Contoversy of animal testing

Animal testing is a deeply divided subject, with a great deal of passion, emotion and ideas on
both sides regarding the ethics of this practice. There is also a grey area as well, where some
individuals support animal testing only under special circumstances while they oppose its use
for other areas.
Support for Animal Testing
Generally, the scientific community is strongly in favour of animal testing. They see humans
are superior to animal life and this belief thus justifies the use of animals in testing. While
animal suffering should be minimised, they also cite that it is preferable for an animal to
suffer as opposed to a human. The medical breakthroughs that have occurred as a result of
animal testing are also considered reason enough to continue the practice, with the aim of
reducing human suffering and saving human lives. Ultimately, supporters believe that the end
result of saved lives justifies the means of using animal testing.
Support is also geared at protecting humans, not simply producing new life-saving drugs -
although this is seen as a priority. Military defence involves animal testing to simulate battle
wounds and gauge reactions to exposures of agents used in war. Animal testing is an
important part of preventing a widespread disaster if chemical agents are released by another
country.
As a result of the controversy with animal testing, however, more media attention has occurred in
terms of animal care in animal testing facilities. Regulations and laws in Britain are some of the
strictest in the world and the transparency that exists is a positive step for both animal testing
supporters and those who are against it.
Ethical Issues With Animal Testing
One key argument against animal testing involves the inability of animals to consent to the
tests. Humans, it is argued, can make an informed decision to consent while animals have
tests forced upon them, with no choice.
A major ethical issue with animal testing is that it involves pain, suffering and discomfort
under some circumstances. While researchers do address the potential for pain by measures to
minimise it whenever possible, they aren't able to completely prevent any pain from
occurring. Where possible, they will use anaesthetic but for some types of testing, using a
pain reliever can mean an interaction with the drug being tested. For this reason, animals
must experience the effects of the one drug and if it involves pain, this presents an
unfortunate conundrum for researchers.
Another qualm with animal testing is its use for cosmetics testing. While Britain has banned
animal testing on cosmetics and Europe is poised for a ban by 2009, other countries still use
animals for cosmetics testing. Those who oppose the practice believe it is outrageous and
cruel to use animal life simply so humans can 'look better.' The aesthetic component is a
major issue and some individuals support animal testing for medical purposes but not for
cosmetics.
Isolated cases of abuse have also added more fuel to the case against animal testing although
reaction from the scientific community was similarly swift and indicated that such abuses
will not be tolerated.
Making a Decision
Despite having a look at both sides involved in the controversy of animal testing, there is still
no clear right or wrong that seems to appease everyone. One thing, however, appears to be
unanimous - that at the very least, animal suffering should be minimised and that animals
should be respected during their care. If animal testing is to continue - and at present it is
ongoing - animals must not be abused.





















Definitions
The terms animal testing, animal experimentation, animal research, in vivo testing, and vivisection
have similar denotations but different connotations. Literally, "vivisection" means the "cutting up" of
a living animal, and historically referred only to experiments that involved the dissection of live
animals. The term is occasionally used to refer pejoratively to any experiment using living animals;
for example, the Encyclopdia Britannica defines "vivisection" as: "Operation on a living animal for
experimental rather than healing purposes; more broadly, all experimentation on live animals",
[9]

although dictionaries point out that the broader definition is "used only by people who are opposed
to such work".
[10]
The word has a negative connotation, implying torture, suffering, and death.
[11]
The
word "vivisection" is preferred by those opposed to this research, whereas scientists typically use
the term "animal experimentation".
[


Alternatives to animal testing
Scientists and governments state that animal testing should cause as little suffering to animals
as possible, and that animal tests should only be performed where necessary. The "three
Rs"
[96]
are guiding principles for the use of animals in research in most countries:
1. Replacement refers to the preferred use of non-animal methods over animal methods
whenever it is possible to achieve the same scientific aim.
2. Reduction refers to methods that enable researchers to obtain comparable levels of
information from fewer animals, or to obtain more information from the same number
of animals.
3. Refinement refers to methods that alleviate or minimize potential pain, suffering or
distress, and enhance animal welfare for the animals still used.
[194]

Although such principles have been welcomed as a step forwards by some animal welfare
groups,
[195]
they have also been criticized as both outdated by current research,
[196]
and of
little practical effect in improving animal welfare.
[









