My third source that I am using was found through
Academic Search Premier. The article is
called “The Poor Contribution of Chimpanzee Experiments to Biomedical
Progress.” The author of the article, Andrew Knight, examined over 749
published medical papers and experiments.
Basically, after detailed
examination of these medical papers and experiments that were published in
medical journals, he found that only 27 of these showed that there were developed
methods for combatting human diseases, but not one of them made an “essential
contribution, or in most cases, a significant contribution of any kind, to the
development of the medical method described.”
The researchers used Chimpanzees in their
experiments because they are closely related to humans. Types of testing included Hepatitis C, HIV,
viruses, pharmacology testing, surgical and prosthesis, anesthesia and toxicology.
Experimenting on chimps is very costly because they have to find the animals
and then feed and maintain the animals. Knight says that the knowledge and
benefits gained from the experimentation on the chimps is not worth the ethical
or financial costs that were incurred. The reasoning of why the experiments
failed was because of the small differences in the DNA between the two species.
Other factors may include the way that the chimps were housed, isolated,
immobilized and the stress and pain the animals endured.
I believe that this source will be useful in the
argument against animal testing. I believe it is a reliable source because it
was found through Academic Search Premier.
Knight, Andrew. "The Poor Contribution Of
Chimpanzee Experiments To Biomedical Progress." Journal of Applied
Animal Welfare Science 10.4 (2007): 281-308. Academic Search Premier.
Web. 4 Nov. 2013.
My fourth source was found through the Points of
View database. I continued to look there
because I was having a hard time finding pro testing in the Science or Academic
databases. I am using another source
that is against animal testing. This
article is called “Animal Testing is Cruel and Immoral Regardless of the
Benefits Associated With It.”
This article discusses the immoral practices and the
ethical issues of using animals in scientific and medical research. The author say humans think that they are more
dominant than other species and so this is one of the reasons that this practice
is justified. There have been many cases
of humans taking advantage of animals.
This can be seen as capturing them and holding them in tiny cages,
performing unnecessary experiments such as the artificial whiplash in baboons,
and cruelty of animals in general. It goes on to say that there are between 50
to 100 million animals killed every year from experiments and drug
research. Most of this research is
testing the toxicity, brain research, dental research, and surgical experiments. The researchers defend their experiments by
saying that the animals feel less pain than humans. The sad thing is that a lot of these tests
are conducted behind closed doors so the public doesn’t know about them. If the tests are being done “humanely” then
why not be open and show the public the types of experiments that are being
done? He brings up the point “should we seriously
consider breeding humans for the purpose of medical experiments?” He says they could be raised just like lab
animals are raised. The testing would be
more effective. He also says that human
testing is already being done on prisoners for medical research. Overall, the question that he wants answered
is in regards to the 4% difference in the genome of the DNA sequence and what separates
the humans from chimps/animals. Why is
it unacceptable or immoral to perform the same tests on humans?
Wright, George, Hoagland, Steve. "Counterpoint:
Animal Testing Is Cruel And Immoral Regardless Of The Benefits Associated With
It." Points Of View: Animal Experimentation (2013): 3. Points of
View Reference Center. Web. 6 Nov. 2013.
My fifth source is from the New England
Anti-Vivisection Society. This organization
not only discusses what vivisection is and the history behind it, but it
discusses Biomedical Research as well as other types of research. It also talks about the use of animals in education
at the middle and high school levels as well as in college and medical schools. It discusses different alternatives instead
of using animal for testing and the reasons to use these other
alternatives. I decided to use this
website because it is one of the leading organizations in protecting animals
and advancing science by using alternative methods. This website also has a.org extension, so I think
that it should be a pretty credible source.
Frey says that research is showing that new discoveries will
be made that will alleviate human suffering and also establish new hope for
treatment of diseases that were once thought incurable. He begins to compare animals to humans and the
characteristics that may distinguish the two.
He basically says that animals have rights and their lives have value,
just like humans. The real issue is the
quality of life. He says that the life
of the higher quality should be saved. He
believes that “normal adult human lives have a higher quality than animal
lives.” This leads to his thoughts on future experiments. He says that more human testing will be done
in the future. He says that some people
will be put at risk as a potential subject because of their experiences,
whether those experiences are good or bad.
Pain and suffering lower the quality of life, so those who are suffering
will more than likely participate in the research to help alleviate their
pain. Both animal testing and human testing
is a moral issue. His final thought is
that the quality of life argument is used every day in the treatment of
people. People who work in hospitals
deal with these types of “considerations” every day. These could include if someone lives or dies,
who receives treatment first and why, and who will be saved and who will be
left to die.
