Lab Animal Testing

The total amount of domestic animals used in animal research, such as cats and dogs (primates included), account for a mere 0.2% of all animals. (1) However, today every animal loving being seems to fear that animal researchers will eventually come to experiment on their precious Wow Wow Wubbzy. When the stigmas of animal research were developed, animal researchers were called to compensate by bettering the lives of the animals in question. The coddling of researcher’s test subjects is a purposeless effort that has diminishing effects on reliability in experiments and drains time, energy, and money from additional research.

Photo by Understanding Animal Research

While I do acknowledge my opponent’s concerns on this subject that the experiments done may be gruesome, I would also like to show that the position fails in a world already ruled by the agricultural use of animals. For example the “UK will consume more chickens this year than the total number of all animals used in medical research over the past two centuries in Britain” which draws an accurate parallel between laboratory animals and animals raised for slaughter. (1) Laboratory animals are bred, and raised specifically for experimentation. Lab animals have no other purpose than to be used for further research just as animals raised for slaughter have no other purpose than to be food for the public. It is purposeless to waste one’s concerns on animals used in laboratories, especially when the actual number of animals used this century is less than the amount of chickens that will be mauled in the meat grinder this year. (1) Concerning oneself with the wellbeing of animals in research is not only purposeless but diminishes the animals’ usefulness in the research field.

Animal research is a valuable resource that medical researchers should be encouraged to take part in. Animal research can broaden one’s understanding of a disease and allows for researchers to share their research with others. Opponents of my position deem that animals are unreliable “models for the human body,” which is simply not true. (2) Animal models in research are what we can attribute neuroscientists’ and bio-psychologists’ greater understanding of the human brain. This remains as fact and is discussed in almost any textbook that concerns animal research (likely for this very controversy). Lab Animals are not valuable to researchers because of their results but because of the lack of a better method. It is just plain fact that living systems are much too complex for modern science to build a model. (3) Observing how new compounds react with an actual living organism is one of the best ways to conceive data. (3) Mind you, researchers don’t necessarily watch the organism, they do use equipments that aid data collection. (3) In actuality, this enforces the argument why we can not drop animal research. An organic system, with loops and returns in an individual cell to an entire organism, is the only system we are able to study because it works. No other model exists yet. However, in the Nature Article Failure to Care, the author supports a dual defense that Animal research is not only important but must be taken under strict regulations. (4) While I wholeheartedly understand this claim, in the scientific world it may be idealistic to pamper every lab animal to the standards of those against animal research.

Sucomming to the comfort of the experimental animals influences other variables to be present in an experimental setting that will be difficult to replicate. Replication of experiments in science graces the work with reliability, which is very important for research. If the experiment was performed by another researcher and it held the same results, then the experiment is reliable. Since it is up to the researcher to tend to the needs of the animals in question, each one may provide comfort in their own way, such as the use of anesthesia or a comfortable living environment. Of these two,the living environment would possess the most differences from lab to lab which can aid in random error. Additionally, how should we prove that conditions brought to the lab setting meant to comfort the lab animals would interfere with the experiment. Bluntly speaking, a use of an anesthetic in some experiments void responses that would otherwise be present. Expecting researchers to cater to the wellbeing of their lab animals all the same way to get the most out of reliability, is not only unlikely but potentially costly.

Photo by Understanding Animal Research

Animal mistreatment claims stretch far and wide from the party concerned for the animals. For example, one complaint was that “the air conditioner’s noise is adversely affecting the welfare of the laboratory rodents”. (5) I understand that animals are living creatures that us, as humans, enjoy domesticating, playing with, and sometimes eating. However, when the wellbeing of laboratory animals is called into question over the ambiance noise of an air conditioning unit in a lab, I am inclined to question how many claims against animal research cover important matters. For instance, animal research is taken with care, and organisations are constantly checking for malpractice. Even if the lab were guilty of having a deafening air conditioning system, where would the lab be expected to get the money to have it replaced with a silent unit. How much would it cost for each research institution to have a new air conditioning installed only to replace the subtle ambiance of the machine. I can tell you that it would cost precisely more money than the additional research that could be done instead. Not to be vague, but it is simply the truth; unless the problem concerns the researchers ability to repeat the standardized experiment again with accuracy, then we shouldn’t spend money in places that wouldn’t better benefit the funds.

I would not be surprised if I receive backlash from this post, actually I would be more surprised not to. But I cannot stand back and claim that laboratory animals are entitled to certain luxuries that majority of the human population don’t have, like silent air conditioners. I agree that the animals should be respected and they should not be experimented on with ill cause, but in standard animal research reliability is everything. Furthermore, the public should be aware that funding for this kind research is not limitless and if researchers had the resources to expend in such a manner, I’m sure they would have. However, this is not the case in all occasions and why when the wellbeing of animals comes into question we must justify what actually qualifies as dangerous and unnecessary to the animals.

Bibliography

1. Forty Reasons Why We Need Animals in Research [Internet]. :Copyright 2014 Understanding Animal Research; [2013 Dec 16, cited 2014 Feb 2] . Available from: http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/about-us/the-science-action-network/forty-reasons-why-we-need-animals-in-research/

2. Animal Testing Is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint [Internet]. Norfolk(VA):COPYRIGHT PETA; [cited 2014 Feb 2] . Available from: http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-bad-science/

3. Lowe . 2009 Aug 13. Animal Testing: A View From the Labs [Internet]. :Copyright 2006 Corante; [2009 Aug 13, cited 2014 Mar 15] . Available from: http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2009/08/13/animal_testing_a_view_from_the_labs.php

4. Failure of Care [Internet]. 2013 Dec 10. : COPYRIGHT 2014 Nature Publishing Group; [2013 Dec 12, cited 2014 Jan 28] . Available from: http://www.nature.com/news/failure-of-care-1.14332

5. Margaret McTighe , Elaine N. Videan . 2009 Sept. IACUC's responsibility [Internet]. : COPYRIGHT 2009 Nature Publishing Group; [cited 2014 Feb 2] . Available from: http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA207114133&v=2.1&u=unc_main&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=366408fd91040bf3eb475f3974a8d691