First Research Post

I am still in the process of trying to research both sides of animal testing in the medical field.  To my surprise, I am having a hard time finding sources that show the benefits or even the justification of animal testing.

The first source I am including is the following:

Frey, R.G. “Justifying Animal Experimentation.” Society 39.6 (2002) 37-47. 

Academic Search Premier.  Web.  30 Oct. 2013

In this source the author talks about his view, which is pro-benefit, for animal testing in the medical field.  He says that animal testing is “justified by the benefits that this research confers upon humans.”  He goes on to say that without this type of testing, we would not know as much as we do on diseases and how to diagnose and treat them.  The main goal of animal research is for human benefit.  

Laws that mandate (1) replacement alternatives, like replacing animal subjects with non-animal models, (2) reduction alternatives, so reducing the number of animals used and/or the number of experiments performed, (3) refinement alternatives, refine experiments to lower animal suffering and/or loss of life, (called the 3R’s), in the scientific research have been passed in many countries including the United States.  The 3R’s promote animal testing to continue, just in a more humane way.

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.

My second source is:

"Is Animal Experimentation Worthwhile?." Nutrition Health Review: The Consumer's Medical Journal 87 (2003): 3-8. Academic Search Premier. Web. 30 Oct. 2013. 

This source is an interview with Steven Kaufman, M.D. It first discusses vivisection, which is animal experimentation that is considered to cause distress to the subject, and the history of that practice.  It is estimated that between 50 and 100 million vertebrate animals worldwide are used in animal experimentation each year.  Some of the animal types used are dogs, cats, monkeys, rats, and mice.  Flies and worms are also used for research.  After the experiment, these animals are euthanized.  It was asked where the researchers get all of these animals.  The doctor said that some animals are bred, while others are received from random sources such as pounds.  The question was asked if there are any similarities between these animals and humans.  His response was that “we’re all mammals.”  When doing experiments, researchers need to look for more subtle effects.  He says that animals are not helpful at the subtle level because there are differences.  There are major differences between the disease mechanisms between animals and humans because they are different on the genetic level.  There are other differences and factors as well.  The interviewer asked why they bother doing the experiments then.  The doctor said that they inspire the researchers to keep trying to prove their hypothesis by manipulating the animal models until they get what they are trying to prove. He said they do further experiments and sometimes even overdramatize their hypothesis.  If the experiment isn’t working like they thought then they just abandon it and start another one.  Kaufman says there have been a lot of tests that were successful on animals but were disastrous in humans.  His conclusion is that animal testing “is inefficient and unreliable, and there are better methods.”                                                                   

I believe that the two sources above will help me understand both points of view in the research of animal testing.  I found these sources through Academic Search Premier through our online library database off D2L - Front Range Community College.  I decided to first start browsing through the Points of View Reference Database because I could see what some of the major points from both sides of the argument were. I am now trying to find sources in the Science Reference Center as well as starting to search the Web for any interesting points of view.  

I am trying to understand why the researchers continue to experiment on animals, when more often than not, the experiments are a failure.  I am finding that there really aren’t a lot of similarities between animals and humans, not only in the sources listed above, but also in many of the other journals and articles I have been reading.  I am going to continue searching for benefits and try to find answers to my original questions listed in my introductory blog.

                                                                       

 

Image Analysis

The cat in the picture above was named Double Trouble.  She was part of the animal testing and research program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus.  One can tell that she has had multiple procedures performed on her and she does not look happy.  She looks sad.  Her right eye appears to droop for some reason.  She has obviously had holes drilled in her skull and then some screws attached to the steel posts. Her ears have some sort of electrodes or electrical devices in them.  It appears that her head also has some sort of electrical device that is attached to her brain.  The feature story that I read called “Cats Tormented and Killed in University Lab” said that Double Trouble also had steel coil implants in her eyes.  A former UW–Madison veterinarian confirmed that the researchers documented and took pictures of the different procedures that were done.  Double Trouble’s documentation showed that the research team would make her go days without food.  They would dangle food in front of the cat in order to have her cooperate with them to perform the experiments.  It doesn’t look like the cat is kept in a cage, according to this picture, and is free to roam.  I am assuming that the cat would have exposed or open areas and therefore those could be possible entry points for germs to enter, and for bacteria and infection to develop. It turns out that Double Trouble did get an infection in her head.  The researchers determined that this experiment was a failure and therefore killed and decapitated the cat and then later examined her brain.   In choosing this picture, I hope that people will see that animals are undergoing extreme testing in order to gain more knowledge.  When the experiments do not go according to the researcher’s plan, animals are just being tossed away, in parts.  Is this really an ethical way to learn and gain knowledge?

Works Cited

“Cats Tormented and Killed in University Lab”
http://www.peta.org/features/uw-madison-cruelty/photos.aspx

Research Question

Is animal testing necessary to advance medical research?

 I would respond by saying that every living creature has the right to a happy and healthy life.  My initial feeling is that every life has value whether it is an animal or a human.  Animals do not have a say in if they want to be used as a subject in animal testing.  They don't ask for this cruelty of vivisection.  They have feelings just like humans do and they can feel the pain associated with these tests that are being done.  I understand that the medical community says that animal testing has helped develop medications and maybe even cures for certain diseases in humans and animals, but I think there could be other methods used in creating these medications.  There may be other ways to test these products besides on the animals.  Why do people think that a human’s life is more important than an animal’s life?  These are the areas of my topic that I am interested in finding more information about. 

I think that people in favor of animal testing would say that experimenting on animals develops knowledge.  Animal research has led to the development of drugs, surgery techniques, and even therapies to help make both the human and animal population healthier.  Without this type of testing, they would conclude that both human and animal populations would expire earlier from disease and also there would not be as many medications to help ease the pain from disease.     

I want to find out if in fact animal testing does help develop cures in human. I want to learn about the types of animals that are being used and the reasons why those types are chosen.  I would like to find where they get these animals and I am also interested in how these animals are actually being treated in these experiments.  Are they treated decently and with respect or are they isolated and in deplorable conditions? I am going to explore these considerations through medical journals and sites of organizations that not only support animal testing but those that are against it as well. I would like to find out if any limits have been placed on the researchers and the ways that they are able to test on their subjects.

 

Introduction

Hi there.  I am a forty two year old female and I am going to school to become an RN.  I am married and have 2 kids.  The purpose of this blog is to help me prepare for an essay that I am doing for my English course.  My hope is to learn more about why the medical field uses animal testing in order to advance medical research.  As stated earlier, I am going into the medical field and therefore would like to learn about the perspectives from both the medical side and the common person's point of view.   I would also like to get feedback from my peers about what their views may be and possibly receive new ideas in the process which will help me further develop my topic.  Any thoughts, ideas and even critiques would be very much appreciated.  I look forward to hearing from you.