As I continue to research more on the controversial topic of Animal Testing, an important question has surfaced that will be the restricted topic for my paper. Is the use of animals for medical research a necessity? In order to find an answer to this question, we must first look at what those in support and against the use of animal testing for medical advancement are saying.

According to the US-based Foundation for biomedical research, the use of animals has help save countless human lives and the improvement of veterinary health. Among the medical advances are the discovery of insulin and hepatitis C, vaccines for diseases like polio, tetanus small pox, hepatitis B, complicated heart surgeries like coronary heart bypass and heart transplants, antibiotics and blood transfusions, chemotherapy, join replacement, multiple sclerosis and the treatment of AIDS as a chronic disease.

More than 95% of the animal’s uses in the medical research are rats and mice with only 3% used are dogs, cats and primates. Many animals especially primates, shared about 90% of their genetic DNA with humans. Scientists are able to use this advantage to test for possible side effects and allergic reactions. The testing also helps scientist develop safe and reliable medication to treat other animals for various diseases. Breakthroughs in veterinarian medicine have been possible due to the use of animals in laboratories.\

In comparison, those who are against animal testing will dispute these statements, arguing the results of the testing are unreliable predictions for human health based on the physiological and anatomical differences between animals and humans. For example, the use of Acetaminophen is poisonous to cats but therapeutic to humans, penicillin is toxic to Guinean pigs but not to humans, or morphine that suppresses pain in humans but causes hyper-activity in cats. Another factor that is considered to play a role in the unreliable results, is that animals are kept in an unnatural and stressful environment (laboratories), therefore causing a change in their natural behavior and responses.

Ethical and moral issues are also on the debate since animals undergoing testing can be subject to pain and suffering and ultimately death either during treatment of by euthanized injections. Let’s not forget the issue of financial support. Most medical research centers are granted millions of dollars in grants for animal research. (National Institute of Health being the largest single funding agency). Is this a major incentive in continuing the research?

I feel both side have legitimately points to be considered and respected before I can personally say if one is right or wrong and if ultimately the use of animals for medical research should continue or be replaced by a non-animal testing method.

Works cited:

www.news-medical.net/category/Medical-Research-News.aspx

www.satherhealth.org/blog.php.id=175