Contoversy of animal testingAnimal testing is a deeply divided subject, with a great deal of passion, emotion and ideas on both sides regarding the ethics of this practice. There is also a grey area as well, where some individuals support animal testing only under special circumstances while they oppose its use for other areas.Support for Animal TestingGenerally, the scientific community is strongly in favour of animal testing. They see humans are superior to animal life and this belief thus justifies the use of animals in testing. While animal suffering should be minimised, they also cite that it is preferable for an animal to suffer as opposed to a human. The medical breakthroughs that have occurred as a result of animal testing are also considered reason enough to continue the practice, with the aim of reducing human suffering and saving human lives. Ultimately, supporters believe that the end result of saved lives justifies the means of using animal testing.Support is also geared at protecting humans, not simply producing new life-saving drugs - although this is seen as a priority. Military defence involves animal testing to simulate battle wounds and gauge reactions to exposures of agents used in war. Animal testing is an important part of preventing a widespread disaster if chemical agents are released by another country.As a result of the controversy with animal testing, however, more media attention has occurred in terms of animal care in animal testing facilities. Regulations and laws in Britain are some of the strictest in the world and the transparency that exists is a positive step for both animal testing supporters and those who are against it.Ethical Issues With Animal TestingOne key argument against animal testing involves the inability of animals to consent to the tests. Humans, it is argued, can make an informed decision to consent while animals have tests forced upon them, with no choice.A major ethical issue with animal testing is that it involves pain, suffering and discomfort under some circumstances. While researchers do address the potential for pain by measures to minimise it whenever possible, they aren't able to completely prevent any pain from occurring. Where possible, they will use anaesthetic but for some types of testing, using a pain reliever can mean an interaction with the drug being tested. For this reason, animals must experience the effects of the one drug and if it involves pain, this presents an unfortunate conundrum for researchers.Another qualm with animal testing is its use for cosmetics testing. While Britain has banned animal testing on cosmetics and Europe is poised for a ban by 2009, other countries still use animals for cosmetics testing. Those who oppose the practice believe it is outrageous and cruel to use animal life simply so humans can 'look better.' The aesthetic component is a major issue and some individuals support animal testing for medical purposes but not for cosmetics.Isolated cases of abuse have also added more fuel to the case against animal testing although reaction from the scientific community was similarly swift and indicated that such abuses will not be tolerated.Making a DecisionDespite having a look at both sides involved in the controversy of animal testing, there is still no clear right or wrong that seems to appease everyone. One thing, however, appears to be unanimous - that at the very least, animal suffering should be minimised and that animals should be respected during their care. If animal testing is to continue - and at present it is ongoing - animals must not be abused.

DefinitionsThe terms animal testing, animal experimentation, animal research, in vivo testing, and vivisection have similar denotations but different connotations. Literally, "vivisection" means the "cutting up" of a living animal, and historically referred only to experiments that involved the dissection of live animals. The term is occasionally used to refer pejoratively to any experiment using living animals; for example, the Encyclopdia Britannica defines "vivisection" as: "Operation on a living animal for experimental rather than healing purposes; more broadly, all experimentation on live animals",[9] although dictionaries point out that the broader definition is "used only by people who are opposed to such work".[10] The word has a negative connotation, implying torture, suffering, and death.[11] The word "vivisection" is preferred by those opposed to this research, whereas scientists typically use the term "animal experimentation".[

Alternatives to animal testingScientists and governments state that animal testing should cause as little suffering to animals as possible, and that animal tests should only be performed where necessary. The "three Rs"[96] are guiding principles for the use of animals in research in most countries:1. Replacement refers to the preferred use of non-animal methods over animal methods whenever it is possible to achieve the same scientific aim.2. Reduction refers to methods that enable researchers to obtain comparable levels of information from fewer animals, or to obtain more information from the same number of animals.3. Refinement refers to methods that alleviate or minimize potential pain, suffering or distress, and enhance animal welfare for the animals still used.[194]Although such principles have been welcomed as a step forwards by some animal welfare groups,[195] they have also been criticized as both outdated by current research,[196] and of little practical effect in improving animal welfare.[