The supporting argument: animal testing is for the greater good

While many organizations are against animal testing and believe it has no impact on our
research today, there are plenty of scientists and different research centers that contradict
their opinion.
According to the Foundation for Biomedical Research, animal testing should actually be
called animal research instead. It is thought that animal testing is overall better than the
alternatives that have been discovered over years such as computer modeling and cell
structures. In fact, many of the experiments that have been conducted have won the Nobel
Prize for scientific achievement. One of the most recent scientific discoveries has been the
discovery of principles for introducing specific gene modifications in mice using embryonic
stem cells. This is just one of many breakthroughs that have been discovered through
testing animals such as mice and dogs. While they still do use cats and dogs, the amount of
cats and dogs being tested has gone down tremendously from previous years. Since 1973,
the number of dogs used in biomedical research has declined 67% and the number of cats
63%, showing that researchers are trying their best to cut down the use of larger animals.
The FBR states that a huge majority of animals being tested do not even experience any
pain. According to the 2000 USDA Annual Report, 63% of animals experienced only a slight
or momentary pain, like an injection. The pain that animal activists talk about the USDA tries
to reassure their good intentions by confirming that they could not use anesthesia to help
the animals experience less pain, because it would have interfered with the experiment *.
While animal testing may cause minor pain and deaths in many cases, scientists believe that
it is essential to findings of major breakthroughs in scientific research. According to Dr.
George Poste, director of the Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University and also a
veterinarian, to figure out the root of some deadly diseases and how they can resist
treatments, animal testing is a necessity**. He also goes on to say that many people dont
support the use of animals to test fashion products and makeup, but can understand the
use of animal testing for medical research. On the supporters side of the argument, animal
testing is a necessity for medical research, and will be beneficial to us in the future.







Pro's for Animal Testing
The major pro for animal testing is that it aids researchers in finding drugs and treatments to
improve health and medicine. Many medical treatments have been made possible by animal
testing, including cancer and HIV drugs, insulin, antibiotics, vaccines and many more. It is
for this reason that animal testing is considered vital for improving human health and it is
also why the scientific community and many members of the public support its use. In fact,
there are also individuals who are against animal testing for cosmetics but still support animal
testing for medicine and the development of new drugs for disease.
Another important aspect to note is that animal testing helps to ensure the safety of drugs and
many other substances humans use or are exposed to regularly. Drugs in particular can carry
significant dangers with their use but animal testing allows researchers to initially gauge the
safety of drugs prior to commencing trials on humans. This means that human harm is
reduced and human lives are saved - not simply from avoidance of the dangers of drugs but
because the drugs themselves save lives as well as improve the quality of human life.
Scientists typically use animals for testing purposes because they are considered similar to humans.
As such, researchers do recognise the limitations and differences but the testing is done on animals
because they are thought to be the closest match and best one with regards to applying this data to
humans.














Animal Testing

Introduction

The application of animals to test a large number of products from household compounds and
cosmetics to Pharmaceutical products has been considered to be a normal strategy for many years.
Laboratory animals are generally used in three primary fields: biomedical research, product security
evaluation and education. (Animal Experiments) It has been estimated that approximately, 20
million animals are being used for testing and are killed annually; about 15 million of them are used
to test for medication and five million for other products. Reports have been generated to indicate
that about 10 percent of these animals are not being administered with painkillers. The supporters
of animal rights are pressurizing government agencies to inflict severe regulations on animal
research. However, such emerging criticisms of painful experimentation on animals are coupled with
an increasing concern over the cost it would have on the limitation of scientific progress. (Of Cures
and Creatures Great and Small)

Around the world, animals are utilized to test products ranging from shampoo to new cancer drugs.
Each and every medication used by humans is first tested on the animals. Animals were also applied
to develop anesthetics to ease human ailments and suffering during surgery. (Animal Experiments)
Currently, questions have been raised about the ethics surround animal testing. As a result several
regulations have been put in place to evaluate and control the animals being used for testing
purposes. These regulations hope to ensure that such research is carried out in a humanely and
ethical manner. (Testing on Animals: A Patients Perspective) Acceptance of such experimentations is
subject to a lot of argumentation. As the statistics indicate animal testing is dangerous and harmful,
but medical research must continue. We need to find other testing techniques that are advanced in
order to eliminate this harmful process, till then all we can do is continue with our research.

