Out of Style
Since the 1950’s brought us color films, the actresses had to be sure that they were indeed looking their best now that black and white could no longer hide their skin imperfections, consequently bringing in another large trend…cosmetics (Thomas). On occasion some women would have very adverse reactions to some cosmetics, stirring up reports to the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). Since the FDA was fully responsible for the release of this product they invented the Draize Eye Irritancy Test soon after as a way of ‘proving’ that select products were indeed safe for the public. This test involves taking a chosen cosmetic and ensuring that it comes in direct contact with the subject’s eye (usually albino rabbits, as the results are the most visible) – this usually results in blindness and the animal subject being discarded (Justin).
At one point in time, animal testing was indeed beneficial – but as humanity is evolving so should our methods of research. People need new vaccines, new cures and new food sources, along with which should come new testing techniques. Humanity has come up with a few alternatives that have already been proven to be effective.
Overall, animal testing is in motion so that we have a way to measure the toxicity of chemicals in our everyday products. However, there are many alternatives for animal testing – the most popular and explored being In Vitro. Since the liver is essentially what breaks down our toxins some companies have resorted to growing their very own liver cells, taken from samples that are acquired from people who voluntarily decide to donate their cells – these volunteers are already scheduled to have surgeries, In Vitro testing does not cause invasive surgery (Bernard).
One small company called PrimeCyte grows liver cells in cultures over the course of weeks. PrimeCyte then doses the cultures with the substance that they are testing. The cultures are monitored carefully, looking for changes in microanatomy. A larger company by the name of Pfizer begins along the same lines, growing cultures and then dosing them with the tested chemical – however, they monitor changes in the number of liver cells. If, over the course of their study, the number of liver cells changes dramatically then it is assumed that the chemical in question is indeed bad for the liver. Both methods of testing can be used to test any substance – most commonly drugs and food supplements (Bernard).
Almost any part of the body can be tested, including and imitation of the human lymph node. In
In my lifetime I have had the opportunity to meet several animals that have been rescued from testing facilities. The majority of these animals are unable to be put in functioning families due to their variety of special needs. One such animal was a bird named Juniper. After many vet visits and surgeries Juniper looked like a normal, beautiful bird. Despite his adorable appearance Juniper is unable to live a normal life as a cockatoo. His previous experiences with humans have caused him to become violent, and untamable. He lives in a cage and is fed from a bowl. Juniper never has any social interaction or the freedom to stretch his wings – an unnatural life for any bird.
One more creature sticks out in my mind when I recall all the animals I have met that live to tell the tragic tale of animal testing. He is small, has big, floppy ears and loves to give kisses. This was not always the case, he used to growl when people approached, and his ears used to be warped and infected. Toby, a two year old beagle was rescued from an Iams testing center. Toby was used in the ‘food department’ – meaning that his ‘job’ was to be severely burned and then fed Food Type A while that rate at which his skin regenerated got recorded. When Toby was fully healed he was burned again (without anesthetics, as they are expensive), and then fed Food Type B and his healing rate was again recorded. This continued on for a good part of his shortening life until he was found, discarded and abandoned, by a friend of mine. After extensive training and extreme patience Toby is now living a happy life – the way his entire life should have been.
People with the same beliefs as I wonder why we still use animal testing when alterative ways of testing have been proven to work – in a animal rights magazine a nurse brought up an excellent point.
How many dogs have to have heart attacks induced or be put into cardiac failure so that one more medicine can be put on the market to help people who want to eat fast food and never get off the couch? (Orenchuk)
A supporter of animal testing includes the FDA - they insist that we keep practicing these archaic ways so that results from animal tests acts as a safety net for them. When the FDA releases a drug and it goes horribly wrong (like the ‘miracle’ drug Vioxx in 2004) the FDA will not be able to be touched by lawsuits because they have evidence that this drug was proven safe by animal tests. In a nutshell, animal testing is simply but a matter of insurance for the FDA!
The controversy of animal testing is like a painting – it can be viewed, interpreted and categorized in many different ways. The leading argument is one of ethics. Is it ethical to kill so many animals when the results may not even be that accurate? Prescription drug side effects are the fourth leading cause of death in the western world – side effects of drugs that have been proven safe on animal tests (Archibald). Some agree that it is sad to test on animals, and they wish that it could be avoided – but they hold a passive approach to doing anything to change it. There exists another group who are whole heartedly against it, valuing animal life right next to human life – believe that humans have become barbaric by performing unnecessary tests. George Bernard Shaw held this credence and he expressed his view so well “Vivisection (cutting something that is alive) is a social evil because if it advances human knowledge, it does so at the expense of human character...” – this quote is entirely too true. The last groups of people are the ones who hold a more conservative view and are opposed to change. Animal testing has brought us a few discoveries, one including the recognition of tobacco as a carcinogen, and conservatives believe we should continue this path just in case we make another huge discovery.
