Let's Talk: Medical Animal Testing

Medical Animal Testing

In the twenty-first century we may not have developed flying cars or the ability to time travel like most had anticipated after watching the famous movie, “Back to the Future”, but that doesn’t cancel out the great achievements that were made. Artificial limbs were created, as well as Bionic Prosthetics for those who have lost limbs. These are a few of many innovative accomplishments, but what makes the twenty-first century so astonishing is the advance in medicine to cure illnesses and increase the life expectancy. It was nearly one hundred and sixteen years ago that on average people didn't live past forty.  Now the average person no longer fears the age forty but instead welcomes it with plans to retire and travel, marking forty almost the halfway mark of life expectancy rather than the end. The advancement in medicine plays a substantial role in expanding life itself over the years. The medication we take has been continuously tested in labs multiple times to ensure that the product is effective before being available to the public and pharmacies. It is no doubt that being able to have all types of medication to subdue just about anything is a nice thing to have available but the way it is being tested is a concern many people have. Animal testing is a very common form of testing that scientist rely on and different animals are used depending on the research. According to biologist, Oskar Burger, “Mortality improvement in humans is on par with or greater than the reductions in mortality in other species by laboratory selection experiments”(Burger). Although some may argue that animal testing contributes to saving lives, others oppose and wonder if this tactic is even humane. While both parties agree that medicine is an important necessity, is the way animals are being tested reliable, does it contribute to society and is it humane?

For instance, animal testing is meant to see if the drug is able to allow people to cure side effects without fatal effects. The concern is if the anatomy of an animal test subject is capable of duplicating the complexity of the human anatomy. Opposers argue that animal testing is unreliable and that no matter the similarity, the prediction from the test of animals to humans will never be completely accurate considering they are not human test subjects. The president of the New England Anti-Vivisection Society, Theodora Coppola, suggest that drugs that seem effective in animals could defect in humans which could lead to a much dangerous situation such as death. She continues on with a statistic statement from the U.S Food and Drug Administration, an organization that found, “ninety percent of drugs entering clinical trials following animal testing fail to be approved” (Cappola). Supporters of animal testing argue that statistic by explaining the use of animal testing a little more in depth. There are phases of medical testing. During animal testing, scientist determine if the drug is safe enough to continue to phase 1. There are typically over two hundred phase 1 trials that have gone without deaths and allowed dangerous drugs away from people. Most commonly tested animals are monkeys and mice. Although monkeys and humans are our closest relative as we share the most DNA with monkeys than any other animal, it’s mice themselves that offer the most beneficial use.

Alice Park of Time magazine contributes to the supporting case as she explains how

powerful the mouse brain can be in such a small body. She states their ability to develop

dementia, schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease all of which are highly common in humans. (Park)

As biochemist, Kristina Cook claims, “Mice are one of the most commonly used vertebrate species in animal research. This is because they small, easy to care for and for animal researchers to handle and work with and importantly, they reproduce much faster than many larger animals.” An example of a popular drug that was induced in two mice that had a successful outcome was Penicillin. The drug was able to treat bacterial illnesses that caused infections and deaths. Since bacteria is everywhere from the t.v remote and steering wheel, it's pretty clear that having a drug to target the bacteria before becoming uncontrolled is something that is a necessity. Penicillin has went on to save millions of lives and the success of penicillin caused a drastic change in society whereas most did not have to fear the risk of being sick due to something so easily susceptible such as bacteria. There have been cases of lost limbs due to bacterial infections as well as deaths, ten million to be exact. It was the two mice that were experimented in the process of developing penicillin that went on to becoming an effective medication and the result of the mice being injected with the drug came out successful as the mice remained healthy.  Their ability of  being able to produce faster is a leverage many scientist would appreciate as well in the sense that they are able to maintain a consistent amount test subjects. The director of Huck Institute for Comparative Genomics and Bioinformatics at Penn State University, Ross Hardison stresses that “We also know which genes have expression patterns that are shared between mouse and humans. For biological processes using genes with conserved expression patterns, the mouse is an excellent model for certain aspects of human biology” (Kennedy).

Additionally, the amount of time to research a new drug is substantial. Not every minute is spent on animal test subjects as that is not the only phase of research. As nobel prize winning physiologist, Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, once said, "Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and to think what nobody else has thought", meaning the depth of going into research is something that is worked on diligently, thinking outside the box of all the possibilities that could work to ensure the result of success. On one hand the solution could be to rely more on alternative testing rather than animal testing, which in fact, some alternatives do exist such as computerized models and simulations. On the other the past accomplishments have been working so far with animal testing, so why change it? Countless amount of time is being spent into perfecting medical products yet time spent into being able to ensure a positive result for medication is something that can’t be accurately estimated in which it can take years to months to release the product. On average it takes about twelve years to develop a new drug but as the old saying states, “time is money”. Money invested into animal testing primarily is being funded by the government as Michael Bastasch of the Daily Caller researches that, “According to an analysis of government data, the National Institutes of Health spends between $12 billion and nearly $14.5 billion on animal testing every year.” In circumstances of government funding contribution, this is an ally to medical researchers who believe animal testing contributes to society but for worldwide organizations such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), that have publicly have fought against animal testing since 1980, believe money is being wasted in these experiments. For medical testing without a substitutional method other than animal testing, there is no other option to understand the aspects of a disease. An alternative would be to fund the focus of creating model devices to take the place over animal testing but in situations of a sudden epidemic outburst the important choice would be to maintain the illness.