Arguments for testing

The supporters of animal testing argue that if animal testing is eliminated, that many of the
medications and procedures that we currently use today would exist and the development of future
treatments would be extremely limited. They argue that humans have been assisted from the
healthcare developments that have been based on the benefits of animal research and testing for
many years now. Supporters for animal testing argue that research is justified because it assists in
discovering ways to help people and other animals for the future. Surgery on animals has assisted in
developing organ transplant and open-heart surgery techniques. Animal testing has also assisted in
developing vaccines against diseases like rabies, polio, measles, mumps, rubella and TB.
Development of antibiotics, HIV drugs, insulin and cancer treatments depend upon animal tests.
They argue that other testing techniques are not advanced enough. (Animal Experiments) The most
radical progress in reproductive medicine such as oral contraceptives, in vitro fertilization, hormone
replacement therapy, etc., have all been made possible by animal research. (Alternatives to Animal
testing on the Web: FAQs)

Medical procedures like measuring blood pressure, pacemakers and heart and lung machines were
used on animals prior to being tried on humans. Surgery techniques, like those to mend and
eliminate bone diseases were devised out of experimentation on the animals. Animal testing not
only benefits humans but also helps other animals, for example the heartworm medication that was
devised from research on animals has assisted many dogs. The cat nutrition has been better
comprehended through animal research and has assisted cats to live longer and healthier lives.
(Animal Testing: Why Animals Are Used in Research?) Animal models for AIDS are very important
factors that are required to understand the biology of immuno-deficiency viruses in the vivo. This
allows us to raise necessary awareness about the processes of pathogenesis and its prevention by
vaccination and chemotherapy. (Alternatives to Animal testing on the Web: FAQs) Those who
support animal testing argue that the society has an obligation to take actions in ways that will
minimize injury and maximize benefits. Banning or restraining the experimentation on animals
would not allow society to achieve such results. It is assumed that a scientists goal is to devise
methods to minimize pain to every extent possible but for now we have to sacrifice on animals to
achieve this result. Activists against this practice portray scientists to be a society of crazy, cruel,
curiosity seekers. However, when one feeds painkillers to animals, one should ask where they came
from and what their purpose is. Is it to improve the quality of human life? (Of Cures and Creatures
Great and Small)

Those who support this procedure argue that the advantages that animal testing has brought to
humans is considered a lot greater in comparison to the costs in terms of the sufferings inflicted on
comparatively less number of animals. They argue that society is required to maximize the
opportunities to generate such valuable consequences even at the cost of inflicting pain to some
animals. Moreover, many argue that the lives of animals may be worthy of some respect, but the
value we give on their lives does not count as much as the value we give to human life. Human
beings are considered living beings that have the capability and sensibility that is much higher than
animals. For example if we were put in a dilemma of saving a drowning baby and a drowning rat is it
almost definite that our instincts will guide us to save the baby first. Is it universally assumed that
humans do not treat the animals as our moral equivalents. In theory, any living thing is considered
an animal if it is not a plant. (Of Cures and Creatures Great and Small)

As humans it is assumed that we have a moral requirement to prevent any animals of unnecessary
suffering. However, as far as animal testing is concerned we are confronted with the moral dilemma
of a choice between the welfare of humans or the welfare of animals. Some supporters of animal
testing argue that moral rights and principles of justice apply only to human beings. Morality is
considered as a social creation out of its eventual process in which we do not associate animals.
Moral rights and moral principles are applicable to those who are part of the moral community
generated by this social process. As animals are not part of this moral community created by these
social processes our moral obligations do not extend to cover them. However, we do have moral
obligations to our fellow human being that involve the liability to decline and prevent needless
human suffering and untimely deaths that in turn may entail the painful tests on animals. (Of Cures
and Creatures Great and Small)

A review by the American Medical Association indicated that about 99 percent of active physicians in
the US believed that animal research has given rise to medical advancement, and about 97 percent
supported the persistent use of animals for basic and clinical research. (What Scientists Say About
Animal Research) Scientists found that there are no such differences in lab animals and humans that
cannot be used in tests. The Research Defense Society RDS, a British organization instituted to
defend animal testing, maintain that most of the complaints made against animal testing are not
found to be correct and that animal testing generates valuable information about how new drugs
react inside a living body. Tests are continued to detect major health problems like liver damage,
enhanced blood pressure, nerve damage or damage to the fetus. Research revealed that the drugs
can be distorted by digestion, and become less successful or more toxic and that such difficulties
cannot be examined by applying cell samples in test tubes. (Vivisection: Fact Sheet) If animal testing
were to be outlawed it would be impossible to attain the significant knowledge that is necessary to
eliminating much suffering and premature deaths for both humans and animals. (Animal
Experiments)

Biochip Pengganti Hewan Eksperimen

Seorang profesor dari Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Amerika, bernama Jonathan S. Dordick, baru-
baru ini dalam risetnya berhasil mengembangkan sebuah biochip yang diharapkan mampu
menggantikan tempat hewan-hewan percobaan lab pada proses animal test di laboratorium
perusahaan-perusahaan kimia.

