What is the main reason for testing animals?

• Safety and security of human resource from adverse drug effects and exploitation, is the main reason leading to scientific testing on animals.

• Unavailability or less available options for human testing is another reason since ancient times that has promoted the use of animals testing in research and development.

• Animals are living organisms except the power to express their feelings and willpower, which makes them vulnerable to exploitation by the scientist using them as things for testing their research.

• From past situations, the limitation of alternative techniques for testing made animals vulnerable to scientific testing of new drugs, cosmetics, medicines etc. (Singer, 2017, p 10).

What are the opinions and perceptions of doctors about allowing animals intrusive testing in research and development?

• As per Doctors and scientist perceptions, animal testing is the best way to determine the functionality of any drug with an intention to keep human’s safe to drug failure sufferings for safeguarding human race. The alternative techniques are not as reliable as animal testing because animals especially rats and rabbit have more than 90% genetic similarities with Homo sapiens(Api et al 2015, ppS1- S19).

• In contrast Reisinger et al. (2015) studied the perceptions of experts in the USA making viewpoint that, the genetic makeup of some animals like rat and rabbit show 90% similarity index with human genes. However, this genetic similarity does not ensure that drug testing successful on animals will also be successful on humans.

What are the opinions and perceptions of doctors about allowing animals intrusive testing in research and development?

• 40% of drug testing successful on animals show the different result on human behaviour where 15% drugs fail to show successful cure for the human body that was successful on animals while testing (Singer, 2017).

The graph showing maximum death of animals due to animal testing that is maximum in 2015

What are the opinions and perceptions of doctors about allowing animals intrusive testing in research and development?

• As per my knowledge and viewpoint, I would recommend the use of 3R principle for research testing that involves Replacing, Refining and Reducing (De Waal, 2016).

• As per this principle, the use of living animals in testing should be “replaced” by animal-free methods of testing in research.

• Further, “refining” involves optimum suitable conditions, proper care and welfare of animals involved in testing where the involvement of animals in the experiment cannot be avoided. The experiment that mandatorily involves animal testing should ensure maintenance to animal protection minimizing stress and physical pain.

• Lastly, “reducing,” means minimizing the number of animals involved in testing as much as possible in case of essentially involving animals testing in research.

• This 3R principle allows a logical, ethical and lawful practice of intrusive animal testing in research and development.

What are the opinions and perceptions of doctors about allowing animals intrusive testing in research and development?

• Doke and Dhawale (2015) studied certain strategies available to replace animal testing in research. Some of the successful once are animal tissue cultures, human volunteers, stem cell technology, microorganisms or Nano microorganisms for testing, biophysical, computer and biochemical based methods.

• Stem cell technology and animal tissue cultures hold a promising future to replace animal testing in biological experiments. Through stem cell and animal tissue culturing artificial living cells can be obtained to perform experiments without harming living organism or killing animals for testing in research and development (De Waal, 2016).

What are the opinions and perceptions of doctors about allowing animals intrusive testing in research and development?

• In contrast, some of the scientist and doctors hold completely negative perceptions about animal testing, as per these viewpoints, animals died during testing is a sacrifice to safeguard the superior race that are humans in their ethical viewpoint. Some scientist considers animal killing as a part of the ecological cycle for human survival (Eysenck, 2017). As per my understanding and knowledge, nothing can justify killing or murder of any living organism for benefit of another living organism.

• There are more than $16 billion annually spent by the government of United States on experiments that involve animal testing (LaFollette and Shanks, 2016).

• In a survey study, it was mentioned that most of the developed and developing countries focusing on better research and development spend a various amount of money on animal testing irrespective of harm they cause to animals (Delude, 2015, p 527).

What are the opinions and perceptions of doctors about allowing animals intrusive testing in research and development?

• As per my viewpoint, it is not a bad move to develop once country by research and development but now it is required for us to understand that ethics are equal for all the living organisms (animals and humans). Both are equally essential part of nature’s structure and if options are available to replace animal testing then why is it still a continuing practice?

• It is high time that we (humans) as a symbol of living existence together need to safeguard other living organisms (animals) from the brutality of technologies and advancement.

Some of the images below show brutality of intrusive testing on animals

“Sympathetic”

Conclusion

• In the contemporary world, having technologies and options developed to replace animal testing it is not at all ethical and logical to involve animal testing as a part of research and development. Rather, such unessential cruelty towards animals is now a part of destruction to nature’s equilibrium. As per global statistical information, a dangerous number of animals die due to experimental testing which can create an imbalance of stability of nature’s equilibrium. This will indirectly harm human as well, therefore, I recommend to overrule the intrusive animal testing with other advanced technologies like animal tissue culture, stem cell culture, human modelling etc. Our lawmakers should also focus to eliminate unessential animal testing in research and development at global level.

Bibliography

Adams, C.J., 2018. Neither man nor beast: Feminism and the defense of animals. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Api, A.M., Belsito, D., Bruze, M., Cadby, P., Calow, P., Dagli, M.L., Dekant, W., Ellis, G., Fryer, A.D., Fukayama, M. and Griem, P., 2015. Criteria for the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc.(RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 82, pp.S1-S19.

Delude, C.M., 2015. The details of disease. Nature, 527(7576), p.S14.

Jackson, S.L., 2015. Research methods and statistics: A critical thinking approach. Cengage Learning.

De Waal, F., 2016. Are we smart enough to know how smart animals are?. WW Norton & Company.

Doke, S.K. and Dhawale, S.C., 2015. Alternatives to animal testing: A review. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, 23(3), pp.223-229.

Eysenck, H., 2017. The biological basis of personality. Routledge.

Forman, H.J., Augusto, O., Brigelius-Flohe, R., Dennery, P.A., Kalyanaraman, B., Ischiropoulos, H., Mann, G.E., Radi, R., Roberts II, L.J., Vina, J. and Davies, K.J., 2015. Even free radicals should follow some rules: a guide to free radical research terminology and methodology. Free Radical Biology and Medicine, 78, pp.233-235.

LaFollette, H. and Shanks, N., 2016. Brute Science: Dilemmas Animal. Routledge.

Leist, M., Hasiwa, N., Rovida, C., Daneshian, M., Basketter, D., Kimber, I., Clewell, H., Gocht, T., Goldberg, A., Busquet, F. and Rossi, A.M., 2014. Consensus report on the future of animal-free systemic toxicity testing.

Mak, I.W., Evaniew, N. and Ghert, M., 2014. Lost in translation: animal models and clinical trials in cancer treatment. American journal of translational research, 6(2), p.114.

Reisinger, K., Hoffmann, S., Alépée, N., Ashikaga, T., Barroso, J., Elcombe, C., Gellatly, N., Galbiati, V., Gibbs, S., Groux, H. and Hibatallah, J., 2015. Systematic evaluation of non-animal test methods for skin sensitisation safety assessment. Toxicology in Vitro, 29(1), pp.259-270.

Singer, P., 2017. All animals are equal. In Animal Rights (pp. 3-16). Routledge.