Much of the data we use in the class comes from non-human animal research. 1) Find a site that uses animal research. It could be a laboratory, a journal article, a video, etc. and discuss the site - What is being studied with what types of animals? What have we learned from the research? How are the animals used? How are they treated? etc. You don't have to answer these questions - use them as a guideline for formulating your comment.
2) Find a site that deals with the down side of animal research - i.e., Where do they go when they are no longer needed? Activist group? Site about ethical treatment, etc? Discuss the site. How does it relate to your site #1 (it might not)? What are the main issues? How are these issues handled with #1? Is the research being done in #1 worth the harm done to the animals?
3) What is your personal opinion of animal research?
1. I found out that OLay (Procter and Gamble) cosmetics does test its products on animals. I couldn’t find too much information other than they use animals to test for allergies to their products. Procter and gamble has many different types of products from cosmetics to household cleaners. They are all tested on animals for allergies. I got the information from http://search.caringconsumer.com/search_company.aspx?Com_Id=853&Donottest=-1&Product=0&Dotest=4 this web site has a complete list of companies that do and do not use animals to test their products. Herbal Essences (Clairol) is said to not be tested on animals but their other products are. The site doesn’t give any information on how the animals are treated but there is an email to contact the company directly.
I also found out on this site that some chemicals are mandated by law to be tested along with the pharmaceuticals. The Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency are in charge of the chemical and drug testing laws.
2. I went to the PETA web site and actually found some good information. http://www.peta.org/ I read a couple of the articles on recent animal abuse cases. There is also information on how you can become an active member of PETA. They also have a link to the caring consumer site I found the companies info on. They list companies that do use animals for research and companies who don’t.
3. I don’t think animal research is all negative. I can understand how animals are used to find a cure for cancer or HIV. I do think the cosmetic testing isn’t necessary. Chemical, pharmaceutical, and disease testing does need to be done. It’s not ethical to test those things on humans. I think the things we can learn from corpses should be taken into account as well. There is also animal research being done to benefit other animals. I personally think that money could be used to better benefit a cure for cancer than a dog organ transplant. I think its ridiculous how much money people spend on surgery for their dogs. I have a cousin that lives in California. She backed over her family dog with her SUV and took it to the vet to see if they could save it. She spent thousands of dollars to save this family dog. Honestly I don’t think she should have spent thousands of dollars on an old dog who is going to die of old age soon anyways. I guess I get my logic from living on a farm. If a dog gets ran over on the road you take it to see if it’s going to be OK, if it cost more than a couple hundred dollars you put it out of its misery. I understand to some people their pets are members of the family but I personally think its ridiculous to spend that kind of money on a dog.
1) http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/31/supp1/13.pdf
In my article, the effects of alcohol on the brain’s neurotransmitters were being studied. The levels of dopamine, serotonin, endogenous opioid peptides, and noradrenalin were measured in rats in order to study if alcohol has reinforcing properties in the brain. Endogenous opioid peptides, are believed to play an important role in alcohol reinforcement, and the reward feeling in the brain may be why people want to drink alcohol .This is based on the fact that when given an opioid blocker, the rats showed a reduced preference for alcohol. This information can then be used to treat substance abuse problems in humans. Developing a drug that will block the reward sensation may help to treat alcoholics. This research article is fairly old and was published in 1995. However, I think it makes a good point about the importance of animal research. The research done on animals has huge implications for human lives.
2) http://caat.jhsph.edu/
This website is based out of John Hopkins University. It’s called the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing. Their purpose is to reduce animal distress, or replace animal testing all together in scientific research. The CAAT believes that animals should never be used in scientific testing no matter the human benefit. They facilitate this by offering research grants to research being done without endangering animals.
3) I believe animal research is acceptable if it is done in a humane way. I believe the benefits of animal research far outweigh the costs, and therefore it must continue to be done. I do not believe animal testing should be done in excess, or that research should be conducted with far more animal participants than necessary. I believe that animal testing has benefits which cannot be achieved in other research formats. I think that animal testing provides an opportunity to see how drugs will play out in real world use as opposed to computer research. Pharmaceutical testing in animals I believe saves human lives. I do disagree with the use of animals for makeup testing, and non life saving research. I think that in these instances, animal research is not necessary and could just as easily be done on human subjects. These products are luxury items.
1. Rather than a specific company's site, I found one http://members.iinet.net.au/~rabbit/aniexp.htm which told of a few of the tests used specifically. It was pretty brutal to read that some company's test their products for eye irritation by applying the product straight onto the eyeball of a conscious rabbit!
2. I found a site http://www.stopanimaltests.com/AnimalsinLabs.asp that has all kinds of information and different links for people to learn more about this cruel and unusual punishment. I never found exactly where animals go after this, but I am big in trying to stop puppy mills in Iowa and can tell you that on a daily basis there are hundreds of not thousands of animals put to sleep because pounds around the country are too full so I can see this being the case, especially if these animals could have a disease or disorder of some kind from testing.
3. I am very against animal testing. If it can be done for a large benefit that's great and if they animals are treated 100% well then that's a different story but I can guarantee this isn't the case no matter how many companies try to say this. There's no way to test all these products without harming or killing animals for our own selfish right to look good. To me, animals have no way to speak for themselves and they have done nothing to deserve inhumane treatment. If we wouldn't do it to our own children we shouldn't do it to animals.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/nov/11/animal-research-oxford-university
1.) In November of 2008, Oxford University opened a new animal research lab. It started being built about 4 years earlier, but stopped being built from July 2004 to November 2005 because of the animal rights protests that were going on outside. In November 2005, Oxford obtianed a court order only allowing protesting to happen once a week so that workers could continue building it. This facility will test new treatments for a wide range of diseases including heart disease, cancer, luekemia, HIV, diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, epilepsy, and arthritis. Oxford has one of the largest places medical research in Europe, and the head of the medical research department said that by having this facility up and running, a lot of 'ground-breaking' work would be done. He also said that they were using animals only when there was no other technique available and that animal research is still necessary in the medical field. Oxford's facility has been praised as being the 'gold-standard' for animals research facilities and is said to have the highest standards of any other animal testing facility in the world.
2.) In the article about Oxford's new lab, a representative from the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) was mentioned so I decided to look at their website (http://www.buav.org/). This website had a lot of different links, news articles, and a section on how to get involved in their campaign. It says that experiments done on animals are immoral, unreliable, and that there are alternatives to it. People from the BUAV had gone undercover to a few different facilities and had found horrible conditions and inhumane tests being done to a lot of animals and had videos and pictures from a lot of them. I think that since Oxford is the one of Europe's leading medical research centers and they have said that they would have the highest standards of animal testing in the world, a close eye would be kept on them to ensure that they were performing humane tests. I think that because the research done at Oxford is for medical purposes and because they are looking for treatments and cures for several different diseases that effect millions of people, their work is justifiable.