The supporting argument: animal testing is for the greater good

While many organizations are against animal testing and believe it has no impact on our research today, there are plenty of scientists and different research centers that contradict their opinion. According to the Foundation for Biomedical Research, animal testing should actually be called animal research instead. It is thought that animal testing is overall better than the alternatives that have been discovered over years such as computer modeling and cell structures. In fact, many of the experiments that have been conducted have won the Nobel Prize for scientific achievement. One of the most recent scientific discoveries has been the discovery of principles for introducing specific gene modifications in mice using embryonic stem cells. This is just one of many breakthroughs that have been discovered through testing animals such as mice and dogs. While they still do use cats and dogs, the amount of cats and dogs being tested has gone down tremendously from previous years. Since 1973, the number of dogs used in biomedical research has declined 67% and the number of cats 63%, showing that researchers are trying their best to cut down the use of larger animals.The FBR states that a huge majority of animals being tested do not even experience any pain. According to the 2000 USDA Annual Report, 63% of animals experienced only a slight or momentary pain, like an injection. The pain that animal activists talk about the USDA tries to reassure their good intentions by confirming that they could not use anesthesia to help the animals experience less pain, because it would have interfered with the experiment *. While animal testing may cause minor pain and deaths in many cases, scientists believe that it is essential to findings of major breakthroughs in scientific research. According to Dr. George Poste, director of the Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University and also a veterinarian, to figure out the root of some deadly diseases and how they can resist treatments, animal testing is a necessity**. He also goes on to say that many people dont support the use of animals to test fashion products and makeup, but can understand the use of animal testing for medical research. On the supporters side of the argument, animal testing is a necessity for medical research, and will be beneficial to us in the future.

Pro's for Animal TestingThe major pro for animal testing is that it aids researchers in finding drugs and treatments to improve health and medicine. Many medical treatments have been made possible by animal testing, including cancer and HIV drugs, insulin, antibiotics, vaccines and many more. It is for this reason that animal testing is considered vital for improving human health and it is also why the scientific community and many members of the public support its use. In fact, there are also individuals who are against animal testing for cosmetics but still support animal testing for medicine and the development of new drugs for disease.Another important aspect to note is that animal testing helps to ensure the safety of drugs and many other substances humans use or are exposed to regularly. Drugs in particular can carry significant dangers with their use but animal testing allows researchers to initially gauge the safety of drugs prior to commencing trials on humans. This means that human harm is reduced and human lives are saved - not simply from avoidance of the dangers of drugs but because the drugs themselves save lives as well as improve the quality of human life.Scientists typically use animals for testing purposes because they are considered similar to humans. As such, researchers do recognise the limitations and differences but the testing is done on animals because they are thought to be the closest match and best one with regards to applying this data to humans.

Animal Testing

Introduction

The application of animals to test a large number of products from household compounds and cosmetics to Pharmaceutical products has been considered to be a normal strategy for many years. Laboratory animals are generally used in three primary fields: biomedical research, product security evaluation and education. (Animal Experiments) It has been estimated that approximately, 20 million animals are being used for testing and are killed annually; about 15 million of them are used to test for medication and five million for other products. Reports have been generated to indicate that about 10 percent of these animals are not being administered with painkillers. The supporters of animal rights are pressurizing government agencies to inflict severe regulations on animal research. However, such emerging criticisms of painful experimentation on animals are coupled with an increasing concern over the cost it would have on the limitation of scientific progress. (Of Cures and Creatures Great and Small)

Around the world, animals are utilized to test products ranging from shampoo to new cancer drugs. Each and every medication used by humans is first tested on the animals. Animals were also applied to develop anesthetics to ease human ailments and suffering during surgery. (Animal Experiments) Currently, questions have been raised about the ethics surround animal testing. As a result several regulations have been put in place to evaluate and control the animals being used for testing purposes. These regulations hope to ensure that such research is carried out in a humanely and ethical manner. (Testing on Animals: A Patients Perspective) Acceptance of such experimentations is subject to a lot of argumentation. As the statistics indicate animal testing is dangerous and harmful, but medical research must continue. We need to find other testing techniques that are advanced in order to eliminate this harmful process, till then all we can do is continue with our research.

Arguments for testing

The supporters of animal testing argue that if animal testing is eliminated, that many of the medications and procedures that we currently use today would exist and the development of future treatments would be extremely limited. They argue that humans have been assisted from the healthcare developments that have been based on the benefits of animal research and testing for many years now. Supporters for animal testing argue that research is justified because it assists in discovering ways to help people and other animals for the future. Surgery on animals has assisted in developing organ transplant and open-heart surgery techniques. Animal testing has also assisted in developing vaccines against diseases like rabies, polio, measles, mumps, rubella and TB. Development of antibiotics, HIV drugs, insulin and cancer treatments depend upon animal tests. They argue that other testing techniques are not advanced enough. (Animal Experiments) The most radical progress in reproductive medicine such as oral contraceptives, in vitro fertilization, hormone replacement therapy, etc., have all been made possible by animal research. (Alternatives to Animal testing on the Web: FAQs)

