Animal testing is a controversial procedure heavily used in various scientific facilities around the world in order to research the effects of various stimuli on live samples for the benefit of human industry. It's estimated that tens of millions of live animals are used by laboratories worldwide every year for this sole purpose, making this a very real issue to debate in the modern climate. Recently in the UK it's an issue that has reappeared thanks to a new beagle breeding facility that the government plans to use for animal testing purposes. There have been various petitions and rallies held due to the belief that this new facility will cause an increase in the amount of animal testing within the British Isles, although the actual purpose is to allow UK scientific facilities to source their subjects from local and well inspected areas to ensure animal safety standards are met in the procedure. The actual rate of animals used in testing won't dramatically change, with the only difference being test subjects don't have to be flown in from abroad. Despite these misconceptions, animal testing is an issue that divides the country in half, with 50% of adults opposed to animal testing, which when compared to the 10% of biomedical scientists that are opposed to the process is a statistic that hints the British population really don't have a clue on the actual pros and cons of the situation.
In my personal opinion I don't believe animal testing should be banned in the UK quite simply because it works. There is absolutely no way that modern medicinal science could have progressed to anywhere near the level that it has done today if scientists had abolished animal testing. There are alternative methods available for these types of tests that create artificial cell cultures, but these cannot show both the physiological effects and interactions between different organs that a live subject offers. The artificial, or 'in vitro' methods can only be used to make a hypothesis and not a causative link or a longitudinal study that is required for a scientific theory to be accurately produced, which in medicine is a very important issue. The hard truth is that at the current level of science, live specimens are required for any sort of progress to be made that doesn't put human populations at risk. I just don't understand how some people have the ignorance to dismiss this form of science when in the last century it's been responsible for such amazing breakthroughs as blood transfusions, the layout of muscles, the process of physiotherapy, numerous different drugs, hormones such as insulin, cloning, vaccinations and IVF. The California Biomedical Research Association states that almost every medical breakthrough in the last one hundred years can be attributed to animal testing, so surely this process needs to continue if human's are ever going to find cures to diseases such as cancer or AIDS. But I never hear this argument from protesters who seem to value the lives of laboratory animals over that of mankind.
The main opposition to the policy of animal testing comes from animal welfare groups like the death cult of PETA, claiming that an animal should also have rights, and that no human benefit is worth animals suffering. It's that sort of liberal bullshit that has led to the naive views of the public, dismissing the progress achieved by this method all because it's seen as unethical by their biased agenda. Pressure groups do have a point in that some animals are mistreated whilst in care, especially in the US where the Department of Agriculture reports that 97,123 animals experienced pain during the whole of 2010; a figure that is far too high in my opinion. The most famous example often sourced by animal welfare groups are a sample of macaques that were found in animal research facilities with their eyes sewn shut to mimic the conditions of a blind person. One of these monkeys is pictured below, and it does appear that the barbaric actions of a minority have diluted what is effectively a well regulated process. That said example is from 1981, and so cannot be used to criticise modern methods of animal testing that have thankfully been refined and minimised in the last few decades. In the modern age acts like the one below would be liable to criminal charges, and since these acts were passed only two individuals have ever been prosecuted in the UK, indicating that animal abuse in research facilities is a rarity. It simply doesn't make sense to purposely mistreat animals in these facilities as stressed animals lead to invalid results that would make the process pointless, so logically animal welfare is certainly an overblown issue with more modern techniques.
It's also interesting to add that testing on animals provides benefits for them as well. Animal testing has provided humans vaccinations for diseases such as rabies, leukemia and hepatitis, that are commonly administered to animals by veterinary clinics. Organisations such as the AVMA actually endorse animal testing for these reasons despite the fact that like any forward thinking experiments the success rate isn't that high. However this issue is about scaling the benefits that result in the mistreatment of some animals, and like inventions such as the aeroplane there will be casualties on the road to some amazing discoveries that will impact the everyday lives of humans and animals for years to come. To say that animal testing provides humans with no benefits is simply a false statement, and this is why the actions of pressure groups infuriate me, with them often resorting to tactics such as blackmail and domestic terrorism to try and subdue supporters of animal testing. In the past the University of California had to abandon using primates, which provide extremely valuable data, for testing thanks to members being threatened by pressure groups, even planting bombs under their cars and throwing Molotov cocktails inside their family homes. You have to ask the question who the real monsters are here. Is it the researchers exploiting animals for the benefit of humanity, or the extremist group actively trying to end the life of another human being for false claims relating to the mistreatment of animals? Whoever the monster is, there certainly isn't one group that can take the moral high ground.
What really frustrates me about this issue is that there seems to be this persisting myth that scientists are purposely harming the animals, despite all evidence suggesting that these actions are an extreme minority. I commonly see images being shared of the horrors inflicted by laboratories on animals being mistreated over the research into cosmetic and household products, ignoring the fact that it's been illegal in the EU since 1998 to use animals to test for household, cosmetic or tobacco products. Not surprisingly pressure groups are trying to manipulate the public opinion by misinforming them of issues that really don't exist anymore, and certainly not in large enough quantities to provoke a petition. What the pressure groups won't tell you is that laboratories often follow a set of regulations known as 'the three r's'. These are replacement, reduction and refinement. These procedures basically ensure that there isn't an excessive or unnecessary number of animals tested in the sample, and the harm inflicted on them is kept to a minimal level. I know groups such as PETA would have you believe we still live in 1981, but they still fail to find any viable alternatives if animal testing was outlawed by the government. All they can do is source these computer simulations, that as their name suggests are just simulations that cannot be used to make theories on living beings.
To conclude I firmly believe that in order for biological science to push into the unknown, animal testing is a necessary method to produce reliable data on important areas of research. I'm a firm believer that animals should be treated with respect, and so the guidelines that regulate the industry should be closely monitored and implemented on a global scale. Even today in countries such as America, 95% of animals used in testing are not legally protected, and although there are blocks in place regarding the use of endangered species, there are unfortunately still reports of unethical practices that tarnish what should be a praised area of science. I'm pleased to say that in the UK animal welfare is not really the issue, and the media backlash that came with the continuation of animal testing is unfortunately one that dismissed the idea that ceasing these operations would have a catastrophic effect on the progress of science in the UK.
No comments:
Post a Comment