of drugs. This gave us the famous "Spider on Acid" video, but the weirdest and worst experiment was likely the case of Tusko the elephant. Tusko was an Indian elephant at the Oklahoma Zoo. In 1962, Scientist Warren Thomas and colleagues at Oklahoma State University decided that he would use Tusko as a test subject to see whether LSD would induce the elephantine condition known as musth, in which an elephant becomes temporarily insane and enraged. Thomas injected the elephant with nearly 300 mg of acid, around 3000 times a normal human dose. Tusko quickly collapsed and died within 2 hours of the dose. The scientists were in the middle of a PR disaster, but insisted that, having ingested plenty of LSD themselves, they were sure the drug was safe for elephant consumption. Their experiment concluded that "elephants are highly sensitive to LSD". Some people thought that the animal had actually been killed by drugs used to revive him. So in a crazy twist, another scientist decided to repeat the experiment twenty years later. Instead of injecting the animals, he mixed the LSD in their water with very different results. The elephants appeared drugged, but didn't freak out or die. Despite that, it makes you wonder why two separate experiments on the effects of LSD on elephants were even allowed. Two-headed dog. In 1954 a Russian scientist called Vladimir Demikhov became a real life Dr. Frankenstein when he unveiled a monstrous creation, a surgically created two-headed dog. Demikhov grafted the head, shoulders and front legs of a small puppy onto the body of a huge, fully grown German shepherd. The mad scientist showed his monstrosity off for reporters, who watched as both heads of the dog lapped at bowls of milk. The milk dribbled out of the disconnected esophageal tube of the puppy head as the media watched in horror. The dog died within a short time due to tissue rejection, but Demikhov made a total of 20 of the creatures during his career. While the experiments do seem like mad science, they actually had a noble purpose. They were an attempt to figure out a way to perfect surgical transplant methods. Demikhov intended to be the first doctor to complete human heart and lung transplants, but he was beaten to the punch by Dr. Christian Baarnard. Most scholars, however, credit the Russian with paving the way for modern transplant medicine with his experiments. Source: http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/the-5-weirdest-animal-experiments/964 Given the facts in this section, that animals have rights; that animals are capable of pain; that animals are co-equal with human beings, what was the excerpt tell the world These are three stories, but it tells all. It gives meaning and fuel to the continuing battle of animal rights. IN DEFENSE OF ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION Using animals in the medical and veterinary researches is not only a common practice, and if the guidelines are met, it would be a welcome practice as well. Listed below are discoveries and breakthroughs in medical science that proved to be beneficial to human: Discovery of Penicillin through the experimentation of mice Discovery of Blood transfusion with the use of dogs and rabbits Cure for Tuberculosis with the use of chicken and guinea pig Macular degeneration was eliminated as the major source of blindness through the study of the monkey, rabbit and pig's eye. Bronchodilators was discovered to cure asthma after it was tested from guinea pigs Vaccine for Meningitis was discovered through the study of rabbits and mice Surgical techniques for Kidney transplant was perfected through dogs Breast Cancer became a 'survivable' cancer Better management of Parkinson's Disease by lesser tremors Discovery of Insulin as a cure for Diabetes Many others Given these medical breakthroughs and more, humans now live an additional 20.8 years from the benefits of biomedical researches according to Michigan Society for Medical Research (http://www.minsur.org) . There is a Federal Regulation as to the enforcement and animal care in testing laboratories. There are exact guidelines for the care of wild birds, amphibians and reptiles, fishes in research. A careful design of experiments is required with an austere compliance with the use and care of animals. Testing centers are requested to minimize the animal's exposure to pain, injury and all types of hazard (biological, chemical and radiation). Also to be commended is the 3R principle developed by Russel and Birch in 1959 while conducting animal experiments: Reduction of number of animals used in testing through improving experimental techniques, improving data analyses and sharing information with other researchers. Refinementrefining the experiment or the way the animals are cared for by using less invasive techniques, better medical care and facility. Replacementreplacing animals in experiment by using alternative techniques if possible and applicable, cell cultures instead of whole live animals, using computer models of animals. CONTROVERSIAL MISCONCEPTIONS There are several controversial misconceptions of animal testing vis--vis medical advances. " Progress and Medical research would be almost stopped entirely if we were not able to use animal models" Not true. There are alternative ways in which research can be conducted without animal models. There are several techniques available for medical research done in the absence of animals. In vitro research and the in-silico technology are two of the more popular alternatives. The result is said to be more accurate (http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/without_animals.html) than using live animals. "If we didn't have animals, we would have to test drugs on us people" It is possible to conduct human testing of drugs in the absence of animals in research. There is a procedure called "microdosing" which