There are scientists who are developing and using animal-free methods that are actually shown to be relevant to human health for studying diseases and testing products. There is a variety of cell-based tests and tissue models that can be used to assess the safety of drugs, chemicals, cosmetics, and consumer products. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) reports on a chip that contains human cells grown in a system to mimic the structure and function of human organs.
I find this argument to utilize tissue and cell models to be a bit of a scapegoat, especially because we even have the science to produce these tissue and cell models stems from animal testing. Also, certain kinds of research where cell and tissue models will not substantially help progress the research. At the end of the day, the only way tissue and cell models will replace animal testing is possible with more improvements in stem cell research which ironically will still require animal testing and is just as controversial.
I am on the fence with this topic. On one hand, animal studies have contributed greatly to the medical innovation. That innovation has been accomplished in medical device development and novel treatments. It seems as though the life of humans holds more value then that of animals. Preserving mankind at the expense of other animals is at play. I toured an animal research facility at the University of Colorado Health Center. It was interesting to see how all these animals were kept in cages and being tested on for a wide range of disease. Animals included mice, rabbits, chinchillas, pigs, cows, and the list goes on and on. The animals were in good conditions. Hearing how animals were getting infected with certain diseases, and having skin grafts completed on pigs was a sight to behold. There are alternatives being developed, I believe at some time we must get away from animal studies if at all possible.
Me personally I don't think it's unethical to use animals for test models, reasons being is because the models are being used to ensure safe quality treatments for human beings. I do not believe that humans should be used as test models, unless it's dealing with clinical trials. The rough draft of a treatment should be done with an animal model first to ensure the safety of all humans.
Over the years, there has been an increase in the search for drugs to solve complex needs. Research and clinical trials are needed to identify if the compound design will be effective in patients. This if often tested on animals since the biology are close to humans. Now, the number of animals used in research has increased with the advancement of research and development in medical technology (Ranganatha and Kuppast,2012). Every year, millions of experimental animals are used all over the world, the disregard of their lives for science is a non-factor when it comes to humans but what are about ethical concerns? There are few more disadvantages of animal experimentation like requirement of skilled manpower, time consuming protocols and high cost (De Silva et al.,1996).
After researching, I found an alternative method to animal testing. The 3 Rs stands for reduction, refinement and replacement of laboratory use of animals (Ranganatha and Kuppast,2012). Reduction methods can focus on vitro embryonic stem cell culture. This test helps to reduce the number of live embryo used and the compounds which are toxic toward developing embryo (De Silva et al.,1996). Refinement is focusing on enriching the cage environment by taking care of animals reduces the stress on animals. Scientists should refine the animal facility so that pain, discomfort and distress during animal life and scientific procedures are reduced (De Silva et al.,1996).Lastly, replacement through computer.
Sources:
De Silva, D.A. Basketter, M.D. Barratt, E. Corsini, M.T. Cronin, P.K. Das, M. Ponec Alternative methods for skin sensitization testing Atla Nottingham, 24 (1996), pp. 683-706
Ranganatha, I.J. Kuppast; A review on alternatives to animal testing methods in drug development Int. J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci., 4 (2012), pp. 28-32
Although science has been around for a while, technology is something that has been evolving in the past 20 years. Pre-clinical is very important to every and any kind of medical research. But what is also important is ethics behind animal testing. Some organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) are fighting for stopping animal testing. PETA and other organizations like this believe it is cruel to perform on animals and use them for science. Although they do help us have better medications and medical devices, they are dying for the name of science. Do you think this is unethical? Are there alternatives?
I honestly do not think that using animals is unethical. There are laws in place that insure that the animals are treated fairly and with care so that the testing is deemed ethical. While we are putting them through a lot, they are helping with the expansion of knowledge and medicine, so I believe it is necessary. I read that an alternative to animal testing is virtual testing but until it is further developed and tweaked, I do not feel like virtual testing would be enough to discover and test new biologic and medical devices.
Although science has been around for a while, technology is something that has been evolving in the past 20 years. Pre-clinical is very important to every and any kind of medical research. But what is also important is ethics behind animal testing. Some organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) are fighting for stopping animal testing. PETA and other organizations like this believe it is cruel to perform on animals and use them for science. Although they do help us have better medications and medical devices, they are dying for the name of science. Do you think this is unethical? Are there alternatives?
I think that animal testing is important in certain industries and unavoidable. In the case of companies focusing surgical closing solutions, its extremely difficult (if not impossible) to create an FDA approved device for human use without animal testing. I work in a group that develops clinically relevant ex-vivo bench-top performance models for surgical devices which help collect data and flush out prototypes and help guide the new product development process. From what I have seen, no bench-top model will ever be able to perfectly mimic how the device will perform in vivo, which is where animal studies become necessary. Tissue is a very complex and varying mechanism and understanding how a device will perform in a living being can help discern critically important information that can result in the success or failure of a product in humans.
I think that sacrificing several animals to create a safe an effective medical device that can affect millions of people is incredibly ethical.
Does anyone have any different thoughts or opinions on this?
