Animal Testing:
"Let's do it the Right Way"
"One morning, Dr. Zola-Morgan
arrives at his campus operating room at 8:30. He must
wash up, and put on two pairs of sterile gloves, before he even approaches the waiting monkey.
For surgery, the macaque's (monkey's) head is shaved clean. Dr. Zola-Morgan's first job is to
brace the head. There is no wiggle room In brain surgery. He opens the monkey's mouth and
inserts a metal T-bar, the top of the tee catching behind the sharp canine teeth. Two metal
prongs, blunt-ended, grip the area just outside the edge of the animal's eye sockets. With teeth
and eyes anchored, the monkey's head is held rigidly still, awaiting the first cut. Holding a scalpel,
Dr. Zola-Morgan traces a T-cut onto the top of the head, a line behind the brow-bone, a
perpendicular cut down the back of the head. Where the knife touches, blood glimmers bright
red, showing through the skin like the pulp of a fruit. He rolls the severed skin away from the
muscle. The powerful muscle that give its jaws such strength is about ten times thicker than the
comparable muscle in a human head. It is crammed with blood vessels. The cut muscle inevitably
runs red. As the surgery progresses, gauze pads, soaked with blood and saline, pile up around the
scientist's feet." (Rosenbaum 58). This is just a brief exert from the writing of Stuart Rosenbaum.
I put this in to show a cruel description of how they test a monkey's brain.
Today around the nation there is
a 40% decrease in animal testing. The decrease is not at
a rapid pace but, it is going down. That leaves 60% are still using live animals in their tests
(Miller 32). According to Dr. Margaret Sekellick we have enough technology to test animals by
using computer modeling and cell tissue culture. Some of the most effective advances in human
safety and health research have been achieved through these methods. That is why I propose to
have to use of live animal testing under strict government regulations. Presently, they have
government restrictions, but I would like them to become stronger and stricter. Some of the rules
presently cover: responsibility for animals, building design, caging, care and maintenance, and
standards for control of pain. We should come up with a list of rules and regulations that would
fit for scientist to stop painfully testing on animals, and have them start testing from their
computers. We should do this because a lot of research is having to be repeated causing more
innocent lives to be sacrificed and more money to be spent. First I am going to talk about the
problem with animal testing. Then, I am going to move into why testing on animals is cruel.
Then I will propose a couple of rules and regulations that I believe the government should
consider. I will also be exploring other opinions about the topic, people that agree and disagree
with animal testing and why. Finally, I will talk about a solution on what we should do besides
live animal testing. Writing a solution to the problem at stake is the only way to solve it, therefore
I will provide you with a couple of addresses of people you can write too, to voice your opinion.
The first thing I would like to talk about is the problems with animal testing. There are
thousands of problems with testing, but I'm only going to discuss the major ones. The first big
problem with testing is the cruelty of it. Each year in the United States approximately 70 million
animals are maimed, blinded, force-fed chemicals, genetically manipulated, and otherwise hurt and
killed in the name of science, by private institutions, and scientific centers (Fox 23). Substances
we use every day such as eye shadow, soap, furniture polish and oven cleaner, may be tested on
rats, rabbits, guinea pigs, dogs, cats and other animals (23). These tests are mainly used to test
the degree of harmfulness or products and their ingredients. No antidoes are ever sought, so
animal tests cannot be used to prevent or treat potential injuries.
In the 1980's the Ethical Treatment of Animals was accused for mistreatment of monkeys.
Police raided a scientific research lab in Silver Springs, MD Edward Taub was arrested. The
monkeys had been kept in unsanitary cages and were partially paralyzed and denied food as part
of an experiment. Another cruel test researchers use is something called the LD50 test. The basic
idea of the test is to take healthy animals and force feed them enough poison to kill approximately
50% of them (Deborah 32). Variations include starving the individual before testing, injecting the
tested substance, or coating the animal's skin with the tested chemical (32). The researchers never
end up telling exactly what their conclusions were from these tests.