Selama ini, animal testing telah banyak menimbulkan perdebatan pro-kontra antara kaum
industrialis dan pecinta lingkungan hidup. Animal testing seolah telah menjadi suatu sisi gelap dari
setiap penelitian dan eksperimen kimia baik untuk kepentingan medis, kosmetika, maupun
pengembangan kimia lainnya. Tikus, kelinci, anjing, dan monyet selama ini telah banyak
dipergunakan untuk eksperimen kimia baik untuk keperluan medis maupun komersil.

Dengan pemakaian biochip ini nantinya diharapkan dapat menekan angka animal testing pada
industri farmasi hingga 70% dari angka yang ada sekarang.

Dordick mengatakan bahwa dirinya bersama teamnya telah membuat dua biochip yang dapat
dipergunakan untuk mengetahui level racun pada sebuah eksperimen kimia dan obat-obatan pada
sell dan organ manusia.

Lebih lanjut Dordick mengatakan bahwa biochip ini berbeda dengan chip komputer. Chip ini akan
berubah warna menjadi merah jika zat kimia yang dimasukkan membunuh sell yang ada, dan akan
bercahaya hijau jika zat kimia yang dimasukkan membuat sell didalam chip tetap hidup. Dordick
yang merupakan salah satu pendiri Solidus Biosciences Inc. di New York berharap akan dapat
mengkomersialisasikan chip ini. Sejauh ini ia mengatakan beberapa perusahaan farmasi dan
kosmetik telah menghubunginya karena tertarik dengan biochip temuannya tersebut. (dna)











Animal Testing:
Layakkah Untuk Satwa?


Animal testing atau percobaan terhadap satwa adalah penelitian dengan menggunakan satwa
sebagai objek penderita. Beberapa istilah yang berkaitan dengan animal testing antara lain
animal experimentation, animal research, in vivo testing, dan vivisection. Semua istilah
tersebut mengacu pada penggunaan satwa dalam proses penelitian. Tujuan animal testing
yang banyak dikemukakan adalah untuk kesehatan, pangan, dan kosmetik. Dalam proses
penelitian tak jarang ada satwa yang mati dan setelah penelitian banyak satwa yang dibunuh
untuk mencegah interaksi dengan satwa lain.
Satwa yang umum digunakan dalam animal testing adalah bangsa pengerat, seperti mencit,
tikus, atau rodensia lain. Pada tahun 2001di Inggris, tercatat ada sekitar 1.655.766 ekor
mencit yang digunakan di animal testing. Selain itu, ada sekitar 8.273 ekor karnivora,
termasuk anjing yang digunakan daam animal testing tersebut. Slain satwa kelompok
rodensia dan carnivore, satwa yang juga banyak digunakan untuk percobaan adalah primata.
Mencit, tikus, dan rodensia lain yg digunakan untuk percobaan biasanya berasal dari
pembiakan atau penangkaran. Sedangkan untuk primata pada umumnya masih banyak
berasal dari alam liar.
Beberapa percobaan yang banyak dilakukan, antara lain xenotransplanation, uji toksikologi,
uji produk kosmetik, dan uji obat.
Xenotransplanation adalah transfer organ dari satu spesies ke spesies lain, seperti
memindahkan organ ginjal dan hati babi ke primata. Tidak jarang satwa yang dilakukan
transfer mengalami ganguan perkembangan bahkan mati. Contoh kasus, pada tahun 1994 dan
2000, hal ini terjadi pada babon di Afrika yang menyebabkan sebagian besar babon mati saat
dilakukan xeno tersebut.
Uji toksikologi digunakan untuk menguji produk akhir, seperti pestisida, zat untuk medis, dan
zat aditif makanan, ataupun senyawa-senyawa kimia yang terkandung dalam suatu produk