3.) I'm not a huge fan of animal research, but I can understand why it is still being done. I think that many of the experiments being done to animals are not conducted in the most humane way, but in these tests and also tests that are humane sometimes the findings and consequently the drugs that are created as a result greatly benefit the rest of society and so they are necessary. I would hope that soon, with new technology, there would be no need to test on animals, but I think that even if the technology was available that it would still be done because that is how it has been done for so long. I do not agree with any form of animal testing that is done not for medical/pharmaceutical reasons.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Animal-Testing
1. This websites is for animal testing and says that it has provided improvements in our understanding of humans. Without our animal research, it’s definite that what we have learned to enhance life would still remain closed off to us. Some examples would be curing diseases, creating vaccines, and resolve medical tribulations with the use of animals. Now, animal research is helping in the progress against cancer, AIDS, and Alzheimer’s disease. Another point that the website brings up, is that animal research not only saves human lives but animal lives as well.
http://www.stopanimaltests.com/animalTesting101.asp
2. This website is against animal research because of its cruelty to animals. It has statistics like 115 million animals are killed in the laboratories every year in the United States. It also says research includes pumping chemicals into rats’ stomachs, taking muscle tissues from dogs, and putting baby monkeys into isolation cages far from the mothers. They also go into saying that we, the people, don’t get accurate statistics of the amount of animals used. This is because the government has deemed some animals as not important and don’t need to be included. This site also says that animal research is wrong because us humans are making a huge profit off of using animals because they can’t defend themselves and we choose to use them for experiments; they don’t volunteer. This website includes a video about some research that has been done and shows the effects of the research on the animals.
3. I know that animal research has helped develop a lot of vaccines and ways to prevent diseases. It’s hard to say if I’m in support of it because I am a huge animal lover. I am completely against research that has to torment animals to get good results; even if it’s a cure to cancer I’m still not in support of it. We don’t know how much pain the animal is going through or what it’s thinking; we should not be the ones choosing its fate if it ends badly. However, with the guidelines set up today, I can be in support of animal research. Research is not supposed to cause any pain to animals, and if putting them down, they do so without any pain. It’s sad to think that we would put an animal down for research, but if you think about it, there are so many animals that die every year at the pound and that has no gain for humans. We have all those animals dying, yet I hear more people fighting animal research then saving those innocent animals without homes. In conclusion, I’m in support of animal research as long as they are not torturing the animal or doing unnecessary research. I think animals can provide us with a lot of knowledge and help us discover cures for some of the awful diseases that kill people everyday.
1)The site I found is an article talking about a study done on rats and it looked at the social and psychological risk factors that could possibly contribute to breast cancer. The rats were kept in groups as well as alone and also exposed to the scent of predators to increase stress hormones. All of these things were looked at to see how they affected breast cancer. It didn't really say how the rats were treated in this study but I do think that it is an important thing to look at. Breast cancer is a serious illness that affects a lot of women and this study is helping in finding out what some of the causes may be.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20091209/Research-study-on-breast-cancer-susceptibility-in-rats.aspx
2)The second site I found was a humane society site that talked about the humane use of animals in research. It wasn't against animal research but it stated that over 95% of animals used in research are not being protected under the Animal Welfare Act. it was lobbying for new research techniques that are safe for animals. It would be interesting to know if the rats in the first study were protected under this act or not.
http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/biomedical_research/
I also included a link to the Animal Welfare Information Center site if you wanted to reference what that was while reading the humane society site.
http://awic.nal.usda.gov/nal_display/index.php?info_center=3&tax_level=1&tax_subject=169
3) I don't really like the idea of hurting animals and making them sick however I understand the need for it. I do not think that cosmetics should be tested on animals because those things are not life or death for anyone. If we couldn't have new kinds of makeup or lotion we would all survive. However we will not all survive Cancer or other serious diseases. i do think that researchers should do all they can do not use animals and when they do have to used them they should try to be as humane as they can be.
I found this video on youtube of a research lab located in Los Angeles, California. Some of the animals they have are mice to unlock the mysteries of down syndrome, pigs that have coronary arterial stints used to treat cardiovascular disease, zebra fish to find treatments for pituitary cancer, and they have dogs that have telecommuting devices in them to measure inter-atrial and ventricular pressure to treat heart failure patients. I liked this video because it show that there facility is very clean and well maintained. The animals are well cared for by passionate animal lovers and are used in humane ways.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGy1QHPyvtM
Here is a second video about a dog named Jake who was used in a research project. It is very interesting and it fits in my ethics of animal research because he had a tumor in his chest and that the malignant melonoma had spread. They kept him alive for a very long time thanks to a vaccine that reduced the tumor and stopped the spreading of melonoma. Watch it. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCElOlRX75c&feature=related
2) This website strongly suggests that animals not only react differently than humans to different drugs, vaccines, and experiments, they also react differently from one another. Ignoring this difference has been and continues to be very costly to human health.
For example, the dangers of animal testing is the Thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s and 1970s. Thalidomide, which came out on the German market late in the 1950s, had previously been safety tested on thousands of animals. It was marketed as a wonderful sedative for pregnant or breastfeeding mothers and it supposedly caused no harm to either mother or child. Despite this "safety testing", at least 10,000 children whose mothers had taken Thalidomide were born throughout the world with severe deformities.
Clioquinol is another example of a drug that was safety tested in animals and had a severely negative impact on humans. This drug, manufactured in Japan in the 1970s, was marketed as providing safe relief from diarrhea. Not only did Clioquinol not work in humans, it actually caused diarrhea. As a result of Clioquinol being administered to the public, some 30,000 cases of blindness and/or paralysis and thousands of deaths occurred.
Even though pharmaceuticals are routinely tested on animals, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that 100,000 people every year are killed by prescription drugs and more than 2 million are hospitalized as a result of prescription drugs
http://www.ohsukillsprimates.com/AgainstAnimalTesting.htm
3) Right off the bat, I hate animal research. Because the first thing that comes to mind is the torturing of animals. I know not all research labs are like this, but I always wonder how MANY are like this, out of all the labs in the world. One can only imagine a lot do this. Seeing the footage of animal cruelty will always stay in my mind. I do not want to think nor talk about it. It makes me want to cry. The first 2 links that I posted are great examples of what animal labs should be. They strive to find a cure for animals and humans at the same time.
1) http://www.clorox.com/
One site believed to conduct tests on animals was the Clorox company. Upon investigating the website I found no information on animal testing at all. The company is more focused on showing their advertisements and convincing people that they are making strides to go green. Overall I got the impression that the company is trying to “sweep the issue under the rug” because of the failure to mention of any animal testing.