The second and more important to people, deals with the cost of these experiments. The
reason I say it is more important is because some experiments are being taken out of the
taxpayer's money. How much? About 20-22 million a year (Miller 9).
One of the big myths is that they test animals because it is cheap and easy. Not true.
Animal research is very costly because animals are raised in specialized facilities and are
maintained in sterile environments. A single experiment can cost thousands of dollars. Training
required in order to conduct animal research is also very time consuming and expensive (Miller 2).
Often researchers have to repeat studies. Researchers obtain money from the government and
various granting agencies that have limited funding (4). Since a lot of the taxpayers and the
government are not supporting the money for the research, scientists are leaving for other
countries.
In the Sept. 1989 edition of "Vogue" they stated "even if animal research resulted in a
cure for AIDS, we would be against it." "Non violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the
goal of all evolution." Thomas Edison.
According to the USDA, approximately 17-22 million animals are used in research each
year (Miller 32). Thirty-one percent of the animals have their pain relieved with anesthesia (which
causes nerve damage). By testing these animals with nerve damage scientist agree that it could
give inaccurate results. Six percent of the animals tested experience great pain and usually when
the test is completed the animal is terminated (32). In most of the tests it is necessary repeat the
steps, which causes more innocent animals to experience more pain. In the outcome researchers
come up with the same answers they had a couple of test ago, wasting these animals lives.
Luckily our technology today is increasing at warp speed and some researchers are trying to work
only on their computers instead of the animals.
Which brings me up to the next issue, what can we do to stop researchers from testing on
live animals? I believe two rules I thought of could be a big start. Along with the two rules we
need to write to and encourage animal testing through computer modeling.
The first rule deals with government supervision. I believe the reason why animals are
being wasted on these experiments are because nobody as a government figure is around paying
any attention to the experiments. Therefore, I think in order for anything to be performed with a
live animal should be supervised by an authority of the government. They will check and make
sure that the tests are going to how it was planned and not in a inhuman matter. In a way it is like
having a main boss (who works under the government) at every one of these testing centers.
They will provide this security member with all of the information that the scientists have. The
security will know what the subject is what the test they are doing is called and what it is for.
They will also have the correct amount of anything that the researchers are going to use such as
medication or formula. It sounds like it would be a pain to go through all of this, but that is the
point. By having these tests run under government supervision I know that they will be done in a
more neat, harmless, and professional manner. As for the salary for these security guards they
will have to be paid partially by the researching department and not fully from our government
(kind of like how waiter and waitresses get paid with tips).
The second rule deals with how the researchers will need to write to Congress and get a
approval to run the tests. In their letters to Congress they will have to include what they are
testing, what subject they are testing, what is are the predictions to the tests that will be
performed and how long will the test take to be completed. Again this would have to be done so
that the state knows exactly what is going on and what is being tested. After Congress approves
the right to test then they shall send security out to that testing site. If a testing facility does not
stand by these rules and perform the tests without supervision or written consent then they shall
be punished. Just like any other company that has not obeyed the rules they would have to go to
court and pay a severe fine. Neither of these tests have been considered to be put in writing until
now by calling People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) (301) 770-7444, you could
make a difference and let them know how you feel about animal testing.
There are many alternatives to animal research. In recent years methods such as computer
modeling and cell tissue culture have become popular. Some of the most effective advances in
human safety and health research have been achieved through these methods. Instead of testing
the animal itself they use their cells. This determines the outcome of the experiment by the cells
reaction to the test. The Animal Culture Facility was established in 1970, expanded in 1973 upon
receipt of a National Cancer Institute program project and then expanded further in 1986 with the
creation of the Biotechnology Center by a center for excellence grant from the Connecticut
Department of higher education. The goal of the facility is to promote and facilitate the use of
animal cell cultures as a research tool. A lot of researchers don't agree with cell cultures because
they want to see the reaction of the subject.
When it comes to computer modeling it's simple. They take parts
from the inside of an
animal and put them in a computer program (not literally). This way they can inject certain
chemicals into the animal and come up with results without harming the subject.