pada satwa sehingga terlihat efek secara fisiologi pada satwa tersebut. Pada jenis tes toksisitas
akut, seperti LD50 (lethal dose/ dosis letal 50 %) untuk mengevaluasi toksisitas dari suatu zat
yang dapat membunuh 50 % sampel yang diuji. Uji ini pada tahun 2002 telah dihapuskan.
Uji produk kosmetik adalah uji hasil akhir ataupun zat-zat yang digunakan dalam pembuatan
kosmetik untuk manusia. Uji ini dilakukan untuk memastikan produk aman pada manusia.
Satwa media penderita untuk zat-zat yang ternyata memberikan efek samping.
Uji untuk obat, di Indonesia disebut juga uji prakilinik. Uji ini dilakukan sebelum
dilaksanakan pada klinis manusia untuk mengurangi resiko saat dilakukan pada manusia.
Efek samping dari dosis yang diberikan ditanggung oleh satwa yang tidak berdosa demi
menyelamatkan kehidupan manusia.
Selain harus menanggung derita dari berbagai jenis zat dan produk obat yang diuji, ternyata
mereka juga masih diperlakukan tidak layak. Banyak dari satwa yang ditempatkan dalam
kandang yang kotor dan tidak layak. Tak jarang kebutuhan nutrisi mereka kurang
diperhatikan. Bahkan ada yang memperlakukan satwa dengan tidak baik, seperti diikat atau
ditempatkan dalam kandang yang sempit. Padahal para satwa telah banyak memberikan
konstribusi penting bagi kehidupan manusia.
Berdasarkan hal tersebut, animal testing sebaiknya dikurangi bahkan dihentikan. Dengan
berkembangnya teknologi, altermatif metode untuk mengujui suastu zat tanpa harus
menyakiliti satwa telah banyak ditemukan. Beberapa metode tersebut antara lain,
komputerisasi prediksi, in vitro melalui jaringan atau sel satwa atau manusia dalam tabung
kultur, penggunaan protein dan enzim, ataupun penggunaan jasa manusia langsung yang
aman dan sesuai bioetika. Metode-metode tersebut lebih aman dan bisa menjadi solusi
kontroversi animal testing yang telah berlangsung lama.
Pada beberapa penelitian, zat-zat yang berhasil lolos uji pada animal testing, memberikan
efek berbeda pada manusia. Contoh kasus, obat arthritis Vioxx aman dan baik bagi jantung
satwa tetapi menyebabkan sedikitnya 140,000 kasus serangan jantung dan stroke hanya di
amerika saja. Dr. Richard Klausner dari US National Institute (NCI) menyatakan banyak
studi yang telah berhasil menyembuhkan kanker di mencit, tetapi nihil di manusia. Asap
rokok, arsenik, asbes, benzen, dan alkohol ternyata aman digunakan berdasarkan studi pada
satwa, tetapi di manusia efeknya sangat berbahaya.
Pemaparan di atas bisa menjadi pegangan kita bahwa tidak semua hasil aman dari animal
testing aman pula bagi manusia, begitu pula sebaliknya. Uji coba pada satwa agar aman saat
tes klinik pada manusia menjadi tidak beralasan. Dalam 10 tahun penelitian internasional,
menyatakan bahwa penggunaan test pada kultur sel manusia (tube-test), lebih efektif dan
lebih mudah diaplikasikan dalam mekanisme pengobatan pada manusia dibandingkan
penelitian tradisional yang menggunakan satwa. Jadi mengapa masih melakukan uji pada
satwa?
Hal lain yang dapat kita lakukan adalah selektif terhadap produk yang kita beli. Dengan tidak
membeli produk dari perusahaan yang melakukan animal testing, kita ikut berpartisipasi
mengurangi penderitaan para satwa. Perusahaan yang tidak melakukan animal testing
umumnya menggunakan label non-animal testing, meskipun ada juga yang tidak
mencantumkannya








