Doniyorbek so far and without them progress would be

Doniyorbek Rafikjonov

 

 

 

Animal Testing

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Researchers in the United
States use around 30 million animals annually in order to develop new
medicines, check the safety of medical, cosmetic or any other types of products
intended  for human use. Thousands of
researches have been carried out on animals for over 2500 years and currently, Federal
Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regulates animal testing in the US.  Animal testing has become a heated debate
topic over the past 30 years. The problem many animal rights activists and
opponents of animal testing claim that animal testing is cruel and inhumane so
it should be banned or strictly controlled to protect animals. One of the major
organizations which are against animal testing is Humane Society International(HSI).
HSI is the largest animal protection organisation in the world with over 12
million supporters globally. They are opposed to animal experiments on moral
grounds and also on scientific grounds. They claim: “The anatomic, metabolic,
and cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models
for human beings,” so it’s very hard to create an animal model that even
equates closely to what researchers are trying to achieve in the human. Thomas
Hartung, Professor of evidence-based toxicology at Johns Hopkins University, one
of the supporters of HSI, is in favour of alternatives because as he states “we
are not 70 kg rats”. HSI activists show many more examples why it is wrong to use
animal testing including some chemicals that are ineffective on animals but are
very valuable when used by humans. For instance, Aspirin is dangerous for some
animal species but it is very effective on humans which means that animal
experiments may mislead researchers into ignoring protential cures and
treatments. However, scientists, researchers and proponents of animal testing can
not agree with this idea as they see animal testing as the key to solving many
current problems and prove their point by the fact that animal testing has
provided human beings with many cures and treatments so far and without them
progress would be considerably slow. They also argue that animals themselves
benefit from the results of animal testing. If vaccines were not tested on
animals, millions of animals would have died from rabies, distemper, feline
leukemia and etc. Pro-Test is the main Organization that fights against extreme
banning of animal testing. Pro-Test is guided by a committee of students and
academics and they have thousands of active supporters all around the world including
the UK, the US, Italy, Germany and etc. They organize campaigns with the idea
that supporting animal testing as crucially necessary to further medical
science. Pro-Test states that although there some current alternative to animal
testing, there is no completely adequate alternative to testing on a living
whole-body system. While Humane Society International wants to stop this cruel
activity and encourage the use of alternatives immediately, Pro-Test supporters
are willing to continue it until they find all necessary alternatives for the
sake of progression in science. As a whole these two organizations are on
complete opposite sides of the issue, but they do share one aim in common: use
of alternative when available and eliminating the animal testing from
experiments eventually which can be achieved by banning some unimportant
experimentations on animals and encouraging scientists to focus more on
developing alternatives before experimentation.

Although Pro-Test and Humane
Society International are against each other in terms of Animal experimentation
as a whole, they both seem to share a common belief in that alternative methods
of testing should be used whenever available. HSI activists claim that
replacing animals does not mean putting human patients at risk, instead, it
will improve improve the quality and the humaneness of our science. They
believe that the development of alternative methods is growing. One of the most
important jobs Humane Society International science team does is encourage
regulators to accept and promote alternative methods to animal testing.
Pro-Test claims that scence is always ready to use alternatives whenever
possible as animal testing is not only cruel but also a “an incredibly costly
process and needs to be minimised for economic reasons,” even most of the laws
state that if there are any methods that can be used before an animal to learn
new information, they must be used but they “simply do not have the
technological sophistication to replicate the incredibly intricate and
sensitive machinery of even the simplest animal organisms, let alone the much
more complex human body.” It is clear from the evidence that both major
organizations are pro of using alternatives (with a little different concerning
reasons). This common ground between these two organizations is very important
because it allows room for improvement. As representatives of both sides of the
issue, they can come together and encourage majority of researchers to focus on
finding and developing more perfected alternatives. Without a common ground, it
would be impossible for both organithations to get what they want.

The only way to create a
compromise between these two stakeholders is to develop a united organization
to encourage more  researchers to find
more advanced alternatives and for the time-being letting some really crucial
animal testings to continue while making laws to bann animal testing for
cosmetics any other commersial animal testings as described by Humane Society
International because cosmetics are not more important than animal lives and
both organizations can agree on that. Most organizations that support animal
testing including Pro-Test agree that as research on alternatives require huge
amount of money, many researchers are forced to continue to experiment on
animals. By starting a united campaign to develop increasingly more and
increasingly advanced alternatives and eventually end the animal testing, both
organizations would achieve their goals: Pro-Test supports animal testing
because currently there is no equally complex alternative but they are ready to
use alternatives if effective; Humane Society International is trying to finish
animal testing immediately by replacing it with alternatives.  The only way for this program to be
succesfully implemented is if it is passed into law by th government.

This uniting program is highly
likely to succeed because in the recent decades as there was a an urgent need
to develop alternatives many of them started to emerge immediately, such as “organs-on-chips”
that contain human cells grown in a state-of-the-art system to mimic the
structure and function of human organs and organ systems, researchers at the
European Union Reference Laboratory for alternatives to animal testing
developed five different tests that use human blood cells to detect
contaminants in drugs that cause a potentially dangerous fever response when
they enter the body which replace the crude use of rabbits in this painful
procedure. Researchers have developed a wide range of
sophisticated computer models that simulate human biology and the progression
of developing diseases. Studies show that these models can accurately predict
the ways that new drugs will react in the human body and replace the use of
animals in exploratory research and many standard drug tests. However, science
doesn’t enough alternative to be able to stop animal testing yet and high-cost
of research into finding even more alternatives is preventing researchers. With
the help of this program, there may be a great succes and eventually both organizations
will be able to achieve their primary goals.

 

Works Cited:

1.