2) http://www.geari.org/animal-testing-information.html
The site that I found that talked about animal testing was a site for the group GEARI. GEARI stands for Group for the Education of Animal-Related Issues. This site had headings and general information on animal testing. It served as a stepping stone for information to be conveyed to people seeking this information. The subheadings directed you to the proper information on subjects such as companies that test on animals/companies that do not, proper testing hints and general information on the types of tests being conducted. There were two tests mentioned on the site and they were Eye irritancy tests and Acute toxicity tests. An eye irritancy test consists of taking substances being researched and dropping them into the eyes of animals (albino rabbits were mentioned). The animals are rendered helpless as a result of the contraption used for such tests and are not given any pain reliever. The researchers record the amount of damage and testing can last for days. Reactions are awful (blindness, swollen eyelids, etc..) and the rabbits being used have their eyelids forced open with clamps. The last sentence mentioned was that the animals often attempt to escape the torture and as a result break their necks. The Acute Toxicity tests consist of poisoning animals to see how much poison is too much. Often the substances are forced into the animal via forcing tubes down the animals throat or cutting holes to get the toxin into the animal. Since the Clorox company dose not mention anything on their website, it is hard to make a comparison on the two website. Overall I feel that the tests I read about are being used by the Clorox company. I also feel that the research dose not outweigh the life of a harmless animal.
3)My personal opinion was changed after conducting this assignment. My first thought in class was that the only reason we care is because of the emotional attachment we have to the domesticated animals being tested upon. After getting all of the information I feel that no animal testing should be conducted. The products being tested on animals are not necessary for humans to survive in everyday life. The companies that do animal testing should be reprimanded for their actions and in some cases shut down. I feel that is the general public was to read this information than animal testing would be a thing of the past.
1. I found a website that details the use of Rhesus macaque monkeys in experimental testing of Antiretroviral treatment in hopes of finding an efficient vaccine for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Rhesus macaque monkeys are used because they originate in Asia rather than Africa, and therefore have no immunity to Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV) and can provide similar test subjects to human beings. The article did not list specifics, but insists that from monkey research, we have uncovered many significant discoveries that have strengthened our understanding of the development of SIV and HIV. The site contains many useful links on the subject of vivisection in the quest to cure HIV in it's references section.
http://www.avert.org/hiv-animal-testing.htm
2. The second site I found states that the world's largest consumer product company, Procter & Gamble (P & G), admits to using guinea pigs, ferrets, rabbits, mice, and hamsters for "product safety research." The site insists that because other companies produce similar products without the use of animal reserach, P & G's use of animal research is purely out of greed. One test, in particular, involved the death of one thousand rats, mice, and hamsters when they were placed in sealed boxes and forced to inhale air contaminated with nanosoot particles. The reason for this research was to test the effects of chemicals used in the development of a new line of Olay skin cream. The site contains many other examples animals used in harmful experiments of frivolous products.
http://www.uncaged.co.uk/pg.htm
3. Personally, I am an advocate of vivisection. I believe there are many important implications for a better life in humans as well as animals as a direct result of animals being used in research. I believe there are certain kinds of treatment and vaccinations (especially with the development of the HIV vaccination, as mentioned earlier) that can only be tested on animals due to risks that may be involved with the experimental drugs. However, I am very passionate about animals and I see problems in certain types of research that involves animals. From my point of view, if there are alternative methods to vivisection in testing relatively unimportant products such as makeup and hygiene products, it should be a company's obligation to use these methods, regardless of what loss may result in profit.
http://www.arvo.org/eweb/dynamicpage.aspx?site=arvo2&webcode=AnimalsResearch
1)ARVO is The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology. They frequently use animals for research. They say, "the potential benefits to human and animal health outweigh the cost in animal lives." They also say that animals should not be subjected to avoidable distress and discomfort. In certain situations where distress or discomfort may occur, analgesics and/or anesthesia is used. ARVO follows all the rules and regulations for animal research such as Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. They also sometimes blind the animals during experiments as an accidental result of the procedure but state that risks of creating a handicap in an animal must be "justified." ARVO is allowed to breed genetically impaired animals if they have special justifications.
http://www.stopanimaltests.com/us-fda.asp
2)This website begins by saying that the FDA requires certain testing before a product can be sold. The site lists 3 categories of animal testing: drugs, biologicals, and medical devices. In drug testing, thousands of animals die not to mention all the animals who suffer short-term to lifelong side-effects and suffering. It is also said that animal testing is not sufficient in drug testing because the species of animals used and humans differ greatly.
Biologicals are vaccines, hormones, antibodies, and blood products, which are derived from a living organism. In a test for an oral polio vaccine, monkeys receive the vaccine, are observed for 3 weeks for signs of paralysis, and then killed and examined.
Safety of medical devices is tested on animals. Because the devices are made for humans, larger animals are used for testing such as pigs, sheep, and dogs. The harm of these animals is pointless because the anatomy of their bodies is not similar enough to humans to provide any useful information.
3)I really cannot believe some of the things I read and saw. Animal testing is disgusting. Even if it does greatly advance medical solutions, I cannot make myself believe that animals are here on earth for scientists to torture and dissect. Learning about animal testing made me so sad. I love animals and anyone who knows me has heard me say that. I don't believe animals should be subjected to harmful experiments for any reason even if there is a "justification" behind it. I see myself as pretty open minded but this is one subject I have to stand firm on. Harming and killing innocent animals is wrong.
Sex differences in nicotine sensitization and conditioned hyperactivity in adolescent rats neonatally treated with quinpirole: Role of D2 and D3 receptor subtypes
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bne/123/6/1296.html
To boil it down to what it really is in essence, this is a journal article on the sex differences of nicotine exposure. This clearly is not an acceptable experiment to conduct on human beings, so the subjects for this study are rats. Not only does this article discuss the sex differences of nicotine on rats, it also discusses how nicotine works on the brain of adolescent rats. As far as the treatment of the subjects goes, the article reports that they followed the APA Standards of Care and Use of Animals in Research. Many people, myself included, might not fully understand what this means. ESSENTIALLY, animals are to be treated humanely. Cared for, treated appropriately, administered the same care that a human would receive in medical and surgical procedures. If the animal must be exterminated, it must be done quickly, and as painlessly as possible.
More on that here.