PRO ANIMAL TESTING
Telah praktek yang sangat umum untuk menguji senyawa rumah tangga, kosmetik dan produk
farmasi pada hewan untuk waktu yang sangat lama. Sebagai masalah jika fakta, telah diperkirakan
bahwa hampir 20 juta hewan digunakan untuk pengujian dan dibunuh setiap tahun. Dari ini, 15 juta
diuji untuk pengobatan dan 5 juta diuji untuk produk lain. Laporan juga menunjukkan bahwa sekitar
10% dari hewan-hewan ini tidak dikelola dengan pembunuh rasa sakit yang memadai.

Di seluruh dunia, produk baru mulai dari obat kanker sampai dengan sabun dan shampoo diuji pada
hewan Ada banyak pertanyaan mengenai etika menggunakan hewan untuk pengujian Oleh karena
itu, beberapa peraturan telah diletakkan di tempat yang mengevaluasi dan mengontrol binatang
yang digunakan untuk tujuan pengujian. Hal ini diyakini bahwa peraturan ini akan memastikan
penelitian yang dilakukan dalam cara yang manusiawi dan etis mungkin. Namun, peraturan ini juga
berada di bawah banyak argumentasi.

Sebuah survei yang dilakukan di American Medical Association menunjukkan bahwa 99% dari semua
dokter yang aktif di Amerika Serikat percaya bahwa penelitian hewan telah melahirkan kemajuan
medis. Bahkan, sekitar 97% dari dokter juga mendukung penggunaan terus menerus jika hewan
untuk penelitian klinis dan dasar. Alasan utama di balik ini adalah fakta bahwa para ilmuwan telah
menemukan bahwa ada sangat sedikit atau perbedaan antara laboratorium hewan dan
manusiaSebuah organisasi Inggris dengan nama Research Pertahanan Society (RDS) yang
dilembagakan untuk membela pengujian hewan menunjukkan bahwa sebagian besar pengaduan
dilakukan terhadap pengujian hewan tidak benar dan juga bahwa tes hewan menghasilkan informasi
berharga tentang bagaimana obat baru akan bereaksi di dalam tubuh yang hidup Pengujian harus
dilanjutkan untuk mendeteksi informasi dari segala masalah kesehatan utama yang dapat
disebabkan oleh obat-obatan seperti kerusakan hati, tekanan darah meningkat, kerusakan syaraf
dan kerusakan pada janin

Hewan Pengujian Pro

Ketika setiap anggota dalam keluarga kami sehat dan lezat, sangat sulit untuk memahami seperti
mengapa hewan-hewan tak berdosa digunakan untuk tujuan pengujian yang biasanya berakhir
membunuh mereka. Tapi biasanya mulai lebih masuk akal ketika seseorang dalam keluarga atau
Anda sendiri mulai menderita penyakit yang mengancam jiwaIni adalah hubungan yang sangat
simbiosis yang juga bagian yang sangat integral dari penelitian medis. Pengujian pada hewan telah
membantu mengembangkan vaksin untuk kehidupan banyak mengancam penyakit seperti Herpes
Simplex, Hepatitis B, Polio, rabies, malaria, gondok dan virus yang berkaitan dengan penolakan organ
transplantasi Selain ini, pengujian hewan juga membantu dalam penyempurnaan prosedur yang
berkaitan dengan mengukur tekanan darah, teknologi alat pacu jantung dan kesempurnaan dari
penyakit jantung dan paru-paru. Anda akan terkejut membaca bahwa anestesi yang digunakan untuk
mati rasa tubuh selama operasi dan nyeri akut tersedia hari ini setelah berhasil diuji pada binatang
pertama.

Manusia bukan makhluk yang hanya hidup yang telah memperoleh manfaat dari pengujian hewan
Heart obat cacing ini dirancang dari penelitian pada hewan dan telah sampai hari membantu
menyelamatkan nyawa banyak anjing. Hewan penelitian juga telah memberikan pemahaman yang
lebih baik gizi kucing dan alasan di balik seperti mengapa kucing hidup lebih lama dan tetap sehat
lebih baik dipahami.

Menemukan obat dan vaksin untuk AIDS telah menjadi salah satu tujuan paling penting dari industri
penelitian medis. research as they help in understanding the biology of immune-deficiency viruses.
model hewan untuk AIDS adalah bagian yang sangat penting dari penelitian sebagaimana mereka
membantu dalam memahami biologi virus defisiensi kekebalan.

Fakta dari masalah ini adalah bahwa untuk membuat kemajuan dalam bidang obat-obatan,
pengujian hewan adalah suatu keharusan Menahan atau melarang pengujian oleh para aktivis
binatang tidak akan membantu dengan cara apapun. Terserah kepada kita dan semua orang milik
organisasi hewan dan penelitian medis untuk memastikan bahwa hal yang sama dilakukan dengan
cara, aman etis menyebabkan sebagai nyeri kecil dan ketidaknyamanan mungkin untuk binatang.
Jika pengujian hewan itu harus dilarang maka akan sangat sedikit ruang lingkup memperoleh
informasi yang akan sangat diperlukan untuk menghilangkan penderitaan dan kematian dini pada
manusia dan hewan.




















ANIMAL TESTING PROS
It has been a very common practice to test a household compounds, cosmetics and pharmaceutical
products on animals for a very long time. As a matter if fact, it has been estimated that nearly 20
million animals are used for testing and are killed annually. Out of these, 15 million are tested for
medication and 5 million are tested for other products. Reports also indicate that about 10% of
these animals are not administered with adequate pain killers.

Across the world, new products ranging from cancer drugs to soaps and shampoos are tested on the
animals. There are many questions regarding the ethics of using animals for testing. Hence, several
regulations have been put in place that evaluate and control the animals that are being used for
testing purposes. It is believed that these regulations will ensure that research is carried out in as
humane and as ethical manner as possible. However, these regulations are also under a lot of
argumentation.

