Thereis a growing need to research in various fields that range frompharmacy, medicine, and biomedical technology. Researchers in theseareas normally focus on gaining insights that are crucial to comingup with ways to which they will solve existing problems. Once theyhave developed some products, there develops a challenge ofestablishing whether they shall have efficacy, given the high levelof ethical controversies that are attached to use of human beingsfrom clinical studies. These researchers, therefore, resort to theuse of animals to test these substances in a bid to establish howthey shall react and, therefore, project the findings on how theywill be upon human beings. The practice has, however, attracteddivergent views from different people, some who support it and othersdeem it as outright wrong. This paper shall outline the flip side ofthe use of animals for testing in research with the aim ofdiscouraging the exercise.
Theuse of animals for research is normally wasteful and unreliable. Inspite of many actions that are normally taken to this effect,research studies have shown that medical treatments found to bepotent on animals rarely have the same effect on human beings (PETAnp). For instance, there is a chance that a given drug under testwill cause desirable results on a given animal such a laboratory rat,but fail to cause the same effects when used on a human being. Giventhe fact the use of animal testing does not provide findings thatresearchers would confidently term as valid, the case, therefore,leads to a situation where the given animal used for the study issubjected to unnecessary risk or harm that does not have any benefit.
Itis also essential to note that most of the diseases that areartificially induced in animals such as mice for a given drug test donot normally resemble those that occur naturally among human beings.About this aspect, there is also some notable differences in thegeneral physiology of animals of different species (PETA np). Giventhese two reasons, there is bound to be a high likelihood of theeffect of a drug provided to these animals could react in a mannerthat is different from the way it would, if provided to human beings.For instance, many studies that have used mice as experimentalspecies have had positive results whereby the animal was cured ofcancer. However, the same results have not been attained whiledealing with the actual disease among human beings. Relying on theuse of these animals to find therapy for various health problemsnormally leads to false hopes that will always not materialize intosomething meaningful.
Thereare also indications that universities involved in research studiesthat use animals have normally been exaggerating the findings so asto appear successful. Such results, thereby, tend to be of norelevance to human health as they cannot be taken up and be a basisfor the creation of a therapy towards a given health problem that isa nuisance to a lot of people (PETA np). In most cases, suchuniversities fail to provide the essential facts required for drawingconclusions on the viability of the said therapies and will alwaysfail to give clear limitations established, thereby lackingcompliance with rules of research. Such research studies, thereby,end up to be a mere waste of time and a sure waste of life of animalsthat were used because the findings established cannot be used topromote human health.
Thereare some parties who hold the view that the use of animal testing isof great importance. They argue that it is better to use animals fora test of the potency of a given drug than to use human beingstowards the same course. While such arguments could be valued by somepeople, they are misleading given the fact that animals also need tobe treated with respect (Grundy 757). There are rules of ethics thatneed to be adhered to while dealing with animals. It is, therefore,wrong to subject a given animal to harm, especially, when it is clearthat any achievement drawn from the activity shall not translate intoactually solving the problem of dealing with an individual healthproblem.
Inconclusion, it is important to note that the use of animals fortesting the viability of drugs and other therapies is wrong. It is awaste of time and highly unreliable given that the results obtainedcannot be extrapolated into helping to sustain the health of humanbeings. Animals, most often, bear different physiological make-upfrom human beings and will, therefore, react in a manner that isdifferent from the way bodies of human beings will react towards agiven drug. Some institutions exaggerate the results obtained fromthe use of animals for testing, thereby providing no essence of doingso in the first place. Researchers need to come up with better waysof assessing whether drugs can have less harm on the lives of otherpeople and animals. They could, for instance, embrace technology,through the use of computer software to help deal with the issue moreappropriately.
Grundy,David. "Principles and standards for reporting animalexperiments in The Journal of Physiology and ExperimentalPhysiology." Experimentalphysiology 100.7(2015): 755-758.
PETA.Experiments on animals: Overview 2016. Nphttp://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-used-experimentation-factsheets/animal-experiments-overview/