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/code-1992.aspx#6.20
2) I chose to use one of the most common animal rights protection groups (PETA) for my alternative view website. PETA disapproves of ANY research done on animals, and I can partially sympathize with this due to my love of animals, but research is a vital key to human growth. I can't say I APPROVE of ALL research conducted on animals, but if it is KNOWN that the pain on the animals is minimal.
http://www.peta.org/actioncenter/testing.asp
3) I've got mixed feelings on research conducted on animals. My basic feelings on it are chances are if it shouldn't be done on humans, it shouldn't be done on another living creature, but I do believe that there are some acceptable circumstances.
http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2010/01/14/technology-aims-to-replace-animal-testing.html
1) I found an article from US News talking about a new chip from a company called Hurel. It is being called the Hurel chip. It is supposed to act as human skin and chemicals that represent the bodies complex immune system. This chip would go to replace cosmetic testing on animals. L'Oreal was heavily involved in the testing and funding of this new chip. The main concern here however is not ethic. It was estimated in the article that it cost around a billion dollars to develop new drug. if this chip were perfected then it could shave up to $100 million dollars off of the total cost and save thousands of animal lives. It would mainly go to replace mice and guinea pigs in the laboratory. Currently, scientists test for allergic reactions on these animals by applying the cosmetics in question into the inside of the ear. After this is done the animal is killed and dissected to be studied. This new chip would help replace these things.
2) http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk/using-animals-testing-pros-versus-cons.html
This site discusses some of the various cons of animal testing. The treatment of animals in experimentation is sometimes cruel and unusual. Since government regulations, however, these setting have been improved and the amount of testing has decreased. Even in Europe they are banning the testing of cosmetic products on all animals. This website talked about generic cons of animal testing. It is an extraordinary cost to care, feed, house, and test them. Also, there can be a chance that the products being tested will have no bearing on a human body. In other words, it may not be affective in a human the same way it was a rat.
My #1 site and this one do not really have much in common besides the cost issue. The chip would really help to reduce the cost of animal testing, and may eventually make it irrelevant. The cost of the research for the Hurel chip is well worth effert and money spent. It will save animal lives and give us a direct link between humans and their allergic reactions. There will be no need to decipher evidence from animals and try to relate it to our species.
3) I am personally for animal testing. In some cases suffering and inhumane treatment is an obvious concern. However, there are many positives to animal testing. Many medical products/treatments are tested and perfected on animals. For instance, the smallpox vaccine came from bovine testing, diabetes can be controlled with insulin which was tested on dogs and fish, horses also helped develop the vaccine for tetanus. If we did not test on animals, possibly, these medical advances might have never been made. I believe it is our species responsibility to not expose these animals to unnecessary cruelty and abuse.
1) Site in Support of Animal Research:
http://www.fbresearch.org/education/tabid/377/default.aspx
This site serves as a public relations site in favor of animal research. It seeks to explain the advancements medical made possible through animal research. According to this site some of these advances include life-saving vaccinations, and surgical procedures for both humans and animals as well.
2) Site in Support of Alternatives to Animal Research:
http://altweb.jhsph.edu/about_us/
The purpose of my second site is to advance medical research forward so that we are relying less and less on using animals in the advancement of medicine. This site proposes that we can use:
* "Synthetic skin," called Corrositex
* Computer modeling
* Improved statistical design
* The Murine Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA)
I like that the two sites I found are both informative with an intent to educate the public. While each has their own agenda, the make a good case for their positions. The first site promotes the continuation and support using appeals to expert opinion and tradition - which isn't necessarily logical, but certainly works in making a point. The second site is more informational overall, and does a really good job of maintaining a balanced approach with the intent of transitioning and supporting the move away from animal-based research. It offers opportunities for grants, and educational programs to help researchers find new ways to solve the medical issues that we face.
3) I feel that this is a very complex issue, and attempt to avoid extreme or fanatical viewpoints in my thinking because there are always exceptions to every rule. That being said, I do think that conducting research on animals will one day (hopefully soon) come to be seen as a primitive and barbaric step forward in our search for medical advancement, and we will find better ways that do not assume humans are the most special species on this planet, and allow us to find the cures we seek for the ailments we suffer as human (or non-human) animals.
As you know many of the things we discuss in this class are first discovered by animal research. There are a lot of different opinions about animal research, and whether it is ethical or not. The website I looked at involving animal research focused on animal research and finding the cure for HIV. http://www.avert.org/hiv-animal-testing.htm This website explains the pros and cons of animal testing, and I feel is an unbiased website that mentions the testing of Rhesus Macaques monkeys in the search for finding a cure for AIDS/HIV.
The website explains how AIDS is a virus that is specific only to humans, meaning no other animal has ever had AIDS. Instead, animals such as monkeys and chimpanzees have something that is called SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus) which is believed to be the virus that HIV originated from. In research chimpanzees are artificially injected with HIV, but they have a very effective immune system that is built up, because of the prevalence of SIV, therefore, it makes it difficult to know if the drug is actually working. Because of this primates are not used very widely in the research of HIV. There is one exception, the Rhesus macaques is used widely in HIV research, because these primates are from Asia and not Africa so their immune systems have not been exposed to SIV. This website specifically mentions one study done with Rhesus macaques in 2006 where scientist were looking for the effects of alcohol on SIV, and found that feeding monkeys large quantities of alcoholic beverages or “binge drinking” could significantly speed up the rate at which HIV progressed on to AIDS. (De Boer) This finding means that there will be a greater emphasis on moderate drinking for people HIV positive. It could slow down the progress of AIDS and give them a few more years to live. This website didn’t specifically mention how the animals were treated or how they were handled during the research, but I can’t imagine that injecting animals with HIV, or feeding them alcohol is very healthy for the monkeys. It did mention the pros and cons of animal research and talked about the major advances that research has made from animal testing in finding a cure for HIV.
2) The website I found that deals with the down side of animal testing is from http://www.stopanimaltests.com/animalTesting101.asp . Stop Animal Testing is a website that was established by PETA. It focuses on spreading awareness about animal testing and the cruelty of it. It has links that show animals that are used in Government training programs, international testing programs, consumer product companies, and many more. It doesn’t specifically mention where the animals go when they are done being researched, but it does get into more specifics when you click on the links that are specific to a certain research experiment that was done. This website has a link that suggests alternatives to animal testing that is extremely interesting. It lists all the ways that you can get around testing on animals.
This relates to the first website in many ways. It discusses testing on chimpanzees and baboons, and it also discusses the cons to animal testing which the first website did also. PETA is working to ban all types of animal research, and they are definitely working to have more humane treatment done on the animals since ending research on animals is not going to happen in the near future. PETA would definitely find that the research that was happening in the first website very unethical and very inhumane. Feeding animals alcohol and injecting them with the HIV virus is not a nice way to treat animals, and is very dangerous for the animal. HIV is a serious problem, and it is something that needs to be research and a cure needs to be found. I agree that research should be done on animals and if it was me or the animal I would choose to have the research done on the animal, but it still breaks my heart to know that they have to endure this type of treatment.
http://www.articlemyriad.com/argument_animal_research_benefits.htm
1. As we know, animal research has been a controversial issue faced by many people today I chose to look at this because it was in favor of animal research. This site basically talked the positive aspects for using animals for search purposes. They believe that there are many more benefits for testing animals than consequences. Through animal research, they have had a better understanding for discovering and treating diseases in humans. The scientific rationale underlying the use of animals in biomedical research is that a living organism provides an interactive, dynamic system that can be observed and manipulated experimentally. As a result of this it investigates mechanisms of normal functions of disease. Some diseases being tested with applying certain treatments are HIV, cancer, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and many more. There was a survey conducted to see how many psychologist use animals for research purposes and about ¾ of them participated and believed in animal research. The argument this site is making is that the big picture is being missed throughout the controversy. Animals can be used for research by using a strong set of ethical guidelines which prevent such cruelty towards them. “Animals used in research have provided the medical community with valuable knowledge resulting in the improved treatment of a number of illnesses, including “addiction, anxiety disorders, phobias, incontinence, ruminative vomiting… schizophrenia, depression, retrograde amnesia, and a range of other psychological phenomena.” The site made a strong point that said due to a few high profile cases that have shown the misuse of animal research people begin to think that everybody is misusing it.
