Discuss April Main article: Moral status of animals in the ancient world Aristotle argued that animals lacked reason logosand placed humans at the top of the natural world. Some animals were considered divine, e.
An article published in the esteemed Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine has even evaluated this very claim and concluded that it was not supported by any evidence.
Most experiments on animals are not relevant to human health, they do not contribute meaningfully to medical advances, and many are undertaken simply out of curiosity and do not even pretend to hold promise for curing illnesses.
In fact, many of the most important advances in health are attributable to human studies, including the discovery of the relationships between cholesterol and heart disease and smoking and cancer, the development of X-rays, and the isolation of the AIDS virus.
Between andlife expectancy in the United States increased from 47 to 77 years. Although animal experimenters take credit for this improvement, medical historians report that improved nutrition, sanitation, and other behavioral and environmental factors—rather than anything learned from animal experiments—are responsible for the fact that people are living longer lives.
While experiments on animals have been conducted during the course of some discoveries, this does not mean that animals were vital to the discovery or are predictive of human health outcomes or that the same discoveries would not have been made without using animals.
Human health is more likely to be advanced by devoting resources to the development of non-animal test methods, which have the potential to be cheaper, faster, and more relevant to humans, instead of to chasing leads in often inaccurate tests on animals.
No matter how many tests on animals are undertaken, someone will always be the first human to be tested on. Because animal tests are so unreliable, they make those human trials all the more risky. And of the small percentage of drugs approved for human use, half end up being relabeled because of side effects that were not identified in tests on animals.
Read More Vioxx, Phenactin, E-Ferol, Oraflex, Zomax, Suprol, Selacryn, and many other drugs have had to be pulled from the market in recent years because of adverse reactions experienced by people taking them.
Fortunately, a wealth of cutting-edge non-animal research methods promises a brighter future for both animal and human health. More information about the failure of experiments on animals can be found here.
Physiological reactions to drugs vary enormously from species to species and even within a species. Penicillin kills guinea pigs but is inactive in rabbits.
Aspirin kills cats and causes birth defects in rats, mice, guinea pigs, dogs, and monkeys. And morphine, a depressant in humans, stimulates goats, cats, and horses.
Further, animals in laboratories typically display behavior indicating extreme psychological distress, and experimenters acknowledge that the use of these stressed-out animals jeopardizes the validity of the data produced.
Sophisticated human cell- and tissue-based research methods allow researchers to test the safety and effectiveness of new drugs, vaccines, and chemical compounds. Human tissue-based methods are also used to test the potential toxicity of chemicals and for research into burns, allergies, asthma, and cancer.
Clinical research on humans also gives great insights into the effects of drugs and how the human body works. Researchers can study the working human brain using advanced imaging techniques and can even take measurements down to a single neuron.
However, the return on that investment has been dismal. A survey of 4, experimental cancer drugs developed between and found that more than 93 percent failed after entering the first phase of human clinical trials, even though all had been tested successfully on animals.
If extrapolating from rats to mice is so problematic, how can we extrapolate results from mice, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, cats, dogs, monkeys, and other animals to humans?
The NCI now uses human cancer cellstaken by biopsy during surgery, to perform first-stage testing for new anti-cancer drugs, sparing the 1 million mice the agency previously used annually and giving us all a much better shot at combating cancer.
Furthermore, according to the World Health Organization, cancer is largely preventable, yet most health organizations that focus on cancer spend a pittance on prevention programs, such as public education.
Epidemiological and clinical studies have determined that most cancers are caused by smoking and by eating high-fat foods, foods high in animal protein, and foods containing artificial colors and other harmful additives.Large selection of replacement water filters, reverse osmosis membranes, testing kits and water filtration repair parts.
From one water filter or reverse osmosis membrane to case quantity discounts. Animal testing has an interesting timeline that is fraught with debate over much of its existence.
It is likely that the future will hold continued controversy but decreased use as . The Veterinary Medical Center in Easton, MD. Our animal hospital has experienced and specially trained veterinarians who offer an extensive range of excellent quality medical, diagnostic, surgical, wellness and preventative health care to the small and large animals in the Mid-Delmarva region.
Here are the top reasons to stop animal testing. If these atrocious acts were committed outside laboratories, they would be felonies.
Animal testing for cosmetics is a hot topic in the beauty industry, with most consumers and many companies deciding to avoid products made with animal testing.
After more than two decades following a “no testing on animals” policy, cosmetics giants Avon, Mary Kay, and Estee Lauder have resumed. Footnotes & Sources for Animal Testing.
The background and pro and con arguments were written by regardbouddhiste.com staff based upon input from the following footnotes (directly referenced) and sources (used for general research and not directly referenced).