Medical procedures like measuring blood pressure, pacemakers and heart and lung machines were used on animals prior to being tried on humans. Surgery techniques, like those to mend and eliminate bone diseases were devised out of experimentation on the animals. Animal testing not only benefits humans but also helps other animals, for example the heartworm medication that was devised from research on animals has assisted many dogs. The cat nutrition has been better comprehended through animal research and has assisted cats to live longer and healthier lives. (Animal Testing: Why Animals Are Used in Research?) Animal models for AIDS are very important factors that are required to understand the biology of immuno-deficiency viruses in the vivo. This allows us to raise necessary awareness about the processes of pathogenesis and its prevention by vaccination and chemotherapy. (Alternatives to Animal testing on the Web: FAQs) Those who support animal testing argue that the society has an obligation to take actions in ways that will minimize injury and maximize benefits. Banning or restraining the experimentation on animals would not allow society to achieve such results. It is assumed that a scientists goal is to devise methods to minimize pain to every extent possible but for now we have to sacrifice on animals to achieve this result. Activists against this practice portray scientists to be a society of crazy, cruel, curiosity seekers. However, when one feeds painkillers to animals, one should ask where they came from and what their purpose is. Is it to improve the quality of human life? (Of Cures and Creatures Great and Small)

Those who support this procedure argue that the advantages that animal testing has brought to humans is considered a lot greater in comparison to the costs in terms of the sufferings inflicted on comparatively less number of animals. They argue that society is required to maximize the opportunities to generate such valuable consequences even at the cost of inflicting pain to some animals. Moreover, many argue that the lives of animals may be worthy of some respect, but the value we give on their lives does not count as much as the value we give to human life. Human beings are considered living beings that have the capability and sensibility that is much higher than animals. For example if we were put in a dilemma of saving a drowning baby and a drowning rat is it almost definite that our instincts will guide us to save the baby first. Is it universally assumed that humans do not treat the animals as our moral equivalents. In theory, any living thing is considered an animal if it is not a plant. (Of Cures and Creatures Great and Small)

As humans it is assumed that we have a moral requirement to prevent any animals of unnecessary suffering. However, as far as animal testing is concerned we are confronted with the moral dilemma of a choice between the welfare of humans or the welfare of animals. Some supporters of animal testing argue that moral rights and principles of justice apply only to human beings. Morality is considered as a social creation out of its eventual process in which we do not associate animals. Moral rights and moral principles are applicable to those who are part of the moral community generated by this social process. As animals are not part of this moral community created by these social processes our moral obligations do not extend to cover them. However, we do have moral obligations to our fellow human being that involve the liability to decline and prevent needless human suffering and untimely deaths that in turn may entail the painful tests on animals. (Of Cures and Creatures Great and Small)

A review by the American Medical Association indicated that about 99 percent of active physicians in the US believed that animal research has given rise to medical advancement, and about 97 percent supported the persistent use of animals for basic and clinical research. (What Scientists Say About Animal Research) Scientists found that there are no such differences in lab animals and humans that cannot be used in tests. The Research Defense Society RDS, a British organization instituted to defend animal testing, maintain that most of the complaints made against animal testing are not found to be correct and that animal testing generates valuable information about how new drugs react inside a living body. Tests are continued to detect major health problems like liver damage, enhanced blood pressure, nerve damage or damage to the fetus. Research revealed that the drugs can be distorted by digestion, and become less successful or more toxic and that such difficulties cannot be examined by applying cell samples in test tubes. (Vivisection: Fact Sheet) If animal testing were to be outlawed it would be impossible to attain the significant knowledge that is necessary to eliminating much suffering and premature deaths for both humans and animals. (Animal Experiments)

Biochip Pengganti Hewan Eksperimen

Seorang profesor dari Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Amerika, bernama Jonathan S. Dordick, baru-baru ini dalam risetnya berhasil mengembangkan sebuah biochip yang diharapkan mampu menggantikan tempat hewan-hewan percobaan lab pada proses animal test di laboratorium perusahaan-perusahaan kimia.