Lastly, the concern of animal situations during medical testing is common among many people. Opposers are unsettled by the thought of animals being caged in cold medical rooms as they are experiencing side effects from the experimental drug they were induced with. PETA has advocated the most publicly, stating “they are confined to barren cages, socially isolated, and psychologically traumatized. The thinking, feeling animals who are used in experiments are treated like nothing more than disposable laboratory equipment” (Ethics of Animal Testing). Many organizations have been formed to fight against medical animal testing at the aid of the tested subjects. Opposers address their concern by labeling themselves as the voice for those those who can not speak. Their strongly believed opinion of animals deserving the same right as humans have been protested as an attempt to eliminate animal testing as a whole by petitioning to make a law against the medical tactic which as of right now, it is not. Supporters announce that the animals are treated with care as they are contributing to the study of bettering the lives of humans with medicine. As Ian Murnaghan explains the process of how animal testing works by stating, “Many people do not realize that animals used in experiments are usually bred in captivity. These animals cannot simply be sent into the wild or into homes as they would not be able to cope and survive”(Murnaghan).

Microbiologist, Simon Festing believes agrees as he explains the enjoyment of a better life due to these advances in medicine and treatments due to animal testing. He continues on explaining that no sane person wants to endure pain in the animals being tested on not only because of disturbance of such thing but also because animals that are stressed out or uncared for result in an unsuccessful experimental trial. (Festing)

This is noted for those who believe that animal testing involves harsh care for those who are tested but not necessarily answering if it is a humane process.

In conclusion, both sides strongly support their claims with reasonable facts that show concern. Supporters of medical animal testing are concerned of the well being of  human race itself as their search for cures continue. Life threatening and non-life threatening, both sides can agree that medication is a vital part of our everyday life. Yet, opposers simply wish there was another way to go about medical testing that does not included animals as test subjects, all in good heart. Although alternatives to animal testing is something that takes a lot of brainstorming, time and effort, it is not an unthinkable solution to this debate that has gone back and forth for many years. If one thing is for sure, it is that as we continue to grow as people and as a society we must look at things in a way of learning from our mistakes and from different perspectives in order to continue improving. Especially since life itself is unpredictable, having a tendency of throwing obstacles in the way. The capability of new traumatic epidemic causing a worldwide scare is a likely thing.  Perhaps by then we will have the advancement in medical technology, we may have an absolute-accurate alternative from animal testing that we are able to rely on because the twenty-first century has brought hope and possibilities.

Burger, Oskar et al. Human Mortality Improvement in Evolutionary Context. vol. 109, www.pnas.org/content/109/44/18210.abstract.

“Animal Data Is Not Reliable for Human Health Research (Op-Ed).” LiveScience, Purch, www.livescience.com/46147-animal-data-unreliable-for-humans.html.

Bastach, Michael. “Feds Spend up to $14.5 Billion Annually on Animal Testing.” The Daily Caller, dailycaller.com/2013/10/05/feds-spend-up-to-14-5-billion-annually-on-animal-testing/.

Murnagahn, Ian. “What Happens to Animals After Testing?” What Happens to Animals After Testing?, www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk/what-happens-animals-after-testing.html.

Festing, Simon, and Robin Wilkinson. “The Ethics of Animal Research. Talking Point on the Use of Animals in Scientific Research.” EMBO Reports, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2007, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2002542/.

Cook, Kristina. “Stand Up for Science.” Stand Up for Science: Facts about Animal Research, www.pro-test.org.uk/2006/03/facts-about-animal-research.html.

Park, Alice. “The Brain: What The Mouse Brain Tells Us.” Time, Time Inc., 2007, content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580427,00.html.

Kennedy, Barbara K. “Similarities and Differences between Mice and Humans Revealed | Penn State University.” Penn State University, news.psu.edu/story/335451 /2014/11/19/research/similarities-and-differences-between-mice-and-humans-revealed.

"Using Animals for Medical Testing Is Unethical and Unnecessary." The Ethics of Medical Testing, edited by Tamara Thompson, Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, libraries.state.ma.us/login?gwurl=http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010777210/OVIC?u=mlin_b_bunkhcc&xid=c3995eb8. Accessed 6 Dec. 2016. Originally published as "Animal Experiments: Overview," People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA], 2011.