Thesis for animal testing research paper

Therefore, animals cannot make a moral claim or defend themselves in an intelligent manner. Thirdly, those in support of the use of animals for experimentation maintain that the use of animals for experimentation has resulted in the discovery of better veterinary medicines and improved welfare of animals. They speak about the heartworm — a drug that was discovered out of research conducted on animals and has since proved useful in helping save the lives of many dogs across the globe. Besides, they cite that animal research has resulted in the better understanding of nutrition for cats and the reasons why cats live much longer than other animals and maintain good health.

Additionally, proponents of the animal research argue that man has dominion over all other creatures. As such, man has control over animals and can do research with them. They cite Genesis chapter , where after God has created everything and blessed them, God instructed man to be fruitful and multiply, as well as have dominion over all animals of land, air, and sea.

Despite the strong arguments in favor of animal research, animal activists have strongly opposed the continued use of animals for scientific research arguing that it causes a lot of pain and suffering to animals. As such, because the suffering caused to animals is so high, there is no justification for the benefits to humans. Secondly, animal rights activists have strongly opposed animal experimentation arguing that there has not been any proof of the benefits to human. Jarrod research, for instance, found that the research conducted on chimpanzees in an attempt to try to discover the medication for HIV did not provide any result despite the claim that chimpanzees share about Other opponents of animal research also argue that even other animals that share similar DNA features with humans do not provide reliable test because they might not react in the same way as humans would.

As such, it is wrong to continue subjecting animals to pain and suffering in the name of science.


  • Life Hacks For Animal Testing Essay Writing.
  • Persuasive Essay In Five Steps.
  • gcse poetry essay questions.
  • Animal rights research paper;

In conclusion, animal use for research is a common practice all over the world. However, this practice is raising ethical issues that need to be addressed soberly. Experiments should not be conducted in the manner that causes a lot of harm and suffering to animals. Date: May 13, The resulting evidence suggests that the collective harms and costs to humans from animal experimentation outweigh potential benefits and that resources would be better invested in developing human-based testing methods.

Annually, more than million animals are used worldwide in experimentation or to supply the biomedical industry. Regardless of its categorization, animal experimentation is intended to inform human biology and health sciences and to promote the safety and efficacy of potential treatments. Although it is widely accepted that medicine should be evidence based , animal experimentation as a means of informing human health has generally not been held, in practice, to this standard.

2. Animal Testing Argumentative Essay

This fact makes it surprising that animal experimentation is typically viewed as the default and gold standard of preclinical testing and is generally supported without critical examination of its validity. A survey published in of anecdotal cases and statements given in support of animal experimentation demonstrates how it has not and could not be validated as a necessary step in biomedical research, and the survey casts doubt on its predictive value.

I further show that the collective harms that result from an unreliable practice tip the ethical scale of harms and benefits against continuation in much, if not all, of experimentation involving animals. Although the unreliability and limitations of animal experimentation have increasingly been acknowledged, there remains a general confidence within much of the biomedical community that they can be overcome. I argue for the critical importance of each of these conditions. Animals in laboratories are involuntarily placed in artificial environments, usually in windowless rooms, for the duration of their lives.

Captivity and the common features of biomedical laboratories—such as artificial lighting, human-produced noises, and restricted housing environments—can prevent species-typical behaviors, causing distress and abnormal behaviors among animals. A variety of conditions in the laboratory cause changes in neurochemistry, genetic expression, and nerve regeneration. Yet, when the mice were housed in larger cages, those defects almost completely disappeared.

In order to control for potential confounders, some investigators have called for standardization of laboratory settings and procedures. The results suggest that there are important influences of environmental conditions and procedures specific to individual laboratories that can be difficult—perhaps even impossible—to eliminate.

These influences can confound research results and impede extrapolation to humans. The lack of sufficient congruence between animal models and human diseases is another significant obstacle to translational reliability. Human diseases are typically artificially induced in animals, but the enormous difficulty of reproducing anything approaching the complexity of human diseases in animal models limits their usefulness.

Stroke research presents one salient example of the difficulties in modeling human diseases in animals. Stroke is relatively well understood in its underlying pathology. Yet accurately modeling the disease in animals has proven to be an exercise in futility. To address the inability to replicate human stroke in animals, many assert the need to use more standardized animal study design protocols. This includes the use of animals who represent both genders and wide age ranges, who have comorbidities and preexisting conditions that occur naturally in humans, and who are consequently given medications that are indicated for human patients.

However, the drug failed in clinical trials, despite the fact that the set of animal experiments on this drug was considered the poster child for the new experimental standards. Under closer scrutiny, it is not difficult to surmise why animal stroke experiments fail to successfully translate to humans even with new guidelines.

crossroads copenhagen

Standard stroke medications will likely affect different species differently. There is little evidence to suggest that a female rat, dog, or monkey sufficiently reproduces the physiology of a human female. Perhaps most importantly, reproducing the preexisting conditions of stroke in animals proves just as difficult as reproducing stroke pathology and outcomes.