Selama ini, animal testing telah banyak menimbulkan perdebatan pro-kontra antara kaum industrialis dan pecinta lingkungan hidup. Animal testing seolah telah menjadi suatu sisi gelap dari setiap penelitian dan eksperimen kimia baik untuk kepentingan medis, kosmetika, maupun pengembangan kimia lainnya. Tikus, kelinci, anjing, dan monyet selama ini telah banyak dipergunakan untuk eksperimen kimia baik untuk keperluan medis maupun komersil.

Dengan pemakaian biochip ini nantinya diharapkan dapat menekan angka animal testing pada industri farmasi hingga 70% dari angka yang ada sekarang.

Dordick mengatakan bahwa dirinya bersama teamnya telah membuat dua biochip yang dapat dipergunakan untuk mengetahui level racun pada sebuah eksperimen kimia dan obat-obatan pada sell dan organ manusia.

Lebih lanjut Dordick mengatakan bahwa biochip ini berbeda dengan chip komputer. Chip ini akan berubah warna menjadi merah jika zat kimia yang dimasukkan membunuh sell yang ada, dan akan bercahaya hijau jika zat kimia yang dimasukkan membuat sell didalam chip tetap hidup. Dordick yang merupakan salah satu pendiri Solidus Biosciences Inc. di New York berharap akan dapat mengkomersialisasikan chip ini. Sejauh ini ia mengatakan beberapa perusahaan farmasi dan kosmetik telah menghubunginya karena tertarik dengan biochip temuannya tersebut. (dna)

Animal Testing:Layakkah Untuk Satwa?

Animal testing atau percobaan terhadap satwa adalah penelitian dengan menggunakan satwa sebagai objek penderita. Beberapa istilah yang berkaitan dengan animal testing antara lain animal experimentation, animal research, in vivo testing, dan vivisection. Semua istilah tersebut mengacu pada penggunaan satwa dalam proses penelitian. Tujuan animal testing yang banyak dikemukakan adalah untuk kesehatan, pangan, dan kosmetik. Dalam proses penelitian tak jarang ada satwa yang mati dan setelah penelitian banyak satwa yang dibunuh untuk mencegah interaksi dengan satwa lain.Satwa yang umum digunakan dalam animal testing adalah bangsa pengerat, seperti mencit, tikus, atau rodensia lain. Pada tahun 2001di Inggris, tercatat ada sekitar 1.655.766 ekor mencit yang digunakan di animal testing. Selain itu, ada sekitar 8.273 ekor karnivora, termasuk anjing yang digunakan daam animal testing tersebut. Slain satwa kelompok rodensia dan carnivore, satwa yang juga banyak digunakan untuk percobaan adalah primata. Mencit, tikus, dan rodensia lain yg digunakan untuk percobaan biasanya berasal dari pembiakan atau penangkaran. Sedangkan untuk primata pada umumnya masih banyak berasal dari alam liar.Beberapa percobaan yang banyak dilakukan, antara lain xenotransplanation, uji toksikologi, uji produk kosmetik, dan uji obat.Xenotransplanation adalah transfer organ dari satu spesies ke spesies lain, seperti memindahkan organ ginjal dan hati babi ke primata. Tidak jarang satwa yang dilakukan transfer mengalami ganguan perkembangan bahkan mati. Contoh kasus, pada tahun 1994 dan 2000, hal ini terjadi pada babon di Afrika yang menyebabkan sebagian besar babon mati saat dilakukan xeno tersebut.Uji toksikologi digunakan untuk menguji produk akhir, seperti pestisida, zat untuk medis, dan zat aditif makanan, ataupun senyawa-senyawa kimia yang terkandung dalam suatu produk pada satwa sehingga terlihat