Animal testing: Right or Wrong?

The writer of the article on http://www.buzzle.com/articles/argument-against-animal-testing.html states that: Experiments on living animals are leading medicine further and further from the real cure Because animals react to both diseases and medications differently from humans they should not be used Animal research has not aided in the fight against any major disease There is no connection between animal testing and human health A totally new approach is needed instead of animal testing

Experiments on animals are leading medicine further and further from the real cure The writer begins his article with a quote in which it is stated that animal testing brings humans further away from the truth. The quote also points out that the writer does not know of an instance in which medical science(and animal testing) has helped save human lives. I, however, retaliate against such a comment because both medical science and animal testing have brought about a lot for us humans. For example, if it weren’t for animal testing, penicillin and aesthetics would not have come about. Also, without medical science most of today’s medications would not exist.

Animals should not be used because they react differently to substances than humans do The writer states that “Not only do animals react differently from humans where drugs, experiments and vaccines are concerned, but they also tend to react differently from each other.” He also says that ignoring these differences will be very costly to humans. Even though he puts forward this argument very effectively I do not agree with this point because, -as stated in many articles- for the majority of experiments, mice, -which share 99% of their genes with humans- are used. With the advent of genetic engineering technology, genetically modified mice can be generated to order and can provide models for a range of human diseases. Mice are also used in place of other animals because they reproduce quickly and are cheap to maintain, therefore only minimal damage is done Furthermore, most countries have a law which states that a medicine must be administered to at least two large animals such as dogs before humans can use it.

Animal research has not aided in the fight against any major disease The writer states that “animal research has not aided in the fight against any of the major diseases” such as cancer. He also states that animal research has not helped in the fight against AIDS because animals cannot develop the human form of AIDS. Even though this point is true I do not agree with it because even though animals do not develop the human form of AIDS they do develop their own type of AIDS. For example, monkeys are capable of developing SIV or SHIV. Because these viruses react in similar ways to the human form of AIDS, scientists conduct their experiments on the monkeys and observe how the monkeys react to different medications. These discoveries can then be applied to humans in similar ways because the SIV/SHIV virus is similar to the human form of the HIV virus. Overall, this method is much better than conducting HIV experiments on humans.

There is no connection between animal testing and the human health The writer states that there is no (general) connection between animal testing and human health. I, however, do not agree with this point because at an earlier point in the article, the writer states that there are scientific merits to animal testing, he also states that insulin was discovered only through animal testing. Therefore, the writer can be seen to contradict himself. This shows that that the writer is uncertain and that he does not fully agree with his own point. Alternatives to animal testing should be used

The writer states that if any advance is to be made, a totally new approach is required. He states that human medicine should not be dependent on veternary medicine because it is dangerous and fraudulent to apply data from one species to another, different species. Although this point is true, I can not agree with it because there is no alternative to animal testing which is as good and efficient as animal testing. Furthermore, the writer fails to list any alternatives which he thinks is acceptable. This can be due to him not believing in an alternative, or it can be due to weak beliefs or inadecuate research.