Go Without Animals
Doctors are finally able to realize animal testing does not get their job done and they need to find a new solution. The former U.S. National Institutes of Health director Dr. Elias Zerhouni expresses, “We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans.” This is the first step in the right direction in order to cease animal testing.
Everyone, even the doctors, are aware of how harmful testing is to animals, however no one has put enough effort in to stop it. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, PETA, declared these experiments are “cruel, expensive, and generally inapplicable to humans”, so a handful of scientists have finally stepped forward to create a different, more effective method. They are in the process of ending animal testing and finding better tests that are “relevant to human health.” These upcoming techniques will include newer technology, human cells and tissues, and even human volunteers in order to give the best possible reaction. Not only will it enhance the medicine for human diseases, but it is a method that is much cheaper and easier to perform.
To start off, there is “In Vitro” testing. Where Harvard’s Wyss Institute has developed, a technique called “organs-on-chips” which has human’s cells grown in the system in order to double as the function of human organs. PETA shares that this method has been shown to “replicate human physiology, diseases, and drug responses” more accurately than animal testing. This chip has already been bought by researchers and used instead of animal experimentation. Also, there is a new cell-based and tissue model test that has been introduced to test the reliability of “drugs, chemicals, cosmetics, and consumer products.” By using human cells replicating the traits of human skin, this method gets rid of testing for guinea pigs, mice, and rabbits. These animals would not have to be shaved down and put in painful tests waiting for the results of the test. Instead, using this duplicate skin researchers are able to evaluate from that source rather than anything else. At the European Union Reference Library, researchers have found tests that the use of human blood instead of putting rabbits through this painful test is quite more successful. The blood is used to identify any red flags that would pollute the human body and result in fevers when it accesses the body. In the end, it gives the result of anything that would be harmful directly from a human source.
When it comes to chemical testing, human tissue is proven to give more accurate results than using animals. A researcher’s job is to find the best possible answer to the problem they are presented with, meanwhile non-animal testing is producing the results they need. Since this method could leave a patient potentially dead or alive, researchers should take the opportunity to participate in such a method. Human volunteers have also come forward to help not just themselves, but everybody else. Micro dosing is a technique that gives volunteers a “small one-time dose” which allows researchers to observe the body. The drug will be watched in order to see how it affects the body making this method able to banish certain animal testing’s all at once. Using this method gives information letting researchers know the safeness of a drug and how it will react to a human in the long-run. Rats, cats, and monkeys will no longer have to have their brains damaged thanks to the advanced brain imaging and recording approach. This method allows humans to have their brains studied in a safe environment by researchers and even temporarily solve their condition.
In the technological field, there have been few advanced systems created in order to deal with the human body. For example, animal testing and drug tests can soon be taken over by a computer-generated test. Researchers have computer models that mimics the human biology and the growth of diseases within. This method will be able to find new ways and new drugs to help the human body react to any illness. Quantitative structure-activity relationships, QSARs, is a computer based system that will get rid of animal testing by using the known knowledge of human biology. This way will avoid animal experiments involving chemicals and any other harmful tests. These methods are much quicker and definitely much simpler.
There is no better reasoning to stop animal testing than knowing “alternative scientific tests are often more reliable than animal tests”, directly from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Right then and there, doctors should rely on tests that do not use animals, giving their patient the best possible treatment they can get. Countless tests showed human skin cells compared to traditional animal tests to be more accurate in identifying chemical skin. The simplest change of not using animals could make the biggest difference in somebody’s life.
In the effort to teach not only medical students, but save people lives, there has been a human-patient simulator. What is better than learning how to react with problems from the human body by using a human body? Life-like computerized human-patient simulators have been constructed in order to teach students the most accurate way to treat a patient. This excludes any animals, such as pigs, goats, or dogs, to be cut up. The simulator breathes, bleeds, talks, and reacts just as a normal human would. Medicines will be injected and act as if it was on a real-life person, allowing students to learn lifesaving skills on the spot. No animals will be touched or need to even be present in order for any of these new methods to take place.
