|
 |
|
|
FAQs to Alternatives for Animal Experimentation
A proportion of the population agree that animal experimentation is wrong, but some questions arise when it comes up to alternatives, here's some answers to the FAQs: Isn't cosmetics testing already banned?
The European Union (EU) agreed on a Europe-wide ban on animal testing on cosmetic products in 2003, but this will not come into effect in small stages until 2009 at the earliest, with the EU ban on the sale of any newly tested products agreed upon but this will not come into effect until at least 2013, in the meantime, up to 40,000 animals will continue to be tested.
UK and several EU countries have already introduced either a whole or partial ban, but cosmetics testing on animals continue in the rest of Europe and around the world, meaning consumers are still presented with beauty products that have been tested on animals in high street stores; despite the "Not Tested" claims on some products, this is usually referring to the testing of the final product, and not to the ingredients. Aren't there laws that ensure animals are treated humanely in labs?
There is the Animal Welfare Act, which deals with the issues of keeping the animals, such as cage sizes. But even when cages and other keeping issues are adequate, animals in laboratories are still deprived of everything that makes life worthwhile for them—the companionship of others of their own kind, fresh air, freedom to run or climb, and the ability to make even simple choices about their lives. After months, years, and sometimes decades of being poked and prodded, they die from the experiments or are killed. Animals are being killed in animal shelters / pounds anyway, why not just let them be used in experiments?
A painless death at a pound is a much better way to die then to undergo a life of severe pain, torture and deprivation in a laboratory before being killed by experimenters.
Rather than finding more acceptable ways of harming animals in laboratories, surely we should encourage embracing non-animal research? If animals aren't used to conduct medical experiments, what alternatives are there?
From the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), there are already over 20 alternative methods to animals; human clinical and epidemiological (study of the skin) studies, cadavers, and computer simulators are faster, more reliable, less expensive, and more humane than animal tests.
Scientists have developed a model "microbrain" from human brain cells to study tumors, as well as artificial skin and bone marrow, meaning that skin irritancy can be tested on cells in a test tube, produce vaccines from human cell cultures, and also perform pregnancy tests using blood samples rather than killing rabbits or dripping chemicals on guinea pigs.
Gordon Baxter, the cofounder of Pharmagene Laboratories, a drug research company that uses only human tissues and computers to develop and test drugs, "If you have information on human genes, what’s the point of going back to animals?" How would we know that it is safe without testing it on species closest to us humans?
There was never a guarantee that drugs would be safe for human use if they were tested on animals in the first place.
The psychological difference between humans and other animals result in inaccurate test results that makes us vulnerable to drugs that can cause serious side effects. (according to the former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree only '5%-25% of the time'. )
Drugs that sicken or kill the tested animals doesn't necessarily prevent that drug from being marketed anyway; drugs including phenacitin (an analgesic, or painkiller), Oraflex (an anti-arthritic drug) and Selacryn (an antihypertensive drug, to treat high blood pressure) to name a few, were taken off the market after causing hundreds of deaths or injuries. Over 200,000 medicines have been released, with most of them now withdrawn; according to the World Health Organisation (WHO), only 240 are 'essential'. Shouldn't animals be tested on if it benefits veterinary science?
The fact that all species were born equal, surely it seems more ethical that we should not be inflicting suffering on those who are at our mercy just because we consider ourselves to be superior because we can communicate with each other? Veterinary medicine, like human medicine, is increasingly dependent upon studies that do not harm some animals in an effort to help others. These may include computer modeling, cell research, epidemiological research, and clinical studies designed to help animals who are already ill. Wouldn't other alternatives to animals be expensive?
The need to continue to test for new cosmetic ingredients is undermined by the availability of 8,000 ingredients that have already been tested as proved as safe, more importantly, does not require testing on animals, which can be used for cosmetic and household product purposes. In cancer studies, animal tests of a single substance may take four to eight years and cost £200,000 or more, whereas short-term non-animal studies cost as little as £100-2000 and can be completed in just days! The dangers of waiting years for results of animal tests are apparent; In 1985, the EPA determined that three animal tests had not shown a sufficient degree of danger in the pesticide Alar, and it called on the manufacturer to undergo more cancer studies on animals. Now, years later, these studies are still incomplete. Although the EPA has pulled Alar from the market since then, non-animal tests would have taken a matter of days or months, not years, and could have meant that fewer consumers would have come into contact with Alar-treated products. Non-animal testing are not plagued with species differences that make extrapolation difficult or impossible either. Simple words to sum this up: Effective, fast, affordable, and humane.
What about experiments that don't harm the animals?
If there really is no harm—when animals are observed in their own environments, can be considered ok. But keeping animals isolated in barren steel cages, removed from all that is natural to them, is harmful to animals’ mental and physical health. Surely sacrificing 1 animal to save 10 people is reasonable? Like the choice between saving kids or rats?
Suppose the only way to save those 10,000 people was to experiment on one mentally challenged orphan? If saving a group of people is the goal, is that not worth it?
Most people will agree that it is wrong to sacrifice one human for the "greater good" of others because it would violate that individual’s rights, so there is no logical reason to deny animals the same rights that protect individual humans from being sacrificed for the common good. I've taken / have prescriptions that have undergone animal testing...
Whether or not to take the prescriptions your doctor recommends it is a personal choice that only you personally can make. As Hippocrates said 'Let food be thy medicine', lifestyle changes such as diet, exercising and quitting smoking or drinking may improve your health without the need of medicine; it is shown that the chemical Acrylamide is directly linked to womb and ovarian cancer in women, this chemical is produced when food is roasted, fried or baked!
|
Contributor's Note
Originally from my blog
http://animalsthedebate.blogspot.com for a 1st year Graphic Design project
|
|
|
 |
|
No reactions yet.
Please login or sign up to rate this intel.
Please login or sign up to add a comment.
I agree that animals have the same rights as humans and should never be caged for any kind of testing. Man has no right to do such a thing to any helpless creature...
The copyright for this content entitled "FAQs to Alternatives for Animal Experimentation" has been specified by the contributor as:
All Rights Reserved
This content may not be copied, distributed or adapted by anyone under any circumstances.
|
|
|
This intel was contributed by daftks
|
May, 2012
2008
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2009
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2010
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2011
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2012
January, February, March, April, May
|
|
Not a member yet?
Qondio is a powerful network for making it online. If you have a website to
promote, we can help.
Sign up and get in on the action.
|
|
Welcome to Qondio! Discover the awesome power this network can deliver by going to our About page. Or you could skip straight to the Sign Up form.
|
|
