Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Additional Sources


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. 

New England Anti-Vivisection Society. http://www.neavs.org/.(2013).Web. 4 November 2013.

5 comments:

  1. For some reason I find your fourth source really interesting. Maybe this is immoral of me, but I think it is a way better idea to use prisoners as experiment. Why not use the child rapist and murderers for the experiments? That seems better than using innocent animals. That should be their punishment. Have you found anything else on using the prisoners as experiment? That would be interesting to find out. I've never heard of something like that, but I personally think it's a way better idea! It is true monkeys or primates are similar to humans but still they're not exact, so you're right, I still don't see how they could animals as experiment. The human part would seem more credible or reliable.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I also think that using humans for testing is a much better idea. I hope at least that the prisoners that are being tested on have some sort of say in the matter, perhaps they have consented to be tested on. I had a group of friends from Texas years ago who actually did submit themselves as test subjects for medication testing trials. They would willingly sometimes live in a testing facility for up to 6 months at a time and never know what kind of drugs they were being given and they would be paid for their time as well as having free room and board. There are people out there in the world that are willing to be tested on, I wonder if it ends up just costing less to test on animals than humans. At least with humans there wouldn't be any differences in DNA so the results would probably be more conclusive in effectiveness on humans.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I found it interesting that you weren't able to find any pro-animal testing information; simply because it is so commonly done. You would think one of these science labs that preform these test would at least be able to explain why they are doing it and what it is benefiting. It just seems like such an odd thing that to be so common and completely undocumented. I completely agree that animal testing is cruel; however, I would have really been interested to see the other side. As far as your other sources went, I found the fourth one particularly interesting. The idea of breeding babies just for testing seems insane, not only is cruel, think of all the people that want babies and can’t have them; how sad for them if babies were being made to test on, but not for them to have and love. I do agree with the testing on prisoners to a certain extent. I think the length of their sentence as well as their crimes should definitely be taken into account. If we were to do testing on an inmate that got out two years later and then developed a severe side effect because of the testing, our country would have to pay for his/her care. I've never truly understood the whole animal testing thing from the beginning; their genetic make-up is completely different from ours so how can you prove anything anyway. I've enjoyed reading your paper and good luck with your final essay.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Curious,
    You had my attention from the very first blog post. I have not had my understanding of a situation challenged like this in a very long time. Growing up medical research on animals was just an accepted thing. We believed that there were many innovations and medical breakthroughs because of it. The fact that you couldn't find research to support that I found astounding. I really expected there to be something. When I saw the whip lash video I could not see any reason for an animal to be treated that way. In my mind it makes much more sense for experimental procedures to be done on humans who are willing to do it, or by people that have no choices left for a cure or some beneficial help and feel that if there is any hope I am willing to try. I realize that you many get some unethical person not divulging all of the pertinent information, but it still makes more sense to me. I think you did a good job researching this. Thank you for the heads up.
    judy

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is a topic I haven't really thought much about, but now that I have read your blog I am intrigued. As some of the previous classmates suggested, I think it could be a great idea to test on some prisoners. You could control their lives for a test group probably better than any other group of people, and it does help save those poor animals! Science is not my expertise, but I am too finding myself questioning is it really necessary to test on animals to advance medically? I understand chimps are a great resource because genetically they are very similar to us, but I wonder how many unforeseen side-effects occur in humans than they do in the chimps strictly because of the genetic differences.

    I can't wait to see how your essay turns out!
    Brittany

    ReplyDelete