There has always been insignificant alternative testing that has not been used, yet there are many benefits if they were used. The organization New England Anti-Vivisection Society ,NEAVS , expresses when no animals are used for experimenting its creates “cruelty-free products” and makes the world “more environmentally friendly.” This could increase consumers’ willingness to buy more products if they knew it was not included in animal testing. NEAVS also argues by using non-animal testing is “more cost-effective and practical”, leaving there no question not to use animals. Researchers would be able to fix two major variables, with one minor adjustment making their lives much easier. While animal testing takes weeks to perform and record substantial information, other tests take “as little as 3 minutes to four hours.” NEAVS has found By experimenting chemicals without animals, researchers can “test hundreds of chemicals in a week for a fraction of the cost.” There has yet to be any red flags from non-animal testing.
It would be more appealing, especially as a patient, knowing the medicine that is put into my body is found to be from a more reliable source. The risk of knowing if a treatment will or will not work on a disease only gets the hopes up of the fighting people in need. When researchers use animal testing, they are able to prove a safe solution for animals, but not necessarily for humans. The small percentage that this could happen could make a huge difference. According to Meredith Cohn, reporter from The Baltimore Sun, physicians still see the “basic research and drug and chemical tests still rely heavily on animals.” That should not be the case, the bigger and more important tests are even starting to move to non-animal testing. More researchers are finding a way to “incorporate human-based needs” however, “there is no comprehensive substitute for animal testing and research.”
Even if this type of action is not illegal, it certainly is not ethical. The law not to test on animals when there are better and easier alternatives available should be stressed immensely. According to NEAVS, three states have “ already passed legislation mandating that federally approved non-animal alternatives, when available, be used for product testing in place of animals.” This will gradually lead to “cruelty-free research and testing” to be the “status quo.” NEAVS strongly believes since science “promotes better health and well-being”, they can do the same to “protect animals lives.”
All in all, there are numerous outcomes from non-animal testing. Not only are animals free from being in agonizing pain, but there is a better chance humans can live through a disease. Non-animal testing is growing but until it is completely vanished, animals are out there being harmed for no reason and giving possible false results for the ones in need. Thanks to the non-profit organization New England Anti-Vivisection Society, the public is able to see “Science finally moving forward to realize the premise that the best test species for humans are humans” without harm and with enormous benefit to humans.” There is no reason not to be involved in this type of testing when it can only help for the better.
“Alternatives to Animal Testing.” PETA. N.p., 2017. Web. 27 Mar. 2017.
Cohn, Meredith. “Study Aims to Check If Other Methods Can Replace Animal Testing.” Baltimoresun.com. Baltimore Sun Media Group, 12 Mar. 2017. Web. 27 Mar. 2017.
Society, New England Anti-Vivisection. “Alternatives to Animals in Science.” In Testing. NEAVS, n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2017.
P1. Wow, that quote must be the most famous thing anybody has ever said about animal testing for human medicine. Searching it produced dozens of “full text” results at the very top of Google, and taken from a wide variety of sources. Your job now will be to distinguish your argument from all those many who have used the same quote before you.
Dunkin, this is your best work so far. It stays focused and provides a comprehensive, if repetitious, response to the cruelty of animal testing. It needs attention in several categories.
1. The “quotation marks” appear to be applied randomly, and in no place do you indicate who you’re quoting. See the Informal Citation page in the Models menu for advice on how to cite your sources in the text.
2. Your huge “combination claim” that non-animal test alternatives are cheaper, easier, environmentally friendlier, faster, and more reliable is just too good to be believed without some very specific examples. We’re eager to know what the “alternative methods” are, but you never tell us. If they exist, and are as miraculous as you suggest, they would have been adopted by everyone everywhere by now. Why would anybody spend more time and money to produce worse results?
3. You appear to contradict yourself in the paragraph that includes this quote: “basic research and drug and chemical tests still rely heavily on animals . . . there is no comprehensive substitute for animal testing and research.” That’s the opposite of what you’ve been claiming.
I hope that was helpful, Dunkin.
Put your post back into Feedback Please after you’ve made your best corrections.
I have added in-text citations where I felt was necessary and will look over 2 and 3 to add specific examples of how alternative methods are cheaper and easier. I will also look back at the part where I contradict myself because I also re-read that and was confused to what I had to say..
I’m glad I was not alone in my confusion. Be sure to leave this post in the Feedback Please category if there’s anything you want me to review.
I have added specific examples of alternative methods in my paper.