A survey conducted in the American Medical Association indicates that 99% of all active physicians in
the United States believe that animal research has given rise to medical advancements. In fact,
about 97% of the physicians also supported the continuous use if animals for clinical and basic
research. The main reason behind this is the fact that scientists have found that there is very little or
difference between the lab animals and humans. A British organization by the name Research
Defense Society (RDS) that was instituted to defend animal testing indicates that most of the
complaints made against animal testing are not correct and also that animal testing generates
invaluable information about how new drugs would react inside a living body. The tests have to be
continued in order to detect information of any major health problems that can be caused by the
drugs like liver damage, enhanced blood pressure, nerve damage and damages to the fetus

Animal Testing Pros

When every member in our family is hale and hearty, it is very difficult to understand as to why the
innocent animals are used for testing purposes that usually ends up killing them. But it usually starts
to make more sense when someone in the family or you yourself starts suffering from a life
threatening disease. It is a very symbiotic relationship that is also a very integral part of medical
research. Testing on animals has helped develop vaccines for many life threatening diseases like
Herpes Simplex, Hepatitis B, Polio, rabies, malaria, mumps and virus related to organ transplantation
rejection. In addition to this, animal testing has also helped in the refinement of procedures related
to measuring the blood pressure, pacemaker technology and the perfection of the heart and lung
diseases. You will be surprised to read that anesthesia which is used to numb the body during
surgery and acute pain is available today after it was successfully tested on animals first.

Human beings are not the only living creatures that have benefited from animal testing. Heart worm
medication was devised from research on animals and has to day helped in saving the lives of many
dogs. Animal research has also provided better understanding of cat nutrition and the reasons
behind as to why cats live longer and remain healthier are better understood.

Finding a cure and a vaccine for AIDS has become one of the most important goals of the medical
research industry. The animal models for AIDS are a very important part of the research as they help
in understanding the biology of immune-deficiency viruses.

The fact of the matter is that to make advances in the field of medicines, animal testing is a must.
Restraining or banning the testing by animal activists will not help in any way. It is up to us and all
individuals belonging to animal organizations and medical research to ensure that the same is
carried out in a safe, ethical manner causing as little pain and discomfort possible to the animal. If
animal testing was to be outlawed then there would be very little scope of obtaining information
that would be very necessary to eliminate suffering and premature deaths in both humans and
animals.
Pros
Humans can be treated with medication which saves their lives because the medication has been
approved of from the testing of animals.
Humans and animals have similar reactions to medication and cosmetics, meaning that they can be
approved of and used on humans.


Cons
Perfumes and cosmetics are often tested in the eyes of animals so that the reaction is quicker, but
it can make the animals blind and, if oral medication, can kill the animals.
The medications and cosmetics are not only tested on a single animal at a time, but on many,
meaning that if the drug or cosmetic is harmful or deadly to the animal, not only one animal dies or
becomes seriously ill, but many do, perhaps hundreds.
The animals that are used for testing drugs, such as guinea pigs, can die from the treatment of such
life-saving drugs as penicillin, so if these particular drugs are tested on guinea pigs before the
treatment is later used on humans, the drug will appear to the testing scientist as deadly, whereas it
is only the guinea pig that the penicillin is deadly to, therefore the drug will not be used to treat
patients in critical conditions and on the verge of death, therefore it is not only animals that are
being killed in the testing of them, but humans as well.

Read more:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_pros_and_cons_for_animal_testing#ixzz1D56o9iv7
1. To establish a product is not harmful before being used on humans.

2. To fully characterize the properties of that product and potential long term harm. Properties
inlcude:

half life of drug/product
toxicity
effective dose
side effects
lethal dose
allergic response

3. To prove that your product works in an animal model to then scale up into human clinical trials.
(generally, if you can't prove experimental medicine to work in mice, rats, sheep, then monkeys.
chances are it would be approved to be used in humans).

Animal Testing Pros

Animal testing is basically making use of animals in experiments carried out for the betterment of
human lives. These animal experiments are carried out by universities, pharmaceutical companies
and even by students and researchers at medical schools. These animals are either bred specifically
for carrying out experiments or are caught from their wild habitat and locked up in cages. There are
some animal testing pros that motivate scientists to carry out experiments on these animals. So,
what are some of the good things that support the torturing of these poor animals? Let's see some
of these animal testing pros that makes proponents of animal experimentation argue for use of
animals in research.

Animal testing helps in finding ways to help save lives of animals and humans by testing life saving
drugs and processes. A few animals tend to react the same way like humans in response to certain
diseases and allergies. This helps the scientists find a cure for certain diseases by studying these
animals. Open heart surgeries, coronary bypass surgery and heart transplantation are some of the
procedures that came into existence by carrying out experimentation on dogs. Insulin for diabetes,
life saving antibiotics, etc. have been made by experimenting on animals. Contagious diseases like
small pox, measles, chicken pox, rubella, polio, rabies, mumps, etc. were brought into control due to
vaccines made by carrying out experiments on animals.

