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.