2. http://www.buzzle.com/articles/argument-against-animal-testing.html
This was a site I found that oppose animals being tested for research purposes. They came out very strong in stating that there wasn’t anything as useless and harmful than animal research. Dr Fergie Woods said that “he has been studying medicine for 35 years and her didn’t know of one animal experiment that has been helpful in the advancement of medical science.” The argument presented on this site is that the practical and humanitarian justification of animal testing must be called into question when you consider other similar evil practices like imperialism and slavery, which were at one time most certainly acceptable and useful to their perpetrators. Also they allege that animals react completely different from humans where drugs, experiments and vaccines are concerned, but they also tend to react differently from each other. By ignoring these differences, this will continue to be extremely costly to human health. An example the site used was the thalidomide tragedy. “When it comes to the dangers of animal experimentation would have to be the Thalidomide Tragedy of the 60’s and 70’s. Thalidomide was a drug that came out of the German market and was previously considered to be safely tested on thousands and thousands of animals. It was then marketed as a wonder drug; an amazing sedative for breastfeeding or pregnant mothers and it supposedly could cause no harm to either the mother or the child. Despite this apparent ‘safety testing’, tens of thousands of children whose mothers had used this drug were born with severe deformities.” In talking about the HIV virus and cancer, they believe that it is ineffective to use animals for studying these diseases because they can’t acquire them in the first place. In relation to the first sight it talked about the argument for animals being misused and it also elaborated about the medical issues as well. The main point this site was trying to make is that it is more ineffective to use animals in research versus the fact that animals are being mistreated.
3. At first I was for the use of animal research in fact I still believe that it can enhance the knowledge about psychological issues as well as medical ones. In looking at information on both sides of the argument, it’s hard for me to say whether it is right or wrong. Clearly there are pros and cons for both sides, but the sites I found stated facts as well as theories to support both sides of the story. I think the opposing side went into more depth when stating their argument in regards to the facts backing up their opinion. I still see how it can actually assist humans with information regarding medical and psychological practices. Also testing vaccines on animals is better than testing on humans because humans would be more likely to die. Then you have a serious ethical and moral dilemma to deal with.
1) http://research.uiowa.edu/animal/?get=home
The first website that I found is The University of Iowa's website on animal research. It does not talk much about their research, but more on the animals they house, rates, requirements and guidelines for using animals on campus in research, and resources to use in case of concerns on animal research/testing. Some of the animals that they house include: mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, and rats.
2)http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=91
The second website went into detail about animal cruelty and how companies have other choices of testing but still choose to use the animals. It also discussed in some detail what exactly done to animals during some research and statisitcs on animal deaths due to animal cruelty forom testing and research. PETA talks about alternatives for animal testing and also about people who boycott products from companies who participate in animal research.
I think that research being done at Iowa is probably serving a good purpose. It is a school know for the medical field. Also, on the website it gave quite a bit of information on all of the guidelines and paperwork that needs to be followed before being allowed to test on animals.
3) My opinion on animal research is that if it's being done for a medical purpose that is eventually going to help the well-being of humans I'm all for it. I also think that there needs to be less cruelty and more regulations though. Because of the fact that animals are simular to humans we need to use them because we dont always have humans willing to participate in studies and research. Overall, there are compelling arguments for both sides of the issue, but for me if the research is serving a good purpose and the animals aren't being tortured, it should be okay to do.
If you know anyone who needs mutant rats, here's the spot to order them! http://www.harlan.com/
Ok, so I'm sure none of us need rats to perform any sort of research on, but there is an awfully cute picture of a hairless mouse if thats your thing. This site seems to be more for those who want mice and rats for medical research, but also has information on how to sign up to learn surgical procedures by training on dogs. From what i gather, harlan labs will perform a variety of strange tests on these animals, or provide you with your own animals to poke and prod at your leisure. a large portion of the site is dedicated to specifying the types of training done, the different research models supported, and a lot of information on the humane treatment of the animals provided through the company.
http://www.sniksnak.com/aavs4.html
This website is anti-testing, specifically for product research. What I enjoyed was learning a bit about specific procedures that are commonly used in the product testing procedure. Wow... some people are really sadists when it comes to what they are willing to do to animals. the site does give credit to the usefulness of most medical animal research, but remains adamant that animal research for product testing has been proven to be unnecessary. There is a long list of different procedures that can be used that do not use animals and still effectively test many common products before they are released to the public. I think that even though the site is biased against animal testing, they have a good argument with lots of support for their views which makes them seem legit instead of just kooky.
in my own personal opinion, I support animal research in the medical field and don't think animals have much of a service in product testing. I'm a bit of a hippie so my question is why the heck we need products near us that could cause physical harm? my laundry soap shouldn't irritate my skin, my trick to a clean floor?, vinegar, not a nice chemical gleam like the one off the mr. clean mans head. bunnies don't look quite as cute when they wear blush, and no animal needs to wear my perfume... dogs are supposed to smell like dogs. medical research is another thing, i like to know my prescriptions wont kill me and my surgeon knows what he's doing. I like little critters, I've had pet rats, and I don't want them dying for an unreasonable cause. however, if killing a few mice can cure diseases, then why not?
http://www.aavs.org/researchPrimates.html
On this website I found that there are verities of animals being used for testing such as dogs, cats, non-human primates, guinea pigs, hamsters, rabbits, and farm animals.
The one animal that I found that was close to us as humans are the non-human -primates such as chimpanzees. It describes that the chimpanzee are used for a verity of biomedical projects relating to infections disease agents the AIDS virus, malaria, TB, Lyme disease, Ebola, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, drug abuse, xenotransplation , toxicology, vaccinations, surgery and biopsy.
https://www.chimphaven.org/gift-haven.cfm
Chimp haven is an organization that takes in chimpanzee for development and rehabilitation after they are no longer needed for research. Developed in 1995 by professionals who studied in primatlological, pharmaceutical, animal protection, zoos, and the business community this allows the chimpanzees’ to live in a natural environment as well as allows natural observation research projects, and gives support in primate welfare.