efek secara fisiologi pada satwa tersebut. Pada jenis tes toksisitas akut, seperti LD50 (lethal dose/ dosis letal 50 %) untuk mengevaluasi toksisitas dari suatu zat yang dapat membunuh 50 % sampel yang diuji. Uji ini pada tahun 2002 telah dihapuskan.Uji produk kosmetik adalah uji hasil akhir ataupun zat-zat yang digunakan dalam pembuatan kosmetik untuk manusia. Uji ini dilakukan untuk memastikan produk aman pada manusia. Satwa media penderita untuk zat-zat yang ternyata memberikan efek samping.Uji untuk obat, di Indonesia disebut juga uji prakilinik. Uji ini dilakukan sebelum dilaksanakan pada klinis manusia untuk mengurangi resiko saat dilakukan pada manusia. Efek samping dari dosis yang diberikan ditanggung oleh satwa yang tidak berdosa demi menyelamatkan kehidupan manusia.Selain harus menanggung derita dari berbagai jenis zat dan produk obat yang diuji, ternyata mereka juga masih diperlakukan tidak layak. Banyak dari satwa yang ditempatkan dalam kandang yang kotor dan tidak layak. Tak jarang kebutuhan nutrisi mereka kurang diperhatikan. Bahkan ada yang memperlakukan satwa dengan tidak baik, seperti diikat atau ditempatkan dalam kandang yang sempit. Padahal para satwa telah banyak memberikan konstribusi penting bagi kehidupan manusia.Berdasarkan hal tersebut, animal testing sebaiknya dikurangi bahkan dihentikan. Dengan berkembangnya teknologi, altermatif metode untuk mengujui suastu zat tanpa harus menyakiliti satwa telah banyak ditemukan. Beberapa metode tersebut antara lain, komputerisasi prediksi, in vitro melalui jaringan atau sel satwa atau manusia dalam tabung kultur, penggunaan protein dan enzim, ataupun penggunaan jasa manusia langsung yang aman dan sesuai bioetika. Metode-metode tersebut lebih aman dan bisa menjadi solusi kontroversi animal testing yang telah berlangsung lama.Pada beberapa penelitian, zat-zat yang berhasil lolos uji pada animal testing, memberikan efek berbeda pada manusia. Contoh kasus, obat arthritis Vioxx aman dan baik bagi jantung satwa tetapi menyebabkan sedikitnya 140,000 kasus serangan jantung dan stroke hanya di amerika saja. Dr. Richard Klausner dari US National Institute (NCI) menyatakan banyak studi yang telah berhasil menyembuhkan kanker di mencit, tetapi nihil di manusia. Asap rokok, arsenik, asbes, benzen, dan alkohol ternyata aman digunakan berdasarkan studi pada satwa, tetapi di manusia efeknya sangat berbahaya.Pemaparan di atas bisa menjadi pegangan kita bahwa tidak semua hasil aman dari animal testing aman pula bagi manusia, begitu pula sebaliknya. Uji coba pada satwa agar aman saat tes klinik pada manusia menjadi tidak beralasan. Dalam 10 tahun penelitian internasional, menyatakan bahwa penggunaan test pada kultur sel manusia (tube-test), lebih efektif dan lebih mudah diaplikasikan dalam mekanisme pengobatan pada manusia dibandingkan penelitian tradisional yang menggunakan satwa. Jadi mengapa masih melakukan uji pada satwa?Hal lain yang dapat kita lakukan adalah selektif terhadap produk yang kita beli. Dengan tidak membeli produk dari perusahaan yang melakukan animal testing, kita ikut berpartisipasi mengurangi penderitaan para satwa. Perusahaan yang tidak melakukan animal testing umumnya menggunakan label non-animal testing, meskipun ada juga yang tidak mencantumkannya

