Animal Rights

Animal rights are held entirely too high in regard. Many activist do not realize the benefits of testing on animals. They claim that it is "unethical" or "cruel" to perform experiments on such creatures. The truth is, the world as a whole has advanced tremendously in the past century due to animal experimentation. We are affected every day by at least one thing that has been influenced by animal testing. Many of the things we take for granted would not exist if it were not for experimenting with animals. The medicine that we need, the education that we receive, and the products that we use are just a few of the benefits that these animals bring to us. We should look at animals, not as poor defenseless creatures that are subject to cruel experiments, but as heroes that have improved almost every aspect of our life in todays society.

In contrast, opponents to animal testing believe that animals have a right to live as a human being. The rights of animals are even claimed in the "Universal Declaration of the Rights of Animals" proposed by the International League of the Rights of Animals. There are also opposers who believe that it is wrong to hurt any living creature. People such as Michael Fox, a professor at Queen's University of Kingston Ontario, has based his theory of the unjustification of animal experimentation on "the principle of maleficence." This principle states that it is simply wrong to harm creatures that do not want to hurt you. The problem with this statement is that we value the life of an animal lower than a human life. Some experiments can only be done on animals. For example, we could not subject a human to a potential toxin or other harmful chemicals. Some other experiments measure life expectancy and would be impossible to perform with humans. Still, other tests require numerous samples, equal in various physical conditions such as weight or genetic make-up. The findings of such experiments could be very important towards the benefit of human beings. It has been recorded that "Ð"‰ 54 of 76 Nobel prizes awarded in physiology or medicine since 1901 have been for discoveries and advances made through the use of experimental animals " (American Medical Association 77). Consequently, it is evident just how important animal testing really is.

Other opponents have suggested that technology can substitute for the real thing. They suggest that computer programs or models of animals be used to perform experiments. Again there is a problem in that these methods are not yet as sophisticated as they need to be. We simply do not have enough advances in computer technology to create an ideal model of an animal. We can not recreate life, only observe the real thing.

Some animal rights activists also believe that cruel things are being done to the animals used for testing. The truth is, there are organizations that restrict and create lab procedures and conditions in which to work with animals. These groups include the United Nation Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, and the American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory animal Care. These associations, along with others around the world, provide the most humane methods of animal testing. Scientists are not vindictive; they recognize the right of life of an animal and treat animals with the utmost respect

The medical field has been greatly impacted by the use of animals. Experimentation with the use of animals has been dubbed as vivisections. One such famous vivisection was conducted by F. G. Banting and J.J R. Macleod. The two Canadian physiologists took diabetic dogs and removed their pancreases. Then they discovered a cure for diabetes through the use of insulin. This experiment won them a Nobel prize in 1923. This also led to further experiments of the same type. Scientists would purposely produce diabetes in rabbits so as to create laser treatments for certain retinal disease that diabetes induce.

Animal testing has brought an innumerable number of advances to medicine. Several anesthetic products and advances in neurophysiology have come from vivisections. The treatment of rabies and anthrax can be traced back to animals. Other medical advancements include the treatment of arthritis, whooping cough, leprosy, diphtheria, rubella, and measles (Harnac 75).

Medication for the control of heart disease has been a collaboration of several animal tests. It began with the findings of blood circulation by William Harvey of England in 1628 with the use of dogs. Next, blood pressure was discovered by Stephen Hales in 1733 using hares. Measuring blood pressure with a mercury manometer came a century later. A French physiologist by the name of Jean Poiseuille again used dogs to accomplish this feat. Without these experiments, future scientists would never have been able to come up with a cure for heart disease. Many other animals have been used in the study of coronary artery disease. Rodents, cats, primates, and especially dogs have been used to practice heart surgery, study atherosclerosis (the cause of heart diseases) and strokes, and to create drugs for hypertension, heart failure, heart pain and arrhythmias, irregular heart beats. Even though the lives of the animals that undergo heart transplants are at risk, it is done for the benefit of humans to save life.

One of the greatest achievements obtained through the use of animal experimentation was the polio vaccine. Polio afflicted many people during the early 1900s world wide. The United States, however, was hit the hardest. Polio affects the central nervous system and usually paralyzes its victims from the waist down or otherwise it could be fatal. Children were its primary targets and it soon became known as "infantile paralysis." Due to the lack of modern sewage systems in the 1900s, viruses could easily get around and infect people. One doctor, by the name of Jonas Salk set out to rid the world of polio and other viral diseases. Instead of working with patients, he set out to formulate a cure in the lab. At that time, vaccinations for typhoid fever had been developed. The procedure involved taking what would be a dead bacteria from the fever, and inject it into a human. Because the germ is dead, it will not reproduce and spread itself. However, the body still creates antibodies to destroy the disease. These antibodies remain in the body and protect against the threat of the disease. The problem with polio was that it was a much stronger virus and needed live bacteria to form strong enough antibodies. The question was whether or not it was safe enough to use such methods on people. Salk had to conduct experiments on live animals to find