Pros And Cons Of Nonhuman Animal Experimentation

(Intro)Nonhuman Animal Experimentation is defined as the use of nonhuman animals in research and development projected for the sole purpose of determining the safety of substances such as foods or drugs. According to The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), scientific experiments have required animals to “inhale toxic fumes,... remain immobilized in restraint devices for hours,... suffer through the drilling of holes into their skulls,... withstand the burning of their skin,... and endure the agony caused from the crushing of their spinal cord”(“Animal experiments: overview,” n.d.). Testing harmful products on animals everyday creates a long lasting effect on the animals. That is to say, numbers of animals have been diagnosed with PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) and have become so afraid of humans that they crawl into a corner everytime they see a person.

Although some say that nonhuman animal testing has expanded our scientific and medical knowledge, nonhuman animal experimentation has been proven to be unreliable, inhumane and unethical; therefore, alternatives to nonhuman animal experimentation should be developed.
ARGUMENT 1 Throughout the years, opponents have argued that nonhuman animal testing has been used for countless number of medical innovations (I&C Animal testing). However, it is important to realize, that nonhuman animal experimentation does not always mirror the outcomes found in human subjects (“Animal experiments: overview,” n.d.). For example, in the 1950’s, the drug Thalidomide was given to pregnant women to relieve their nausea, but the drug ended up causing a number of birth defects in their fetuses. After Thalidomide was taken off the market, testing was done with this drug in pregnant mice, rats, and guinea pigs reporting no negative fetal effects, yet testing with this same drug in white rabbits yielded similar defects as found in humans (Peggs, 2015, p.629). Even if they tested in nonhuman animals first, researchers would have not been able to predict the effects of this drug on humans. Because each animal’s biology is different from humans in different ways, scientists cannot accurately predict which mammal would serve best in a given test. Dr. Richard Klausner, former National Cancer Institute Director, has admitted that they “have [been able to cure] mice of cancer for many decades, and it simply [does not] work [with] humans” (“Animal experiments: overview,” n.d.).PETA also supports the Food and Drug Administration’s claim that ninety percent of animal experiments fail because the genetic makeup of a human is much more complex than any other mammal. The research revealed supports that nonhuman animal experiments should not be considered trustworthy when testing the safety of drugs or cures for new diseases.

Argument 2: In some cases, animals are not euthanized, but die as a result of the experiment for which they were used. For example, the LD50 (lethal dose 50) test involves determining the dose of a substance that kills 50 percent of the animals tested. Some animals in laboratories, depending on the research protocol, can be used in additional experiments.

ARGUMENT: Money is also a big issue when relating to animal testing. PETA reveals that american citizens unintentionally finance millions of dollars towards experimentation on animals through charitable donations and taxes ; this is due to the fact that most experiments are federally funded by the money contributed from tax dollars (“Animal experiments: overview,” n.d.). Another point to realize is that maintaining an animal costs a significant amount of money. From the experience of owning a dog, an animal needs at least food, shelter, and water everyday. The yearly cost for owning a dog in America is about $2,500; even if we take into account the inadequate living conditions expected to be present in the laboratories, $446 is spent on food alone (American Kennel Club, 2015). With hundreds of animals being held in these facilities at one time, most of the money is being used to just keep the animals alive. Additionally, each redesigned drug can cost over six million dollars to test because normally laboratories involve up to eight hundred nonhuman mammals to insure the security of the medicine (Peggs, 2015, p.625). Based on the money being spent on the maintenance of these animals it seems as though redirecting the experiments to other research models would be a much better use of the funds.