PRO ANIMAL TESTINGTelah praktek yang sangat umum untuk menguji senyawa rumah tangga, kosmetik dan produk farmasi pada hewan untuk waktu yang sangat lama. Sebagai masalah jika fakta, telah diperkirakan bahwa hampir 20 juta hewan digunakan untuk pengujian dan dibunuh setiap tahun. Dari ini, 15 juta diuji untuk pengobatan dan 5 juta diuji untuk produk lain. Laporan juga menunjukkan bahwa sekitar 10% dari hewan-hewan ini tidak dikelola dengan pembunuh rasa sakit yang memadai.

Di seluruh dunia, produk baru mulai dari obat kanker sampai dengan sabun dan shampoo diuji pada hewan Ada banyak pertanyaan mengenai etika menggunakan hewan untuk pengujian Oleh karena itu, beberapa peraturan telah diletakkan di tempat yang mengevaluasi dan mengontrol binatang yang digunakan untuk tujuan pengujian. Hal ini diyakini bahwa peraturan ini akan memastikan penelitian yang dilakukan dalam cara yang manusiawi dan etis mungkin. Namun, peraturan ini juga berada di bawah banyak argumentasi.

Sebuah survei yang dilakukan di American Medical Association menunjukkan bahwa 99% dari semua dokter yang aktif di Amerika Serikat percaya bahwa penelitian hewan telah melahirkan kemajuan medis. Bahkan, sekitar 97% dari dokter juga mendukung penggunaan terus menerus jika hewan untuk penelitian klinis dan dasar. Alasan utama di balik ini adalah fakta bahwa para ilmuwan telah menemukan bahwa ada sangat sedikit atau perbedaan antara laboratorium hewan dan manusiaSebuah organisasi Inggris dengan nama Research Pertahanan Society (RDS) yang dilembagakan untuk membela pengujian hewan menunjukkan bahwa sebagian besar pengaduan dilakukan terhadap pengujian hewan tidak benar dan juga bahwa tes hewan menghasilkan informasi berharga tentang bagaimana obat baru akan bereaksi di dalam tubuh yang hidup Pengujian harus dilanjutkan untuk mendeteksi informasi dari segala masalah kesehatan utama yang dapat disebabkan oleh obat-obatan seperti kerusakan hati, tekanan darah meningkat, kerusakan syaraf dan kerusakan pada janin

Hewan Pengujian Pro

Ketika setiap anggota dalam keluarga kami sehat dan lezat, sangat sulit untuk memahami seperti mengapa hewan-hewan tak berdosa digunakan untuk tujuan pengujian yang biasanya berakhir membunuh mereka. Tapi biasanya mulai lebih masuk akal ketika seseorang dalam keluarga atau Anda sendiri mulai menderita penyakit yang mengancam jiwaIni adalah hubungan yang sangat simbiosis yang juga bagian yang sangat integral dari penelitian medis. Pengujian pada hewan telah membantu mengembangkan vaksin untuk kehidupan banyak mengancam penyakit seperti Herpes Simplex, Hepatitis B, Polio, rabies, malaria, gondok dan virus yang berkaitan dengan penolakan organ transplantasi Selain ini, pengujian hewan juga membantu dalam penyempurnaan prosedur yang berkaitan dengan mengukur tekanan darah, teknologi alat pacu jantung dan kesempurnaan dari penyakit jantung dan paru-paru. Anda akan terkejut membaca bahwa anestesi yang digunakan untuk mati rasa tubuh selama operasi dan nyeri akut tersedia hari ini setelah berhasil diuji pada binatang pertama.

Manusia bukan makhluk yang hanya hidup yang telah memperoleh manfaat dari pengujian hewan Heart obat cacing ini dirancang dari penelitian pada hewan dan telah sampai hari membantu menyelamatkan nyawa banyak anjing. Hewan penelitian juga telah memberikan pemahaman yang lebih baik gizi kucing dan alasan di balik seperti mengapa kucing hidup lebih lama dan tetap sehat lebih baik dipahami.

Menemukan obat dan vaksin untuk AIDS telah menjadi salah satu tujuan paling penting dari industri penelitian medis. research as they help in understanding the biology of immune-deficiency viruses. model hewan untuk AIDS adalah bagian yang sangat penting dari penelitian sebagaimana mereka membantu dalam memahami biologi virus defisiensi kekebalan.

Fakta dari masalah ini adalah bahwa untuk membuat kemajuan dalam bidang obat-obatan, pengujian hewan adalah suatu keharusan Menahan atau melarang pengujian oleh para aktivis binatang tidak akan membantu dengan cara apapun. Terserah kepada kita dan semua orang milik organisasi hewan dan penelitian medis untuk memastikan bahwa hal yang sama dilakukan dengan cara, aman etis menyebabkan sebagai nyeri kecil dan ketidaknyamanan mungkin untuk binatang. Jika pengujian hewan itu harus dilarang maka akan sangat sedikit ruang lingkup memperoleh informasi yang akan sangat diperlukan untuk menghilangkan penderitaan dan kematian dini pada manusia dan hewan.

ANIMAL TESTING PROSIt has been a very common practice to test a household compounds, cosmetics and pharmaceutical products on animals for a very long time. As a matter if fact, it has been estimated that nearly 20 million animals are used for testing and are killed annually. Out of these, 15 million are tested for medication and 5 million are tested for other products. Reports also indicate that about 10% of these animals are not administered with adequate pain killers.

Across the world, new products ranging from cancer drugs to soaps and shampoos are tested on the animals. There are many questions regarding the ethics of using animals for testing. Hence, several regulations have been put in place that evaluate and control the animals that are being used for testing purposes. It is believed that these regulations will ensure that research is carried out in as humane and as ethical manner as possible. However, these regulations are also under a lot of argumentation.