Animal Welfare Act:
http://awic.nal.usda.gov/nal_display/index.php?info_center=3&tax_level=3&tax_subject=182&topic_id=1118&level3_id=6735
The Animal Welfare Act was signed into law in 1966. It is the only Federal law in the United States that regulates the treatment of animals in research, exhibition, transport, and by dealers. Other laws, policies, and guidelines may include additional species coverage or specifications for animal care and use, but all refer to the Animal Welfare Act as the minimum acceptable standard. The Act was amended six times (1970, 1976, 1985, 1990, 2002, 2007) and is enforced by the USDA, APHIS, Animal Care agency.
I understand the ethics and moral issues and concepts of the needs for medical purposes. The need for animal testing is better than using medical testing on humans, if these test theories, hypothesis, trails, and studies are used to save people (mankind) or the greater good then it is okay to do it.
But it does violate the rights of animals, because they never asked to be injected with a virus or a disease, what come into mind when I think of it is conscious, does a animal have the ability to feel emotion or pain. The systems of depression, anxiety, post traumatic stress disorder is a sign that animals do feel emotion, and then I would say no.
The break through that science has come to see is the use of vaccines that do help us live longer lives, stopping us from getting diseases. The use of chicken embryos for vaccines which are mandatory by the center of diseases and control as new born and the elderly age such as the following website.. http://www.cdc.gov/
1) The website I found (http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk/) was a very broad site that talked about animal research in general. It looked at both the positive and negative sides of doing animal research. What they talk about for the pros is that it helps a lot with medical research primarily dealing with aids and finding drugs for different treatments. It helps with insulin, antibiotics, vaccines and many different types of medical supplies. They try to make the point of how they are doing animal testing to help out humans and insure that we will stay healthy longer and live better lives because of some of the medicines that we are finding while doing different types of animal research.
2) The con side of the argument makes many good points also but the major thing that they argue is the sake of the animal. They are saying that we are taking for granted that we are not supposed to be harming and killing these animals the way that we are. Saying that a major amount of animals that are used are stored in captivity and actually never get to live a normal animal life. Basically they are used as "guinea pigs" there whole life and at the end of it all they are killed and the process continues. It looks at the different things like the cost of doing animal research. For example tending to the animals and feeding them.
The website also talks about different alternatives that you can use to help reduce doing animal research. They are starting to try and use techniques that help eliminate the amount of animals that everyone is using while still getting as much valuable information that they can.
3) I think that animal research is a necessary evil, however I think it is something that needs to be done in moderation and only for certain things. I believe that animal research has helped us come this far and also live longer and healthier lives as humans. However I also understand that amount of torture that different animals have had to go through and I don't think that is acceptable either. I think animal research should be reserved for medical purposes and only for benefiting the humans health. The research that is being used for different types of hair products or clothes or anything that doesn't benefit humans medically should not be used.
1) When I started looking for information on animal research I went to a basic site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing to get some basic information on exactly what defines animal testing and basic information. This site describes animal research as the use of non-humans in espeerimentations. It states that over 50-100 million vertebrate animals are used every year. These experiments and research are conducted at Universities, medical schools, pharmeutices companies, farms, and commercial facilities that provide animal-testing services. The site also discusses animal right groups such as PETA and BUAV and their concern against animal research. These groups argue that animal research is cruel, poor scientific practice, poorly regulated,and the costs of animal research outweigh the benefits of it. Since this site was very basic and did not supply that much information I decided to go to the animal right PETA's homepage to learn more information on animal research.
2) When I went to PETA's homepage there was a link to another site http://www.peta.org/actioncenter/testing.asp where I found more information on animas testing. This site stated that many household products and costemtics are tested on animals and millions of animals are gtortured and killed every year due to this. These tests include companies pumping thier products into the stomaches of animals, rubbing their products on animal's skin, squirting their products in animal's eyes, and forcing them to inhale their products as aresol sprays. This site says that this kind of testing is exptremely dangerous and unreliable becuase animals differ from human greatly.
3) I do not necessarly agree with animal testing, but I can see why it could be beneficiary. I agree that animals are much different from humans so I do not know or really agree that whatever affects the animals in these tests would have the same affect on humans. I also beleive that some of the animal testing they do on animals is unnecessary and extremely cruel. I think they could find different ways to test their products rather than hurting animals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlNDbujYfmE
1. I chose to watch a YouTube video that showed several tests that they do on animals. The first test showed was called the Draize test. And it is done on a rabbit and they apply lipstick to the rabbit's eye for 4 hours a day for 14 days. This can cause redness, swelling, discharge, hemorrhaging, cloudiness, ulceration, or blindness. After the test is done, it states that the rabbit's eye is much different than that human eye. The next test shown is a Skin Test. It is done on guinea pigs. The guinea pigs fur is shaved off and then chemicals are then poured on the skin to test the effects of the chemicals. The skin is then irritated and it states that "the pain is beyond imagination". It also states that the skin tests are used mostly for hair sprays and pesicides. Another test shown is the Lethal Dose test. The lethal dose is so much higher than any human could handle, but yet they are testing it on animals? They mostly run these tests on mice. After the mice are force fed the insecticides their bodies go into culvusions that normally last 14 hours. If the mice die, the researchers then try the test over with a smaller dosage of insecticides, but this explains why the test is called the Lethal Dose test.
2. The site that I found arguing against animal testing is http://www.buzzle.com/articles/argument-against-animal-testing.html. After the animals are done being tested they are often adopted by families, but some animals dont make it past the testing stage. The author of the article states that animal testing is not worth the torturing of animals. She states that many people justify the torturing of animals by saying that they are finding a cure for cancer and other diseases. She states that they have been wasting millions and millions of dollars and several decades devoted to animal testing, but nothing has been found to cure cancer or others. They are just using the testing for cosmetics and other such things that don't help our society as a whole. This article related to the video posted above by supporting the thought that animal testing is torturing the animals. It also states in both places that these products that animals are used for testing are usually cosmetics and pesicides as well as other chemicals. And all are just torturing the animals. There is nothing very benificial being tested on the animals so why are they doing it?
3. Personally, I dont like the thought of animal testing. I don't like to see animals being treated like that. It makes me sad and it is hard for me to watch. Especially when the products harm the animals. Even if it is done with a rat or mouse or other animals that I dont personally like. I don't like thinking that the makeup that I put on each morning killed however many animals because of its harmful effects. But I do agree with the statement that there are many things that humans can use today due to animal testing. I guess I'm just oblivious to the fact that these products are being tested on animals. Its not something that I think about regularly. But overall, I don't like the fact that animals are being tortured just so that we can have nice things that really dont make a difference in our daily lives.
