Animal experimentation controversy
For many years animal experimentation has been a practice in most biochemical research, to ascertain the safety of pharmacological products. Most of the medical breakthroughs in the universes have been as a result of animal experimentation. Animal testing has contributed to significant advances in the field of medicine in treating human health conditions such as breast cancer, leukemia in children, tuberculosis, and also contributed to the development of the pacemaker, among others. According to Einhorn, scientists are working on developing a Coronavirus vaccine and utilize genetically modified mice for the experiment to ensure that the vaccine does not make the COVID19 virus worse (Einhorn web). Scholars have researched the ethical responsibility that researchers have on animal experimentation, but are there controversies in this field?
First, animals are preferred for biochemical experiments as opposed to other organisms for their DNA that is a close match to that of humans. A chimpanzee has 99% DNA and mice have 98% DNA similarity to humans (Wright). secondly, animals are preferred for ethical considerations that restrict the use of human subjects. Research done by the National Institute of Health (NIH), animals have been used for testing potential toxicity, in the case of human volunteers’ lives could be in danger. It is safer to do some invasive experiments on the human body after the tests have been done on animals (Lee 23). Additionally, animals are better test subjects as compared to human beings for their shorter lifecycle (Neff 43). For instance, mice only live for 2 to 3 years and researchers have enough time to observe the effect of a product through a lifespan; whether treatment or genetic manipulation.
On the other hand, researchers and scientists are expected to give high-quality care to lab animals, which include access to food and water, pain relief, prevention of disease and injury, as well as appropriate housing (Yang 506). Most experimental animals undergo invasive experimental surgery than could not be performed on human beings (Brito 530). Some activists fight against animal lab testing and they emphasize on animal welfare as well as prevent cruel treatment to the animals. When humans are used in medical experimentation, they are volunteers who give consent to the procedures, unlike animals who are forcefully subjected to the testing (Balls 2). So far the Animal Welfare Act has not been successful in restricting horrific incidences of animal abuse that occur in lab experiments.
Most animals undergoing biomedical experiments suffer from psychological stress such as self-mutilation, being alert during painful experiments, while others are shot with dart guns (Fox 237). Additionally, many experiments done on animals are flawed and in most cases a waste of life. According to Pritt and her colleagues, the flaws in animal experiments are associated with incorrect data interpretation, emerging technical issues, selective data reporting, as well as blatant fraud by researchers (Pritt 103). Ninety-five percent of animals used for biochemical testing are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act. Animals such as mice, rats, fish, or birds are not protected by the act. Apart from researchers, some consumers demand animal cruelty-free products such as cosmetics and only buy products from companies that do not apply animal testing. With such controversy on animal lab experimentation, alternative test methods should replace animal testing. Human tissue cells is an alternative that can be used in biomedical research in place for animals. Additionally, the advanced technology has allowed 3D tissue bioprinting, which has enabled one of the French companies to work on drug toxicity on liver cells.