Animals should not be used by researchers scientists and practitioners in scientific grounds

Society should push authorities to quickly adopt successfully validated techniques, while realizing that pushing for adoption without full validation could endanger human health The scientific community, with particular commitment shown by the pharmaceutical industry, has responded by investing a large amount of money and effort in developing the science and technology to replace animals wherever possible.

This practice desensitizes students to animal suffering and teaches them that animals can be used and discarded without respect for their lives. In view of these effective alternatives, and the economic gains associated therewith, the practice of dissection begins to look more and more like a rite of passage into the world of animal abuse, almost a fraternity initiation for future vivisectors.

Here, 3D computer graphics and the theoretical field of quantum pharmacology are combined to help in designing drugs according to required specifications. Once animals have been excluded from the moral community, humans have only a limited obligation towards them; on this argument, we certainly would not need to grant animals all normal human rights.

For example, screening potential anti-cancer drugs uses the so-called hollow-fibre system, in which tumour cells are grown in a tube-like polymer matrix that is implanted into mice.

Scientists might also be able to replace damaged genes or add new genes to stem cells in order to give them characteristics that can ultimately treat diseases.

Instead, the drug or technique is tested in animals to make sure that it is safe and effective. Indeed while conflicting animal results have often delayed and hampered advances in the war on cancer, they have never produced a single substantial advance in the prevention or treatment of human cancer.

We recognize that those who oppose animal experimentation should be free to voice their opinions democratically, and we look forward to constructive discussion in the future with organizations that share the middle ground with us. The evidence is showing that it is not as significant as once, or even still, believed.

These observations led to improved sanitation and quarantine measures in Havana where yellow fever, once rife, was eradicated. In general, they feel that animal welfare should be weighed against health benefits, that cosmetic-testing should not be allowed, that there should be supervision to ensure high standards of welfare, that animals should be used only if there is no alternative, and that spot-checks should be carried out.

Many more similar examples of species differentiation have been cited widely in the literature. After all, if the technology to develop these alternatives is not available or does not yet exist, progress is likely to be slow. Other types of alternative medicine, such as acupuncture, have proven useful in stress relief, and against insomnia and back pains.

That is, the researcher using the line will not have to go through the rigorous procedure necessary to isolate stem cells again. Such an approach would ignore the recommendations of the House of Lords Select Committee report, and would not deal with public concerns about animal welfare.

Still, many people will be prepared to make statements against animal oppression, even at considerable cost to their well-being. In neuroscience, techniques such as cooling regions of the brain instead of removing subsections, and magnetic resonance imaging, have both helped to reduce the number of laboratory animals used Royal Society, We can't change the past; those who have already suffered and died are lost.

Inno animal was known to be susceptible, prompting studies with human volunteers which proved that mosquitoes did indeed transmit the disease. The harm done to human beings by not experimenting on animals is unknown, whereas the harm done to animals if they are tested on is certain.

Human cells and tissues can be kept alive in cultures and used for biomedical research. Scientific knowledge about non-human animals is a field that has grown exponentially since the 18th century. If the pharmaceutical industry switched from animal experiments to quantum pharmacology and in vitro tests, we would have greater protection, not less.

Animal Experiments Cannot Guarantee Human Safety The argument that animal tests followed by human clinical trials mean that drugs are safe for people to use cannot be sustained. However, between andthe growth in UK biomedical research far outstripped this incremental increase: Animals are necessary to medical research when it is impractical or unethical to use humans.

A lot of even more relevant information is currently foregone owing to our strictures against human experimentation. Why would i care for mices. For example, a bioassay for vitamin D used to involve inducing rickets in rats and feeding them vitamin-D-rich substances.

For example, even serious side-effects can sometimes go under-reported. Species Differences Do Exist The jury is in on the fact that non-human and human animal biological systems are different. Let us recall that we are happy enough today to forego knowledge that would be acquired at the expense of commandeering humans into service, and that we include children, the mentally diminished and even people suffering from types of disease for which animal models are unsatisfactory such as AIDS.

A leading cancer charity, Yorkshire Cancer Research Harrogate, UKfunded research into the use of cell cultures to understand better the cellular mechanisms of prostate cancer—allowing researchers to investigate potential therapies using fewer animals.

In summary, defenders of animal experimentation argue that humans have higher moral status than animals and fundamental rights that animals lack. Animals should not be hurt without any meaning or purpose, but comparing to scientific research, we are compelled to hurt them, because animals are necessary of use in product development plus currently this is the only way to test products and will continue to be used to ensure our safety.

Looking for other ways to read this?

The rights of animals / Tamara L. Roleff, book editor, Jennifer A. Hurley, assistant editor. by American Association for Laboratory Animal Science 50 antibiotics, and other medications for both human and animal diseases. Animals used in research are treated humanely. Some research simply cannot yield accurate results without animal testing.

Scientists have stopped to think. Some think we shouldn’t. An international team of researchers from Australia, New Zealand and Canada has looked into the costs of bringing back, reintroducing.

The use of animals in medicine is often challenged on scientific grounds, and product tests are no exception. For example, one widely used test is the so-called LD50 (Lethal Dose 50 percent) test.

Should Animals Continue to Be Used in Research Experiments? the US and Australia it is considered basic to good laboratory animal practice in scientific research, product testing and other technical procedures to follow the three Rs.

It is up to each individual to decide where they stand in relation to the ethics of animal use in science. Scientists use animals to learn more about health problems that affect both humans and animals, and to assure the safety of new medical treatments. Medical researchers need to understand health problems before they can develop ways to treat them.

Quotes database Animals should not be used by researchers scientists and practitioners in scientific grounds
Rated 5/5 based on 73 review
PETA Should Rethink Its Campaign Against Animal Research - The Intersection : The Intersection