Thesis Statements

In order to reproduce the effects of atherosclerosis in animals, researchers clamp their blood vessels or artificially insert blood clots. These interventions, however, do not replicate the elaborate pathology of atherosclerosis and its underlying causes. Reproducing human diseases in animals requires reproducing the predisposing diseases, also a formidable challenge.

The inability to reproduce the disease in animals so that it is congruent in relevant respects with human stroke has contributed to a high failure rate in drug development. More than potential therapies initially tested in animals failed in human trials.

Animal cancer models in which tumors are artificially induced have been the basic translational model used to study key physiological and biochemical properties in cancer onset and propagation and to evaluate novel treatments. The high clinical failure rate in drug development across all disease categories is based, at least in part, on the inability to adequately model human diseases in animals and the poor predictability of animal models.

In other words, the animal experiments were no more likely than a flip of the coin to predict whether those interventions would benefit humans. Usually, when an animal model is found wanting, various reasons are proffered to explain what went wrong—poor methodology, publication bias, lack of preexisting disease and medications, wrong gender or age, and so on.

These factors certainly require consideration, and recognition of each potential difference between the animal model and the human disease motivates renewed efforts to eliminate these differences. As a result, scientific progress is sometimes made by such efforts. However, the high failure rate in drug testing and development, despite attempts to improve animal testing, suggests that these efforts remain insufficient to overcome the obstacles to successful translation that are inherent to the use of animals.

Too often ignored is the well-substantiated idea that these models are, for reasons summarized here, intrinsically lacking in relevance to, and thus highly unlikely to yield useful information about, human diseases. Ultimately, even if considerable congruence were shown between an animal model and its corresponding human disease, interspecies differences in physiology, behavior, pharmacokinetics, and genetics would significantly limit the reliability of animal studies, even after a substantial investment to improve such studies.

In spinal cord injury, for example, drug testing results vary according to which species and even which strain within a species is used, because of numerous interspecies and interstrain differences in neurophysiology, anatomy, and behavior.

IELTS Animal Testing Essay - Model Answer

A systematic review found that even among the most standardized and methodologically superior animal experiments, testing results assessing the effectiveness of methylprednisolone for spinal cord injury treatment varied considerably among species. Even rats from the same strain but purchased from different suppliers produce different test results. A drug might be shown to help one strain of mice recover but not another.

Despite decades of using animal models, not a single neuroprotective agent that ameliorated spinal cord injury in animal tests has proven efficacious in clinical trials to date. Further exemplifying the importance of physiological differences among species, a study reported that the mouse models used extensively to study human inflammatory diseases in sepsis, burns, infection, and trauma have been misleading. The study found that mice differ greatly from humans in their responses to inflammatory conditions.

Animal Testing

Mice differed from humans in what genes were turned on and off and in the timing and duration of gene expression. The mouse models even differed from one another in their responses. Wide differences have also become apparent in the regulation of the same genes, a point that is readily seen when observing differences between human and mouse livers. Despite the high degree of genome conservation, there are critical differences in the order and function of genes among species.

To use an analogy: as pianos have the same keys, humans and other animals share largely the same genes.

Animal testing essay thesis

Where we mostly differ is in the way the genes or keys are expressed. In other words, the same keys or genes are expressed, but their different orders result in markedly different outcomes. Recognizing the inherent genetic differences among species as a barrier to translation, researches have expressed considerable enthusiasm for genetically modified GM animals, including transgenic mice models, wherein human genes are inserted into the mouse genome. However, if a human gene is expressed in mice, it will likely function differently from the way it functions in humans, being affected by physiological mechanisms that are unique in mice.

For example, a crucial protein that controls blood sugar in humans is missing in mice. Use of GM mice has failed to successfully model human diseases and to translate into clinical benefit across many disease categories. In many instances, nonhuman primates NHPs are used instead of mice or other animals, with the expectation that NHPs will better mimic human results. However, there have been sufficient failures in translation to undermine this optimism. HRT is now known to increase the risk of these diseases in women.

Yet all of about 90 HIV vaccines that succeeded in animals failed in humans. However, because the serum protected chimpanzees from HIV infection, two Phase 3 clinical trials were undertaken 57 —a clear example of how expectations that NHP data are more predictive than data from other in this case, cell culture testing methods are unproductive and harmful. The implicit assumption that NHP and indeed any animal data are reliable has also led to significant and unjustifiable human suffering. For example, clinical trial volunteers for gp were placed at unnecessary risk of harm because of unfounded confidence in NHP experiments.

Two landmark studies involving thousands of menopausal women being treated with HRT were terminated early because of increased stroke and breast cancer risk. In another example of human suffering resulting from animal experimentation, six human volunteers were injected with an immunomodulatory drug, TGN , in The compound was designed to dampen the immune system, but it had the opposite effect in humans.