A survey conducted in the American Medical Association indicates that 99% of all active physicians in the United States believe that animal research has given rise to medical advancements. In fact, about 97% of the physicians also supported the continuous use if animals for clinical and basic research. The main reason behind this is the fact that scientists have found that there is very little or difference between the lab animals and humans. A British organization by the name Research Defense Society (RDS) that was instituted to defend animal testing indicates that most of the complaints made against animal testing are not correct and also that animal testing generates invaluable information about how new drugs would react inside a living body. The tests have to be continued in order to detect information of any major health problems that can be caused by the drugs like liver damage, enhanced blood pressure, nerve damage and damages to the fetus

Animal Testing Pros

When every member in our family is hale and hearty, it is very difficult to understand as to why the innocent animals are used for testing purposes that usually ends up killing them. But it usually starts to make more sense when someone in the family or you yourself starts suffering from a life threatening disease. It is a very symbiotic relationship that is also a very integral part of medical research. Testing on animals has helped develop vaccines for many life threatening diseases like Herpes Simplex, Hepatitis B, Polio, rabies, malaria, mumps and virus related to organ transplantation rejection. In addition to this, animal testing has also helped in the refinement of procedures related to measuring the blood pressure, pacemaker technology and the perfection of the heart and lung diseases. You will be surprised to read that anesthesia which is used to numb the body during surgery and acute pain is available today after it was successfully tested on animals first.

Human beings are not the only living creatures that have benefited from animal testing. Heart worm medication was devised from research on animals and has to day helped in saving the lives of many dogs. Animal research has also provided better understanding of cat nutrition and the reasons behind as to why cats live longer and remain healthier are better understood.

Finding a cure and a vaccine for AIDS has become one of the most important goals of the medical research industry. The animal models for AIDS are a very important part of the research as they help in understanding the biology of immune-deficiency viruses.

The fact of the matter is that to make advances in the field of medicines, animal testing is a must. Restraining or banning the testing by animal activists will not help in any way. It is up to us and all individuals belonging to animal organizations and medical research to ensure that the same is carried out in a safe, ethical manner causing as little pain and discomfort possible to the animal. If animal testing was to be outlawed then there would be very little scope of obtaining information that would be very necessary to eliminate suffering and premature deaths in both humans and animals.Pros Humans can be treated with medication which saves their lives because the medication has been approved of from the testing of animals. Humans and animals have similar reactions to medication and cosmetics, meaning that they can be approved of and used on humans.

Cons Perfumes and cosmetics are often tested in the eyes of animals so that the reaction is quicker, but it can make the animals blind and, if oral medication, can kill the animals. The medications and cosmetics are not only tested on a single animal at a time, but on many, meaning that if the drug or cosmetic is harmful or deadly to the animal, not only one animal dies or becomes seriously ill, but many do, perhaps hundreds. The animals that are used for testing drugs, such as guinea pigs, can die from the treatment of such life-saving drugs as penicillin, so if these particular drugs are tested on guinea pigs before the treatment is later used on humans, the drug will appear to the testing scientist as deadly, whereas it is only the guinea pig that the penicillin is deadly to, therefore the drug will not be used to treat patients in critical conditions and on the verge of death, therefore it is not only animals that are being killed in the testing of them, but humans as well.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_pros_and_cons_for_animal_testing#ixzz1D56o9iv71. To establish a product is not harmful before being used on humans.

2. To fully characterize the properties of that product and potential long term harm. Properties inlcude:

half life of drug/producttoxicityeffective doseside effectslethal doseallergic response

3. To prove that your product works in an animal model to then scale up into human clinical trials. (generally, if you can't prove experimental medicine to work in mice, rats, sheep, then monkeys. chances are it would be approved to be used in humans).

Animal Testing Pros

Animal testing is basically making use of animals in experiments carried out for the betterment of human lives. These animal experiments are carried out by universities, pharmaceutical companies and even by students and researchers at medical schools. These animals are either bred specifically for carrying out experiments or are caught from their wild habitat and locked up in cages. There are some animal testing pros that motivate scientists to carry out experiments on these animals. So, what are some of the good things that support the torturing of these poor animals? Let's see some of these animal testing pros that makes proponents of animal experimentation argue for use of animals in research.

Animal testing helps in finding ways to help save lives of animals and humans by testing life saving drugs and processes. A few animals tend to react the same way like humans in response to certain diseases and allergies. This helps the scientists find a cure for certain diseases by studying these animals. Open heart surgeries, coronary bypass surgery and heart transplantation are some of the procedures that came into existence by carrying out experimentation on dogs. Insulin for diabetes, life saving antibiotics, etc. have been made by experimenting on animals. Contagious diseases like small pox, measles, chicken pox, rubella, polio, rabies, mumps, etc. were brought into control due to vaccines made by carrying out experiments on animals.