1). I found a site that discusses many household products that I wouldn't even think of that have been tested on animals. The products are: Tide laundry detergent, Sure deoderant, clearasil, and Clairol hair dye. These products are tested on a variety of animals: Fish, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. Animals are used to test these products because they have brains, hearts, and other organs that are very similar to humans, which makes animals the most accurate way to test products. Some of the testings done on these animals were very cruel and injustice. One example was a company testing eye cream and they tested it by rubbing the cream in a rabbits eye to see if it would case irritation. Alternative testing is now being used on some products because of organizations like the CCIC and the Doris Day Animal League. Research has found that inVitro and skin patch testing methods can be used instead of animals.
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Animal%20Testing/Industry_Science/Alternatives%20to%20animal%20testing.htm
2.) After animals are used for testing a product they are generally kept in the laboratory to be re-used on other studies. In some longitudinal studies, animals must be kept for a while to collect data overtime, and in some experiments, the animals tissues or organs are needed and in these instances the animal will be humanely put down. Most animals are not returned to their homes because most are bred in captivity for the specific use of research. These animals would not survive in the wild because of their captivity.
http://www.gsk.com/research/about/about_animals_faq.html
Another website I found discussed reasons why animal experimenters do their testings on animals and some counterpoints to these reasons. One quote from animal experimenters was, "If we didn't use animals, we'd have to test new drugs on people." The counterpoint was that new drugs are already being tested on people and because animal testing can be unreliable, they make those human trials more risky. The Food and Drug administration found that only 8 percent of drugs that pass animal testings actually make it to the shelves in markets. Another quote and probably the most controversal is that, "Many experiments are not painful to animals and are therefore justified". The counterpoint states that animals in laboratories endure lives of stress, isolation, deprivation, trauma, and depression. Many animals are handled roughly and unfairly even for just routine monitoring. The animals can also be drugged, tortured from testing products such as buring dye or irritating cream.
http://www.stopanimaltests.com/f-pointcounterpoint.asp
3.) In my opinion, there is an extent to animal testing that I agree and disagree with. I don't think that animals should be tortured or put under a great deal of stress, but if testing animals can find a cure for cancer I agree with testing them in a humane way. Most of the products that I read about today I had no idea that they were tested on animals and sad to say, I have used a number of those products. I was very interested in the new ways of testing products without using animals and I hope that we can find more ways so that animals don't ever have to be used again, but for the products they have tested, I am grateful.
http://www.jax.org/
1) The Jackson Laboratory is a nonprofit organization that focuses on genetic research to be able to prevent, treat and cure human diseases. This research is important because it is helping develop a more precise way of diagnosing and treating diseases based on their extensive knowledge of genetic variations among individuals. They also provide scientific services and animals as genetic resources to other research institutions around the world.
-Some of the diseases the Jackson laboratory researches are cancer, osteoporosis, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, infertility, Down syndrome, type I and II diabetes, obesity and autism among others. An example of cancer research being done is to successfully target the heat shock pathways to prevent the start of cancer. A cancer cell needs to highjack a system called the heat shock response to be able to stat up and survive. This system allows the cells to endure environmental stress, or it can suppress the cancer cell’s survival if interrupted. This laboratory is also doing research on Rett syndrome which is a type of autism. They are studying the role of a specific protein in brain development that has been linked to this disability.
-This laboratory breeds and uses mice as an efficient model for human disease because the mouse genome is 95% identical to the human genome, also because both species get most of the same diseases, and the DNA sequence responsible for complex diseases are shared between mice and man.
-Mice are a good substitute for a human patient to conduct experiments on because both have similar anatomy, physiology and genetics. Other advantages to using mice is that they are small, have a short generation time and an accelerated lifespan (one mouse year equals about 30 human years), keeping the costs, space and time required to perform research manageable.
-In regards the care of the animals, this site explains the several procedures they follow in order to provide customers with the best laboratory mice including sterilized bedding, filtered drinking water and disinfected cages. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find anything regarding ethical treatment or the procedures for the disposal of mice that didn’t develop properly or were no longer needed.
http://www.peta.org
2) The site I picked is PETA which means People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. This is an international nonprofit charitable organization founded in 1980 based in Norfolk, Virginia, with affiliates in the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, India, and the Asia-Pacific Region. They are dedicated to establishing and defending the rights of all animals. PETA operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to wear, eat, experiment on, or use for entertainment. PETA tries to reach people and create consciousness about animal abuse by educating policymakers and the public to promote kind treatment of animals and stop abusive practices.
-PETA explains that animals also have rights because any creature with a will to live has the right to live free from pain and suffering regardless of their usefulness to humans. Moreover, a crucial factor in determining whether a being has the right to equal consideration is their capacity for suffering. All animals have the ability to suffer in the same way and to the same degree that humans do. They feel pain, pleasure, fear, frustration, loneliness, and motherly love. Whenever we consider doing something that would interfere with their needs, we are morally obligated to take them into account.
-In regards laboratory practices, they have found that over a million animals are tortured and killed annually in U.S. laboratories. Many animals are not reported for their use in experiments because according to The Animal Welfare Act mice, rats, and birds are not covered by this act, regardless of the fact that between 80 and 95 percent of animals used in research are the ones listed above.
-PETA strongly believes that animals are not an efficient model of research since they differ from humans significantly, making animal drug tests unreliable and dangerous. Moreover, thanks to technological advances new research models such as computer models, embryonic stem cells, cell cultures, human skins models, donated cadavers, and human studies have shown to be more accurate, less expensive, and much more humane.
-This activist group has also worked hard to defend animals’ rights. In 2008, they wrote Zappos.com urging them to stop selling fur products and to help speed the process they launched an online campaign so the public could also write to the CEO of this company. With help of over 11,000 people they were able to persuade Zappos.com in adopting a fur-free policy. In 2009, PETA found out that the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center was using cats in cruel and deadly medical training exercises, so they launched an aggressive campaign to urge the school to replace the use of animals with other available methods. They filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and even held protests on campus. After a year of strenuous efforts, Texas Tech announced that after more than 20 years, it was finally ending its practice of using cats for this training.
3) I personally agree that animals have rights are not to be mistreated. They are capable of feeling as much as humans do because of their physiology but also for their psychological states such as loneliness, fear, bonding, learning and caring among others. For this reason I believe they should be excluded from laboratory experiments and new models of research should take their place. The abusive treatment some animals receive is unjustified and although all laboratories might not be the same, there is taped evidence of this violence. I don’t think a being that has the ability to become our pet or a man’s best friend deserves that kind of treatment. Research on other models should be encouraged and the use of animals should be prohibited and punished when unnecessary.
