Should Animal Testing Be Used For Scientific Or Commercial Testing

© filin174/stock.adobe.com

To access extended pro and con arguments, sources, and discussion questions about whether animals should be used for scientific or commercial testing, go to ProCon.org.

An estimated 26 meg animals are used every year in the United States for scientific and commercial testing. Animals are used to develop medical treatments, determine the toxicity of medications, bank check the condom of products destined for human being use, and other biomedical, commercial, and health intendance uses. Research on living animals has been practiced since at least 500 BC.

Animal testing in the United States is regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA), passed in 1966 and amended in 1970, 1976, and 1985.The AWA defines "animal" equally "any live or dead dog, true cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or such other warm blooded animal." The AWA excludes birds, rats and mice bred for inquiry, cold-blooded animals, and farm animals used for food and other purposes.

A public outcry over animal testing and the treatment of animals in general bankrupt out in the United States in the mid-1960s, leading to the passage of the AWA. An article in the November 29, 1965 issue of Sports Illustrated about Pepper, a farmer's pet Dalmation that was kidnapped and sold into experimentation, is believed to accept been the initial catalyst for the rising in anti-testing sentiment. Pepper died after researchers attempted to implant an experimental cardiac pacemaker in her body.

The COVID-xix (coronavirus) global pandemic brought attending to the debate about beast testing as researchers sought to develop a vaccine for the virus as apace as possible. Vaccines are traditionally tested on animals to ensure their safety and effectiveness. News broke in Mar. 2020 that in that location was a shortage of the genetically modified mice that were needed to examination coronavirus vaccines.

Meanwhile, other companies tried new development techniques that allowed them to skip animal testing and beginning with human being trials. Moderna Therapeutics used a constructed copy of the virus genetic lawmaking instead of a weakened grade of the virus. The FDA approved an awarding for Moderna to begin clinical trials on a coronavirus vaccine on Mar. four, 2020, and the first participant was dosed on Mar. 16, 2020.

PRO

• Animal testing contributes to life-saving cures and treatments.
• Animate being testing is crucial to ensure that vaccines are safe.
• At that place is no adequate alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system.
• Animals are appropriate inquiry subjects because they are similar to homo beings in many means.
• Animals must be used in cases when upstanding considerations forbid the use of human subjects.
• Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing.
• Brute research is highly regulated, with laws in place to protect animals from mistreatment.
• Animals often make amend research subjects than man beings considering of their shorter life cycles.
• Animal researchers care for animals humanely, both for the animals' sake and to ensure reliable test results.
• Animals practise not have rights, therefore information technology is acceptable to experiment on them.
• The vast majority of biologists and several of the largest biomedical and health organizations in the Usa endorse animal testing.
• Some cosmetics and health care products must be tested on animals to ensure their condom.

CON

• Animal testing is savage and inhumane.
• Scientists are able to test vaccines on humans volunteers.
• Alternative testing methods at present exist that tin supervene upon the need for animals.
• Animals are very unlike from human beings and therefore make poor examination subjects.
• Drugs that pass animate being tests are non necessarily condom.
• Animal tests may mislead researchers into ignoring potential cures and treatments.
• Only 5% of animals used in experiments are protected past Usa law.
• Animal tests do non reliably predict results in human being beings.
• There is increasing demand for cruelty-gratis products.
• About experiments involving animals are flawed, wasting the lives of the fauna subjects.
• The Fauna Welfare Act has non succeeded in preventing horrific cases of animal abuse in research laboratories.
• Medical breakthroughs involving animal research may still have been made without the use of animals.

This article was published on March 18, 2020, at Britannica's ProCon.org, a nonpartisan issue-information source.

Source: https://www.britannica.com/story/pro-and-con-animal-testing

Posted by: blanksenone1940.blogspot.com

Share this post