Thanks,
Matt
I think that testing on animals is unethical because it causes suffering to animals. Their rights are being violated. There are other alternatives to testing on animals: in vitro testing, computer (in silico) modeling, research with human volunteers, and human-patient simulators. All of these methods are either very expensive or they’re still a work in progress and still have not been perfected. Therefore, even though it is unethical, I think until a more efficient method is perfected then that is our only option to continue our research. As of now, the benefit of providing and continuing the lives of millions of humans from research with animal testing outweighs the disadvantages. I believe that animal testing will be a thing of the past in the near future.
Animal testing at the moment is very imperative to get real active data on objects other than in vitro testing which could mimic a body but also has its limitations. I think that the way the animal testing is done makes it ethical or not, and I believe there should be a better focus on rules and regulations to ensure the animals are not being treated poorly during a scientific research. Specifically that they should make sure the research is not malicious nor causing the animal severe pain or that the research is completely inhumane and is dangerous.
There is no other alternative to animals except humans, and unless every human is willing to do a test with waivers that could potentially be lethal, using animals that reproduce quickly, and also giving them appropriate protocols to be used should be still implemented.
Animal testing is unethical, however, it is also necessary. These animals are often bred for the purpose of science, and I feel to an extent, humans are toying with nature. Since quality communication between humans and animal subjects is almost nonexistent, we as the superior species should take it upon ourselves to not cause them pain or suffering. Despite this, it is important to study how the host responds to a drug or material before it is released to the public to prevent unwanted mistakes. Many people may feel that a human life is more valuable, which is why animal testing is implemented into protocol. I do not believe there is an alternative to animal testing because human volunteers would be difficult to come by, especially if long term effects are unknown.
I don't believe it is unethical to test on animals. With that said, the testing being performed on animals must be fully thought out and made with good conscious. I don't believe its ethical to treat animals with experiments as if you were throwing darts blindly at a board. It must and always should be the final step after previous treatments have proven successful and reasonably safe with cultured cells. I say reasonably safe because as we know nearly everything in BME being tested on animals will have the risk of adverse events, which is exactly why we need to continue animal testing. Without we would then have to subject hundreds of humans on a treatment that has no grounding to be called safe.
An alternative could be with embryonic or induced pluripotent stem cells. Of course a similar ethical debate can be had with ES cells, which leads to growing interest in iPS. Unfortunately, research on iPS is still in the works. While iPS studies have been shown to be successful, in my opinion its too early in the process to replace animal testing with iPS. What are you thoughts on the use of iPS in research and do you believe they have a real viability years down the line?
Before starting my career in science, I would have sided with PETA and protested against animal testing. Now, I have mixed emotions that lean more towards pro animal testing. While I do believe it is unethical, I understand its importance for testing the safety and efficacy of medications and medical devices before they reach humans. If there are alternatives for specific studies, I definitely think they should be used; however, if animal testing is the only option, I think it should be used. One thing to make sure of is that the animals are still treated fairly in the process and not tortured. Because scientific methods and techniques do evolve, it would be my hope that advancements would create an alternative and effective way to test without animals in the future. The concern with exchanging animal testing with technology is that the technology may not give all the necessary details and results that animal testing offers.
I know animal testing is a sensitive subject for a lot of people, but I don’t see any other closely related, valuable alternatives out there. I do not think it is unethical to test on animals. As long as the animals aren’t being abused purposefully, then testing on them isn’t unethical. Many medicines, vaccines, etc. have been made by testing on animals first. It’s either test on the animals, or test on humans. I’m sure plant testing is useful, but when it comes to being able to test on something that possess similar qualities as humans, animals are the best choice. Not everything can be done in simulations or artificially. When it comes down to knowing exactly how something would react in a human, it’s best to test on something alive.
Animal testing is a highly controversial debate in the field of medicine today. Ethically speaking, there is a demand for ensuring product safety before utilizing medical devices and even cosmetics on humans. As a result, animal testing has become a prevalent means to the end for this purpose. Unfortunately, there is no better model for assuring product safety. The bright side is that science is developing at an alarming rate; therefore, a replacement may be underway. Until that day, animal testing will remain the center of clinical trials and product development. I agree that even with a new testing system, animal testing will remain in clinical research.
Although I do believe that animal testing can be seen as unethical and I wouldn’t completely disagree with that sentiment, I do think that there are situations where animal testing can be ethically justified. Pre-clinical research is extremely important in the research process and helps to eliminate the chance that an unsafe, toxic, or potentially deadly product gets used by humans. It also allows for the effect of a product to be roughly modeled in an animal in order to make predictions about its efficacy in humans. The use of animal testing has tremendous benefits and if put aside, could have drastic consequences for health and research. In some cases, the benefit of animal testing to the health of humans outweighs the potential harm to the animal. This I will say is ethically justified along with animal testing done in the name of studying life-threatening diseases or advancing life-saving medicines or products. The use of animal testing simply for curiosity or without great scientific need, I agree, is absolutely unethical as the animals are suffering for no valid reason. There are alternatives to animal testing such as computer modeling and in vitro testing. I do believe that as technology advances, these alternatives will grow and become more accurate and reliable, slowly eliminating the need for animal testing due to its inherent unethical nature.
I don't think there is a clear answer to this question. There has been discussion on which animals are ethical to use dependent upon the research one is conducting. I think some testing is ethical while others are clearly unethical. I think a better question would be: at what "point" does animal testing become unethical?
