Animal_Testing

The arguments for and against animal testing I have selected the relevant information for the argument for animal testing from the following website: http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000CAF94.htm The title of the article is: Pro-Test: supporting animal testing Once again the argument I have read for animal testing is very informative and interesting so I have extracted the main points I feel are relevant and commented on them. ‘The goal of Pro-Test is to make the case for animal testing. It is generally well known that vaccines, antibiotics, transplant surgeries, medical devices such as pacemakers, and other developments would not be here today if animal testing had not been used. But animal rights activists want to stop all current and future animal testing’ The above extract mentions a website ‘pro- test’ at the beginning which is in favour of animal testing and gives you the website earlier in the article so you can go and support it and get some facts. I have also extracted this section as it states that such medical breakthroughs such as a lot of vaccines, antibiotics, transplant surgeries, medical devices such as pacemakers and other developments which aren’t included wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for animal testing. ‘A famous example often cited by animal rights groups is thalidomide. Thalidomide was introduced in 1956 and marketed as a sedative (1). Within several years, its use had spread around the world and women began taking it to help combat the nausea associated with pregnancy. In 1961, several physicians linked thalidomide with birth defects they observed in cases of female patients who had been taking it. Very quickly, these results were confirmed worldwide, and thalidomide was taken off the market. Thalidomide did initially pass safety tests in animals because the proper tests - namely, testing thalidomide in pregnant animals - were not performed. If a thorough battery of tests had been performed in animals, the birth defects would have been detected. Animal rights groups confuse an error resulting from an absence of testing with one resulting from conducting tests on animals. They claim, quite erroneously, that thalidomide did not cause birth defects in animals, only humans. Once the drug was pulled off the market, additional tests in animals were done, and it was found that mice, rats, hamsters, marmosets and baboons all suffered similar effects as observed in humans. Part of the reason for this error was the lax regulations that existed at the time. However, it was also an expression of the existing state of scientific knowledge. What wasn't realised was that a fetus might suffer side effects even if a pregnant woman did not. This was also believed to be the same with animals. Medical research has now shown this to be false, and pregnant women are advised to avoid most medications of any kind unless absolutely necessary’. The thalidomide case is used above to argue for more testing whereas in the previous report against testing it is used against. In this extract the reporter mentions the fact that thalidomide did pass the safety test mentioned in both reports but goes on state that ‘if a thorough battery of tests had been Page 2 performed in animals, the birth defects would have been detected. The reporter also goes on to say that because of medical research ‘pregnant women are advised to avoid most medications of any kind unless absolutely necessary’. Pro-Test stands by the belief that the value of human life is such that these drugs should be tested on animals before they are tested on any human beings. The above extract concludes the argument for the scientific side of things and the reporter stresses that the value of human life is greater than that of animals and that is why the testing should continue. MY CONCLUSION Before I started reading the two arguments my own personal view was that animal testing is extremely important for finding new medicines and for curing illness and disease. On conclusion and after weighing up the two arguments and comparing statements, in particular the one regarding thalidomide and the problems encountered and the mistakes made, for me just backs up the case for more stringent testing at present and in the future. I have some empathy towards the views of the reporter against the testing and the suffering caused to the animals but I feel the last paragraph of the pro testing report sums it up and the value of human life has to be put above that of animals and it si a debate that will continue to rage on as it divides so many people and questions their morals. Page 3