Treatment for scarlet fever, tuberculosis, complex surgical procedures for humans were tested OK for humans through animal testing. Tests for vaccines for diseases like AIDS is being carried out on animals. The common animals used for these tests include rats, mice, rabbits, monkeys, dogs, goats, horses, etc. Chimpanzees share about 90% of their genetic make up with humans. These animals have similar reactions and somewhat similar inner organs to humans that help in determining the effects of drugs and procedures on humans. Many transplantation operations were first carried out on animals, that helped determine and save lives for humans.

Animals are not only tested for making lives of humans better, but for the betterment of animals themselves as well. People often overlook the fact, that may breakthroughs in veterinary medicine has occurred due to animal testing. Animal surgeries, animal antibiotics, etc. have all come into existence, due to animal testing. Thus, animal testing pros prove it is very vital in saving not only the lives of humans, but those of animals as well.

Animal testing helps in figuring out the safety of drugs on humans, before scientists begin the human trail. You don't want people getting adverse reactions to these drugs and adding more woes to their misery. The animal trials help minimize the chances of human death during clinical trials, saving pharmaceutical and medical organizations millions of dollars in compensation. Also, animals, like mice and rabbits, reproduce very quickly. This gives the researchers a chance to see the effects of the experiments on the progeny too. Now, let us see some of the arguments against animal testing.

Animal Testing Cons

When we speak about animal testing cons, there are plenty of emotional and ethical issues staring in our faces. The first and foremost con is the issue of pain the animal must be going through. Although, it is claimed none of the animals were hurt in the test, but how can one be 100% sure? Not all handlers are alike and some just jab the needles through their body, keep them in cramped up spaces, with little or no food sometimes. Animals cannot speak, so how can we determine whether or not and the level of pain the poor creature is going through?

Animal testing statistics show many creatures lose their lives during the course of experiments. Some lose their limbs, eyesight, hearing ability, etc. All in the name of saving human lives. Agreed, when people say millions of animals are killed worldwide for food. But, you can't compare that with the months of torture the animals go through while the experiments are on. Wouldn't you prefer being killed in one shot, rather than enduring poking needles, cuts and poisonous chemicals being injected into your system and being kept caged in a really small space for what seems like all eternity? You may wish to escape the dreaded place that smells of disinfectants, chemicals and may be sure death, but cannot.

There are many animal rights group that claim killing animals is inhumane. Animal testing in cosmetic industry as well as a household products is not worth the life of a poor animal. Animal testing also proves to be a bit expensive. This is because the cost of housing, feeding caring for the animals is quite high. Animals are in a great deal of stress as they are not living in their natural habitat and the controlled environment may take a toll on their minds. Also, some claim animal experiments can be misleading as an animals response to a drug cannot be absolutely similar to a humans.

People are now suggesting use of tissue culture, statistics and even computer models for carrying out the test. Animal rights also exist and abusing someone weaker than us is not right. The death of animals due to an experiment gone wrong is similar to murder of a human who was tested against his will. In human tests, at least humans are asked whether or not they would like to sign up legally for being tested. There are legal papers and documents that safeguard the rights of the human subject and compensate him for any kind of loss. Animals on the other hand, are never asked for their opinion and have never had their rights safeguarded. The obvious explanation begin they do not have the understanding capabilities of humans. This does not give us the right to use another life for our benefits.

To find a cure for cancer, the animal cells are forced to grow abnormally, so that experiments can be carried out to find a remedy. With stem cell research and genetics getting a push, animals are subjected to further animal cruelty. Hybrid animals and cloning is carried out on the poor animals who are injected with genes of other animals within an embryo of another species. The resultant being a cross, that is either malformed or dead before being born. Do we have the right to reduce the dignity of animals by forcing mutations on them?

These are just some of the animal testing pros and cons. You can see both the sides of animal testing facts tilt the scales of the balance equally. Animal testing helps saves lives of millions of humans, but in turn, thousands of these animals lose their lives. It is an open fact, not all handlers and researchers handle the animals with care. Computers cannot predict an outcome, just the possibility and tissue culture cannot predict the physical implications of a drug like rashes, cardiac failure, etc. Similarly, animal testing cannot accurately prove the implications of drugs and procedures on humans.

It has been proven that over 92% of drugs that claim to pass the animal trials fail when tested on humans by the Humane Society of the United States. This debate on animal testing pros and cons will continue till scientists do not find an alternative to this cruel process of animal experimentation. You can decide for yourself, whether you are for, against or just a mute spectator to animal testing. Every coin has two sides, so does animal testing. It is now up to each one of us to decide, which side do we choose.