Animals Subjected to Pain: Testing & Experimentation Must Be Banned - Essay Sample

Introduction

Have you ever imagined the kind of pain and suffering animals are subjected to when they are used for research purposes? It is actually wrong to involve animals to experimentations and laboratory procedures when scientists want to evaluate the efficiency of medical drugs, conduct biological research, or study diseases. Use of animal for testing or experimentation should be banned since animals are subjected to pain and suffering, they are predisposed to health issues, and because there are alternatives methods to animal experiments.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Animals are Subjected to Pain and Suffering

When animals are forced to testing and experimentation, they languish in pain and suffering (Carstens & Moberg, 2000, p.70). For instance, there are research procedures where animals like rat and mice used for testing are put in an empty chamber then acquaint with experimentation gases. Since carbon dioxide is the common gas used for euthanasia of lab animals, exposure to it results in pain, distress then followed by death. Another case where animals languish pain and suffering is when fish and amphibians are dipped in water with tricaine. In a similar approach, Frey (2005) highlights that animals testing and experimentation reduce the quality of animal life. For example, a vivisection lab procedure indicated that the quality of rodent life is greatly decreasing. Scientists, on the other hand, conduct these procedures without caring about animal health. These research procedures reduce the quality of life of animals since they are poisoned and put in enclosed spaces. A number of animals suffer from discomfort, live in poor health conditions, and die younger. It is also important to assert that animal testing violates animal rights (Nicoll, 2011, p.307). Like humans, animals have moral rights and qualities. They feel pain the same way as humans. It is, therefore, morally correct to say that an animal's rights are violated because they suffer and feel pain when they are subjected to testing and experimentation.

Animals Are Predisposed to Health Issues

Laboratory animals are subjected to immense physical pain and distress. An example of laboratory generated distress on animals is the phenomenon of contagious unease. The cortisone levels in monkey are often high when they observe other monkeys being injected for blood collection. The heart rates and blood pressure increase in rats when they observe other rats being cut (Akhtar, 2015, P.410). Whenever a rat is distressed it will develop severe inflammatory conditions and intestinal leakage which is a form of physical problem. Another example experiments were done on mice to come up with aortic curatives and due to the pain, they experience the noise levels can harm the blood vessels in animals in the laboratory.

In the last few years, scientists have often subjected animals to excruciating pain and distressing experiments (Brieger et al. 2012, P. 5). For example, "Redox Regulation involves highly reactive molecules which emanate from the mitochondrial electron transport chain (ETC). The respiratory taking place in phagocytes ionizing radiation causes a damaging effect on the cell membranes, affects the metabolism, mental state, and even the animal's lifetime. The animals will get mental stressors when ROS experiments are done on them by scientists.

Alternatives to Animal Experimentation

Russell & Burch (1), suggested the three Rs (Reduction, refinement, and replacement) as the widely accepted guiding principles on how humane animal testing should be carried out (Schuppli, Fraser & McDonald, 2004, P. 525). Replacement is defined as a technique of using non-sensitive materials during experiments. Some of these materials include "plants, micro-organisms, and endoparasites which could be an alternative to the use of Apes and animals as espoused by Russel and Burch" (Schuppli, Fraser & McDonald, 2004, P. 525). The main rationale behind proposing the three Rs is to reduce pain and distress arising from laboratory procedures. Another example is ecological enrichment as an alternative proposed by scientists to alleviate abnormal behavior on animals by suggesting better techniques which will suit and fit in the condition's animals prefer.

With the growth in innovation and technology, there are better alternatives to animal testing (Itenberg et al. 2014 P.6). Tissue culture, the growth of isolated animal cells is widely preferred to due to it being accessible, and the tissues grown can be preserved for an indefinite period of time, and can also be replaced occasionally. It will also help to minimize the costs linked with replacing animals, housing them and feeding them during drug development. The new technology and medicines, more scientists will have solutions on how they can do humane experiments. For instance, transgenic animals will have their genes inserted into the DNA of one animal during experiments and it will help varied the scope of their experiments without harming many animals. The use of "in vitro" methods and cell co-cultures are other better alternatives to animal testing. A good example of in vitro techniques is the main liver tissue taken from a human (Pearson,1986, P. 560). Further, several studies have shown that vitro model techniques are able to offer more rapid, precise and, relevant information required by scientists as opposed to traditional methods of animal testing. Another example is mutagenesis and toxicity mechanisms which emanate from the similarity of genetic material in animals can also help replace animal tests.

