Animal Research

From the early 1900's the benefits from animal research have been clearly evident. A century later, treatment derived from animal research has given us the opportunity to live 30 more precious years. Thanks to animal research many common diseases and illnesses can now be prevented altogether. Much good has come from animal research including, but not limited to: transplants, insulin, open-heart surgery and vaccines. I feel animals should continue to be used as a benefit to the progress of medical and health concerns to ensure the future wellness of animals and humans.

Economically the world is better off from the advancements in research and treatment of diseases as a direct result of animal research. Billions of dollars are saved in healthcare costs when a disease is eradicated or a product is proven safe through animal testing; many doctors' visits, long hospital stays or potential lawsuits are prevented as a result. Many terminal illnesses can now be cured or treated, preventing the suffering of victims and their family. The practice of experimentation on animals has nearly led to the complete eradication of the polio disease worldwide and the cost of discovering the reaction was only a fraction of the cost it is now saving the world.

Animal rights activists question the ethical cost and argue that the death of an animal is not worth the potential human benefits, but the statement is both naпve and ignorant. They don't understand that those medical achievements also create a potential for the animal kingdom as well. Veterinary medicine and procedures have arisen to extend the lives of household pets and even endangered species. A post hoc effect of animal research is the preservation of ecosystems that could ultimately be devastated by the loss of one species. Artificial joints and organ transplants are only a minority of the benefits to animals and humans. Cats and dogs are now protected from rabies, heartworm and other illnesses that lead to a life of misery and untimely death (www.njabr.org/education/op-ed/animalsandresearch/).

Propaganda from extreme animal rights activists portray all the animals in their pictures as household pets subject to crude confinement and torture. The Animal Welfare and Public Health Service Act, now strictly enforce the condition and treatment of animals even preventing multiple procedures on the same animal (www.fbresearch.org/). According to the New Jersey Association for Biomedical Research 99% of the dogs and cats used in 1996 were bred specifically for research and furthermore cats and dogs make up only 1% of all animal research in the state. New Jersey, like many other states has a law preventing the sale of animals from pounds. The animals used in research are not people's pets. Of the remaining 1% of dogs and cats used, they all were legally acquired from a federally licensed dealer. Another reason lost or stolen pets would not even be considered for experimentation is that there is no medical history record for them. When there is no medical history for the animal, experimental results would be dependent on too many variables.

Decisions on what stance to take on the animal research dilemma should only be based on sources that offer credible support of their opinion and can logically refute arguments made by the opposition. Animal rights groups are too extreme in their argument and cannot be believed because their lies and exaggeration take precedent over the truth. Animal rights activist portray scientists as heartless killers in their propaganda to strengthen support. They do this by dramatizing one incident of abuse and creating a false perception to resemble every animal. The pictures are old and often in black and white. Situations in the laboratory have greatly improved the conditions of animals with recent