Do animal experiments help us to find cures for human diseases?

Do animal experiments help us to find cures for human diseases?

Line of inquiry: An inquiry into the impact of animal testing

When animal models are employed in the study of human diseases, they are selected frequently because of their similarities to humans in terms of genetics, anatomy and physiology. Also, animal models are often preferable for experimental disease research because of their unlimited supply and ease of manipulation.

The biological similarity between humans and other animals is that they’d have the same organs (heart, lungs, brain etc.) and organ systems (respiratory, cardiovascular, nervous systems etc.) By recreating human genetic diseases in this way we can begin to look for treatments.

The advantage of animal research is that it puts no human lives at risk. It doesn’t put human life at risk. But what’s wrong is that the animal’s life is at risk instead. Experiments can take place to determine if a product or idea will work as intended. If it does, then it can be tested on humans with a lower risk of a negative outcome.

The disadvantage of animal research is that it lessens the value of life. Most animals, once the testing process has been completed, are euthanized. Many of those animals are purposely bred for the experiments being performed as well, which means millions of animals are at a higher risk of suffering from abuse or neglect in a field that is often poorly regulated. This causes a decrease in animal population and can also lead to extinction for some animal species.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Here are some disadvantages, and some alternatives~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Disadvantages:

1. Many of the items that are tested are never used.

Animal testing may provide safety benefits for new products, but some of the items that are tested will never be used. That means animals will likely be sacrificing their lives to determine the safety of a product that a human will never even know was being developed. With no direct societal benefit produced, what is the benefit of an animal suffering from the testing process?

2. It may not offer valid results.

The structure of an animal’s body is very different from the structure of a human’s body. That means animal research can be more unreliable than even researchers claim it may be. Several drugs have passed animal testing, but be harmful to humans. In 2004, the FDA estimated that 92% of drugs that pass their pre-clinical tests, including animal research, fail to reach the market. Recent data suggest that failure rates from animal research to human research could be even higher, at 96%, according to the NIH. Nearly 100 vaccines for HIV showed potential in primates but failed in humans. That means the results that animal research can produce may not even be valid.

3. Animals don’t need to be the “only” method of research.

Although testing living tissues will be beneficial compared to computer simulations in the recent future, there are methods of research that can involve living tissues that don’t put the lives of animals at risk. From living cell lines to cultures and other forms of cell harvesting, there are possibilities available. A cell line from cervical cancer cells taken in 1951 is still being researched, even though the individual died from that cancer in the same year.

Alternatives:

Replacing:

A test method that substitutes traditional animal models with non-animal systems such as computer models or biochemical or cell-based systems, or replaces one animal species with a less developed one (for example, replacing a mouse with a worm).

Reducing:

A test method that decreases the number of animals required for testing to a minimum while still achieving testing objectives.

Refining:

A test method that eliminates pain or distress in animals, or enhances animal well-being, such as by providing better housing or enrichment.