On the other hand there has been a number of medical advances that has depended on
animal testing. Advances like blood transfusions, drugs for high blood pressure, heart lung
machine for open heart surgery, kidney dialysis, and treatments for leukemia. These discoveries
have played a key role in the medical department and have helped patients out daily.
The decline in US death rates from cardiovascular disease since the 1960'a is the result of
lifestyle changes and of new methods of treatment. Many of those treatments are based upon
research requiring animals (Miller 11). According to Public Affairs Position: The American
Heart Association supports the continued responsible use of animals in biomedical research.
Effective prevention and treatment of disease depends on accurate knowledge about its causes, on
information about how disease affects the body, on drugs that combat disease, on devices that
work, and on operations that cure (12). The knowledge, material and skills on which prevention
and treatment are based have come from a variety of sources, including information that can only
be obtained by experimentation on humans and animals. "Animal research has improved the
health and welfare of animals as well as the human population" claims Miller.
According to John Emarchan "without animals for testing, a cure may not have been
found for many human diseases" (Emarchan 3). According to Emarchan the examples of poorly
conducted research are usually outdated. Most of these examples are over 20 years old, and lack
essential information about the specifies of the studies depicted (Emarchan 5). Horrific pictures
of animal abuse often used by anti-animal research groups to gain support for their cause
(Emarchan 4).
According to Tony Martin author of The Case Against Animal Testing claims animal
testing is flawed. Just how flawed is animal testing? 35 years ago, Thalidomide, the "wonder
drug" of it's day, was given to pregnant women. These women, it would turn out, would be the
ultimate guinea pigs. Although all animal testing said the drug was safe, it turned out to be a
complete disaster. Thousands of birth defects and deformed human beings were the result
(Martin 2). Clearly, more testing was required, not on animals, but on human beings. "The only
model that we can count on for people is people," claims Martin.
Just to clear up a little matter where people get confused. You may of noticed that I am
not totally against testing. Which raises the question what do animal rights activist want? Animal
rights activists are not against research. They are against using animals because they feel it is
immoral. Also this type of research yields information that can mislead or possibly give us wrong
results based on the animal model. A excellent links to my topic is called Dispelling the Myths,
this gives common questions asked and answers them very detailed.
Did you know that Penicillin will kill a Guinea pig? How about that Aspirin will kill a cat?
Or that chocolate is poisonous to dogs? If these things are harmful to animals then how come
today humans use each and everyone of them a lot? Tony Martin states, "If a researcher finds that
XYZ kills his rats, what does that tell him? should he assume the XYZ is no good for humans?
How would we know? How do we not know that this could be the miracle cure for cancer?
Animal testing is seriously flawed, and as such, responsible for not only the lab animals, but of
human beings denied the drugs that perform badly on animals." The perfect model for a human, is
another human. If researchers want perfect and accurate results then humans must be the guinea
pig for once. I know what you're thinking what kind of human would want to be a guinea pig?
That's why I suggest for volunteers and prisoners on death row to come forth and test. If you
think about it we already test on humans. After the animal tests are complete somebody has to try
it. This is wasting a lot of time and money. We should test it on humans right away to save a lot
of time and cost (especially where time is of the essence in terminal disease).
In conclusion, by my overwhelming evidence shows how wrong it is to test on live
animals. Are you aware that the vocal chords of cats and dogs are cut before testing? It is also
usual to sew up their jaws, and to tether the animals. Often the laboratory assistants inject them
the paralyzing arrow poison Curare, what makes them unable to move but nevertheless they can
feel all the pains. That is why I urge you to get involved and write to organizations of animal
testing. A great person to e-mail and discuss the topic with is at cfranz@htwm.de. If your
interested in facts about animal testing, great web page to visit is
. I highly
advise you to check into it. To learn
more about computer modeling and cell cultures write to Joan Jewett Cell Culture Facility Life
Science Building room 272 University of Connecticut Storrs, CT 06269-3044. Thank you for
your time and interest.
Bibliography
About the Author
Back to The Full Cup
Send comments to:
maddog4@imap2.asu.edu