involves human subjects rather than animals. It introduces small doses of drug to the person, and from there, the effects are observed and studied. There is a limit on these practices, and toxicology of a substance is definitely not possible. "We have to observe the complex interactions of cells, tissues, organs in living animals" Cell and tissue cultures techniques are available in the event that it needs to be observed in a different light. Although it was noted that the biological differences between and within species is still a big question as to the accuracy of the results in application to human condition. "Many experiments are not painful to animals and are therefore justified" Statistic shows that a significant number of animals are subjected to pain and distress while undergoing procedures. In America alone, 84,662 animals were subjected to pain and distress, and not given any pain relief; in Canada, 167,000 suffered the same in the year 2005. "We do not want to hurt animals but we do not have any other option" Yes, there are many other options that can be used other using animals for experimentation. Science is a revolutionary study that continues to grow; it provides for answers, and is not limited to any degree. There are several techniques being used by other testing laboratories and it will take a little more time to totally abolish the use of animals in experiment. CONCLUSION This paper aimed to answer three questions by the end of the study. Animal experimentation is indeed a complicated subject matter, and one has to look into a mountain of information for a start. Then to look into the details and the weight of the claims presented. This is a humble attempt to provide answers to the following questions. Is animal experimentation a violation of animal rights Yes, It is the acceptance of cruelty and abuse in the first place that has lead to what is now called animal rights. The cruelty to animals has been the reason why Federal Regulations has been made to ensure that animals are treated in a 'humane' and painless procedure. To use animals as experiments is a direct violation of animal rights. It has been shown that more than 50% of animal experimentation has nothing to do with medical research (http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet/display_asp10=126) and rather cater to the personal whim of eccentric researchers. With this trend, it is safe to say that indiscriminate, careless use of animals in any experiment is a violation of their animal right. Is there a direct conflict between animal right and medical advancement No, medical advancement can proceed without the use of animals. Modern technology has discovered alternative ways and solutions to conduct testing without the use of, or very limited use of animals in experiment. These techniques are far more advanced and accurate than the remote trial and error practice done to animals. Animal right can be recognized as one of the major issues of the society without jeopardizing the advancement of medicine and science. In cases where cell and tissue cultures are not possible, it is then, logical to allow animals to participate, but only to a certain degree of need. If the study/research has come to a stand off where no conclusion can be made without testing the animal, then with a set of guidelines, the procedure shall be conducted. But in no less than those conditions given, will animals be subjected to laboratory experiments. What should hold weight in the balance beam, a sick man dying or animal suffering Neither. A sick man dying is not has nothing to do with the animal suffering and vice versa. It is only an excuse made by lousy people to justify their unethical professional behavior. To make people believe that what they are doing (subjecting smoke tests over and over for years and years with the same expected result) is worthwhile and significant. A person will not die if one passes up the chance to dissect a live dog; it may save someone's life in the future if the experiment is successful, yes it may. But that is the risk, a chance. But the certainty of the present, that of an animal harmed, is 100% sure. It is unfair for the people to be lead to believe that the key to immortality (because medical advancement is at hand) is the suffering of an animal. That is simply asburd. There may be cases where animal needs to be studied, and in that instance, it can not be denied. But otherwise, exhaust all possible alternatives. A life whether human or not should be respected and preserved. There is no stand off. No one is standing at the tip of a knife. Those are tall tales to excuse themselves of their unethical use of animals. And their lack of mental capacity to think of other alternatives. REFERENCES http://campus.udayton.eduhume/Galen/galen/htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act http://www.fda.gov/oc/history/elixir/html http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/122/6/456 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life/life_and_style_health_articles5683577.ece http:www.fda.gov/faq/features/2001/201_kelsey.html http://www.pnc.com.au/cafmr/online/research/thalid2.html http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet/display_asp10=126 http://www.all_creatures.org/saen/fact_annex_2007.html http://en.wiki.org/wiki/animal_liberation_movement http://www.environmentalgrafitti.com/sciencetech/the-5-weirdest-animal-experiments/964 http://www.minsur.org http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/without_animals.html http:www.buav.org/pdf/vivisectionFAQS.pfd http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.aspid=11514 http://edweb6.edu.msu.edu/kim895/lecture%20notes/animal.pdf http:www.idebate.org/debatebase/topic_details.phptopicID=7 http:www.lpag.org/layperson/layperson,html#history http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ Read More