Counter-Argument & Rebuttal

DeGrazia and Rowan (2012, p.201) did not agree with the idea that animals testing and experimentation should be banned. Instead, they support their argument by saying that animals testing and experimentations have possible benefits. To their claim, animals testing help scientists to develop and discover new methods that help alleviate the pain and suffering animals have been experiencing (DeGrazia & Rowan, 2012). For example, 3Rs, refinement, replacement, and reduction are humane experimental methods that help reduce distress and suffering in animals testing. Nevertheless, while Scientists have come up with alternative methods such as refinement which assists in alleviating pain, distress, and suffering, there is factual evidence that most vivo experiments cause pain, suffering, and distress to animals used for medical procedures since it is sentient (Nicoll, 2011, P. 304). Replacement methods suggest the use of non-sentient techniques and Reduction advances the art of finding similar genetic compositions of animals with the view of reducing the number of animals subjected to testing.

Other scholars mention that it is through animal testing that researchers and scientists get to understand how the human body works (Robinson, 2005). People who oppose the idea of using human beings to study medical drugs and to discover diseases claim that animals can be modified as models and combined with the human genome in order to create a leeway for the discovery of how the human body reacts when subjected to diseases. However, in line with my thesis, we must consider that all animals have rights just like human beings (Portaluppi, Smolensky & Touitou, 2010, P.1920). While this point seems valid, the law insists that safety and humane experiments should be observed when animals are used in experiments by scientists.

Some people may argue that animals testing is helpful in understanding medical procedures and in the development of new drugs. According to Etuk (2010, p.130), scientists use animals in experimentation to understand the pathophysiology of diseases. Further, animals are used to understand the level of toxicity of medical drugs and to obtain a clue on how certain drugs work in the body. All that may be true, but the law states that there should be proper consideration when selecting species and assessing the best methods which will not cause pain and distress during the research. The use of animals for research should be approved and comply with the regulations by local, and federal regulations. Scientists should also come up with drug and medical procedures using alternative methods (Halliwell & Gutteridge, 2015, P.30). For example, the introduction of chemistry in several types of kinds of species to carry chemical information used in the development of drugs by scientists.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the use of animals for testing should be abolished or alternative methods deployed. The reason is animals are subjected to excruciating pain and distress; they are predisposed to health issues which reduce the quality of their life. With the inception of innovation and technology in the field of medicine and research, the only solution will be to use alternative methods such as the three Rs a(reduction, replacement, and Refinement), in vitro techniques, and cell co-cultures. Animals have rights just like human beings hence all the experiments required to be done on animals must conform to the law and moral standards. At the same time, there should be the use of non-sentient materials during experiments like primary liver extracted from human beings during vitro analysis experiments.

References

Akhtar, A. (2015). The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 24(4), 407-419.

Brieger, K., Schiavone, S., Miller Jr, F. J., & Krause, K. H. (2012). Reactive oxygen species: from health to disease. Swiss medical weekly, 142, w13659.

Muschler, G. F., Raut, V. P., Patterson, T. E., Wenke, J. C., & Hollinger, J. O. (2010). The design and use of animal models for translational research in bone tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Tissue Engineering Part B: Reviews, 16(1), 123-145.

Robinson, V. (2005). Finding alternatives: an overview of the 3Rs and the use of animals in research. School Science Review, 87(319), 111.

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.

Etuk, E. U. (2010). Animals models for studying diabetes mellitus. Agric Biol JN Am, 1(2), 130-134.

Halliwell, B., & Gutteridge, J. M. (2015). Free radicals in biology and medicine. Oxford University Press, USA.

Nicoll, C. S. (2011). A physiologist's views on the animal rights/liberation movement. Physiologist, 34(6), 303-15.

DeGrazia, D., & Rowan, A. (2012). Pain, suffering, and anxiety in animals and humans. Theoretical Medicine, 12(3), 193-211.

Von Aulock, S. (2019). Is there an end in sight for animal testing?. ALTEX-Alternatives to animal experimentation, 36(1), 142-144.

Schuppli, C. A., Fraser, D., & McDonald, M. (2004). Expanding the three Rs to meet new challenges inhumane animal experimentation. Altern Lab Anim, 32(5), 525-32

Carstens, E., & Moberg, G. P. (2000). Recognizing pain and distress in laboratory animals. Ilar Journal, 41(2), 62-71.

Frey, R. G. (2005). Pain, vivisection, and the value of life. Journal of medical ethics, 31(4), 202-204.

Pearson, R. M. (1986). In-vitro techniques: can they replace animal testing?. Human Reproduction, 1(8), 559-560.

Itenberg, D., Pereira, K., Yim, C. K. T., & Fagan, J. M. (2014). Tissue Engineering: The Alternative to Animal Testing & Meat Manufacturing.