1) I found a website that is the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research (http://dels.nas.edu/ilar/). The Institute of Laboratory Animal Research (ILAR) evaluates and disseminates information on issues related to the scientific, technological, and ethical use of animals and related biological resources in research, testing, and education. Using the principles of refinement, reduction, and replacement (3Rs) as a foundation, ILAR promotes high-quality science through the humane care and use of animals and the implementation of alternatives. At the ILAR, at any given time, dozens of studies are underway to address specific issues in Earth & Life Studies that will lead to reports. These studies range in scope and length: some rapidly address questions to meet immediate decision making needs, while others deal with broader or ongoing issues and can span a number of years. The animals are used to study and implement medical/biological/evironmental etc. uses that will benefit human-beings as well as the environment.
2) I found a website (http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/04/why_i_protest_animal_research.html) about a person who worked in an Oregon research facility where they conducted animal research and she restates her story of what she saw at that facility. She goes into detail about how the monkey's suffered, and were tortured and the amount of pain that they endured. The two sites are completely different. The first site states is a laboratory who only presents their facility in a positive manner however; the second website is from a perspective of someone who actually first hand experienced the traumatizing events to the animals. The first site didn't go into detail about the research that they were conducting however; they did say that it would benefit human-beings and the earth. I can't say that risking the life of an animal is worth saving that of a human-being but I can say that the benefits of animal research are enormous and I believe that its an necessity to continue this research to further advance technology and life.
3) My personal opinion of animal research is that in the long run it could benefit human-beings and the environment which ultimately can be life-saving. However; I've heard a number of horror stories about animal research and to think that the animals are actually treated like that is horrible. Ultimately though, I think its very beneficial to society because a lot of the research on animals that has been done has saved numerous lifes and without the study of animals I don't believe that we would be as technically advanced as we are.
1) http://www.primate.wisc.edu/ This is the website for the U.W. Madison primate lab. Their mission statement is “to increase our understanding of basic primate biology and to improve human health and quality of life through research.” Pretty basic but it sums up the wide range of important discoveries which have come out of the lab over the past 80 years. Research developments range from learning more about common diseases and overall biology of primates leading to better care and treatment of primates in captivity as well as in the wild, to highly specialized knowledge about various kinds of stem cells and how they can be used. Since we humans are primates naturally most, if not all, of the research is beneficial to our own biology. One interesting area of research that relates specifically to this class involves investigating the nature of ‘taste’ receptors in primates; which has lead to the development of ‘new, natural sweetners.’
The Wisconsin National Primate Research Center (WNPRC) has on hand about 1,100 rhesus macaques, 200 marmosets, and 100 cynomolgus macaques. They are well known for producing the first in vitro fertilization born monkey in 1983. They mention that they have one of the largest populations of non-human primates in the country but many of the primates which compose this number are housed off-campus at a private pharmaceutical research facility.
The WNPRC maintains a number of different ethical practices to ensure that their animals are treated as humanely as possible. First, they must demonstrate that any research topic is impossible to study in another way. Second, they have numerous government, academic, and ethical review boards which oversee all activities at the primate lab, along with having a staff of veterinarians to ensure that the animals are being treated with the utmost care. Third, and most important to me, is that they discuss animal ethics in multiple classes, require study of it to graduate, and hold seminars and conferences to discuss advancements in ethical thinking regarding animal rights. Ethics for me is a conversation, so to the extent that you are continuing to critically analyze your decisions you are acting ethically.
2) I wanted to find a site that was anti-animal research but was not fanatical or militant. It seems this site fits this category. http://www.humanesociety.org/about/departments/animals_research.html
This is the national human societies page dedicated to reducing the use of animals that are being used in experiments, but also to simply ensure that all of the ethical protocols are followed when they are used. Most of the problems with animal testing seem to stem from researchers and research facilities dropping the ball. Lack of funding and lack of rigorous external ethical controls causes various animals to become malnourished, or forced to live in smaller living area’s without colorful and decorated play areas. One scary fact that they mentioned is that the U.S. is the only country in the world that continues to use primates for invasive bio-medical research. They were not very specific on what this includes, and it’s always nice to develop an argument that ends with “We’re the only country that does this,” so I’d be interested in having a better explanation of what it actually is that the U.S. does that no other countries will do.
After reading through this site and watching some video’s I see two main problems with animal research that I agree need to be immediately stopped by way of public outcry and legislation. The first is the use of animals for testing cosmetic and other luxury items. This is silly and needs to end. The best thing that comes out of this are cheaper shampoo, sexier lipstick, and more efficient eye-liner. In the case of rare-medical conditions that require special cosmetic items (e.g. makeup for burn victims, shampoo for psoriasis patients, etc.) there may be an exception. When the purpose of the research is cheaper, better products, and has nothing at all to do with the animals it becomes that much easier to forget about the ethical rights of the animals.
The second big problem are “class B” sales of research animals. I had never heard of this but, apparently there are dealers who buy animals at auctions, from puppy mills, etc. and then sell them to less than ethical research facilities to do research either off the books or for way cheaper by avoiding various government organizations. Apparently as many as 50 university research facilities still utilize these class B dealers and the information about them is scary. Allowing these dealers to house such large numbers of dogs and cats (sometimes hundreds) for research, they are almost encouraging large warehouses of poorly taken care of animals. The main problem again is not the use of animals in general, but by bypassing government and ethical guidelines to save money and get quick results.
3) I’m on the fence about what I think about animal research. WNPRC’s website explicitly states that they adopt a utilitarian ethical policy regarding animal research meaning that as long as the end result is to the betterment of mankind the research is worthwhile. Utilitarianism is really the epitome of ‘the ends justifies the means’ and as a consequentialist (or teleological) ethical system is a very difficult position to defend, though it is commonly used in government and policy decisions. The reason why it is philosophically difficult to defend is because it claims to quantify the pro’s and con’s of an action (a positive number resulting in an ethical action). The problem is you cannot quantify a pro or a con unless you take into consideration its ethical value. This means that utilitarianism ‘beg’s the question’, it relies on a sort of circular reasoning. In my view utilitarianism is sort of the least you can do to remain ethical.
Personally I’m against doing my own animal research but this is easy since I’m not currently pursuing scholarly interests that would be benefitted by animal research. The next question is then whether or not others ought to be able to do the research. I believe in deontological ethics, which is duty based ethics, and sits opposite of consequentialist ethical systems like utilitarianism. For me the intention of the action matters. So, if you try to save someone’s life but end up killing them a utilitarian would say you acted immorally, a deontological ethicist would say you DID act morally. This means that sometimes what you think is best, is actually not what is best. The only way to avoid this problem is to constantly continue an open dialogue with others, constantly be critically analyzing your ethical principles checking and re-checking them to see if they still work. To the extent that your intentions are good you’ve committed a moral action, and to the extent that you continue to analyze your intentions you’re a moral person. This is my answer to whether or not other people’s use of animal in research is ethical.