Treatment for scarlet fever, tuberculosis, complex surgical procedures for humans were tested OK
for humans through animal testing. Tests for vaccines for diseases like AIDS is being carried out on
animals. The common animals used for these tests include rats, mice, rabbits, monkeys, dogs, goats,
horses, etc. Chimpanzees share about 90% of their genetic make up with humans. These animals
have similar reactions and somewhat similar inner organs to humans that help in determining the
effects of drugs and procedures on humans. Many transplantation operations were first carried out
on animals, that helped determine and save lives for humans.

Animals are not only tested for making lives of humans better, but for the betterment of animals
themselves as well. People often overlook the fact, that may breakthroughs in veterinary medicine
has occurred due to animal testing. Animal surgeries, animal antibiotics, etc. have all come into
existence, due to animal testing. Thus, animal testing pros prove it is very vital in saving not only the
lives of humans, but those of animals as well.

Animal testing helps in figuring out the safety of drugs on humans, before scientists begin the
human trail. You don't want people getting adverse reactions to these drugs and adding more woes
to their misery. The animal trials help minimize the chances of human death during clinical trials,
saving pharmaceutical and medical organizations millions of dollars in compensation. Also, animals,
like mice and rabbits, reproduce very quickly. This gives the researchers a chance to see the effects
of the experiments on the progeny too. Now, let us see some of the arguments against animal
testing.

Animal Testing Cons

When we speak about animal testing cons, there are plenty of emotional and ethical issues staring in
our faces. The first and foremost con is the issue of pain the animal must be going through.
Although, it is claimed none of the animals were hurt in the test, but how can one be 100% sure?
Not all handlers are alike and some just jab the needles through their body, keep them in cramped
up spaces, with little or no food sometimes. Animals cannot speak, so how can we determine
whether or not and the level of pain the poor creature is going through?

Animal testing statistics show many creatures lose their lives during the course of experiments.
Some lose their limbs, eyesight, hearing ability, etc. All in the name of saving human lives. Agreed,
when people say millions of animals are killed worldwide for food. But, you can't compare that with
the months of torture the animals go through while the experiments are on. Wouldn't you prefer
being killed in one shot, rather than enduring poking needles, cuts and poisonous chemicals being
injected into your system and being kept caged in a really small space for what seems like all
eternity? You may wish to escape the dreaded place that smells of disinfectants, chemicals and may
be sure death, but cannot.

There are many animal rights group that claim killing animals is inhumane. Animal testing in
cosmetic industry as well as a household products is not worth the life of a poor animal. Animal
testing also proves to be a bit expensive. This is because the cost of housing, feeding caring for the
animals is quite high. Animals are in a great deal of stress as they are not living in their natural
habitat and the controlled environment may take a toll on their minds. Also, some claim animal
experiments can be misleading as an animals response to a drug cannot be absolutely similar to a
humans.

People are now suggesting use of tissue culture, statistics and even computer models for carrying
out the test. Animal rights also exist and abusing someone weaker than us is not right. The death of
animals due to an experiment gone wrong is similar to murder of a human who was tested against
his will. In human tests, at least humans are asked whether or not they would like to sign up legally
for being tested. There are legal papers and documents that safeguard the rights of the human
subject and compensate him for any kind of loss. Animals on the other hand, are never asked for
their opinion and have never had their rights safeguarded. The obvious explanation begin they do
not have the understanding capabilities of humans. This does not give us the right to use another life
for our benefits.

To find a cure for cancer, the animal cells are forced to grow abnormally, so that experiments can be
carried out to find a remedy. With stem cell research and genetics getting a push, animals are
subjected to further animal cruelty. Hybrid animals and cloning is carried out on the poor animals
who are injected with genes of other animals within an embryo of another species. The resultant
being a cross, that is either malformed or dead before being born. Do we have the right to reduce
the dignity of animals by forcing mutations on them?

These are just some of the animal testing pros and cons. You can see both the sides of animal testing
facts tilt the scales of the balance equally. Animal testing helps saves lives of millions of humans, but
in turn, thousands of these animals lose their lives. It is an open fact, not all handlers and
researchers handle the animals with care. Computers cannot predict an outcome, just the possibility
and tissue culture cannot predict the physical implications of a drug like rashes, cardiac failure, etc.
Similarly, animal testing cannot accurately prove the implications of drugs and procedures on
humans.

It has been proven that over 92% of drugs that claim to pass the animal trials fail when tested on
humans by the Humane Society of the United States. This debate on animal testing pros and cons
will continue till scientists do not find an alternative to this cruel process of animal experimentation.
You can decide for yourself, whether you are for, against or just a mute spectator to animal testing.
Every coin has two sides, so does animal testing. It is now up to each one of us to decide, which side
do we choose.