Animal Testing The Activists Side
May 19th 2006 02:14
Category: No Category
Globally, products ranging from soaps to medicinal drugs are tested on animals. In Britain, the law requires that any new drug be tested on at least two different live mammals prior to approval. One of the test mammals must be a large non-rodent. There is a degree of animal protection in British law, the Animal Act of 1986 requires that no animals should be used for product testing if there is a realistic alternative.
Today, I look at the animal rights side.
“The drugs which are used in the UK have been tested on animals but that doesn't mean they needed to be. This is a technology that is decades old.
We can use computer modeling, human tissue cells in the lab, and well-designed studies on human volunteers. All of these things will tell us what happens on humans, unlike animal studies - which don't.
Ninety per cent of drugs that have been animal tested fail in human studies - they never actually make it onto the market, because they don't work.”
It’s a difficult issue. If alternatives are available, it is cruel to use archaic methods to test pharmaceutical drugs. On the other hand, a safety standard has to be maintained and it would be erroneous to not attribute a good deal of current medical development as a direct result of animal testing and experimentation.
Whether animal testing can be rationalized is based on the valuing of human life over animal life. If you believe all animals including humans have an equal right to life, the merits of animal testing hold no value. The scientific side will argue that the animals do not feel any pain or stress as a result of medical testing as they are killed before they have a chance to feel any suffering. Personally I think this is a baseless claim. Surely the animal would experience some sort of distress in an experimental laboratory. To speculate on the pain or stress experienced by an animal is impossible to determine.
| 48 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