One such ‘discovery’ was released in 2004 a ‘miracle’ drug called Vioxx. This drug was manufactured to help relieve arthritis pain. It was released in the
There is much scientific literature published on the subject of animal testing; most comparing side effects in humans in relation to animals. These studies have found that the results of animal testing are less accurate than the toss of a coin – only six out of every 114 predictions will be correct (Archibald). Yet another inaccuracy is the increasingly common cardiac-bypass surgery – when practiced on animals there were no complications, when first tried on humans, the patients died! But, were these patients just an exception to the rule? Scientists soon discovered that they were not, as 15% of all hospital admissions are due to adverse reactions to legal drugs (drugs that had made their way to the public via animal tests). These legal drugs kill approximately 100,000 people every year – a number which is more than ALL illegal drugs combined! The care for these 100,000 people costs the public over 136 billion dollars in health care costs (C.Greek 17; J.Greek 17)!
Animal testing is also considered one very expensive experiment. If the labs are abiding by the rules laid down by the federal government, then animal care and well being is at the top of the list. It is expensive to feed thousands of animals, house them, provide vet care, purchase them for the tests, etc. The American taxpayer’s dollars are paying for this – all for the majority of it to be incorrect or inaccurate information? I believe that when scientists make a breakthrough then it is indeed worth it. I don’t believe it is worth it to waste thousands of dollars and lives to not be correct at least 70% of the time?
Despite the low success rate in animal testing, there have been various major breakthroughs that are essential to mankind’s being alive today. For example, smallpox is now eradicated off the face of the earth due to scientists testing vaccines on cows. Dogs and fish have helped us perfect insulin for those with diabetes. Dogs and rabbits have painfully given their lives to help us find a vaccine for rabies. All of these tests have helped with the developing of the human race – and without animal testing we would not have discovered such priceless information (Breen).
There are many facts to both sides of the animal testing equation and they must be weighed equally. In this equation there is a commonly passed over variable – dates. When one is considering what side to take on the epic controversy of animal testing one must consider the dates of all ‘great discoveries’ from both sides of the argument. Rabies, polio, smallpox, insulin… those all happened in an age when we did not have invitro cultures as an option for testing.
Animal testing is wrong – ethically it is wrong, because killing without a viable cause is cruel; logically it is wrong, since it does not yield accurate enough results for it to be worth the cost; scientifically it is wrong as test tube experiments are more accurate while they are testing the very human cells we are looking to work with. Humanity prides ourselves with our progression above other creatures. Let us prove that we have indeed evolved and are the advancement of another species – let us do the right thing and spare the lives of our dear animals, which are so similar to us, that we share this earth with. Let us finally evolve our testing methods.
Works Cited
Archibald, Kathy. “Animal Testing: Science or Fiction?” Ecologist. May 2005. Vol. 35, Issue 4. Academic Search Complete. 18 Feb 2008. <http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail? vid=13&hid=9&sid=eb4a0cc0-e644-4ca1-9983-f
Bernard, Neal. “Animal Testing?” Vegetarian Times. Mar 2007. Issue 348. Academic Search Complete. 18 Feb 2008. <http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail? vid=17&hid=9&sid=eb4a0cc0-e644- 4ca1-9983-f43bc72adc41%40sessionmgr3>
Breen, Bill. “Why we need animal testing.” Garbage. Apr/May 1993: Vol. 5, Issue 2. Academic Search Complete. 18 Feb 2008. <http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail? vid=17&hid=9&sid=eb4a0cc0-e644- 4ca1-9983-f43bc72adc41%40sessionmgr3>
Greek, Jean Swingle, and Ray C. Greek. Sacred Cows and Golden Geese: the human cost of experiments on animals.
Justin. “The Draize Eye Irritancy Test.” The Draize Eye Irritancy Test – What it is and alternatives. 6 March 2008. <http://www.geari.org/faqdraize.html>
Orenchuk, Linda. “Animal Research at OSU – A nurses view.” In Their Own Words. 1 March 2008. < http://www.poetwill.org/ilacuc_meet.htm>
“Testing Times.” Economist. 10 June 2006. Issue 8481. 18 Feb 2008. <http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail? vid=eb4a0cc0-e644- 4ca1-9983-f43bc72adc41%40sessionmgr3>
Thomas, Pauline Weston. “Fifties glamour with max factor.” Make-up history after 1950. 2001. 1 March 2008. < http://www.fashion-era.com/make_up_part_
#1950's%20Glamour%20With%20Max%20Factor>
No comments:
Post a Comment