Disagreeing | Online Homework Help

Name:
Course:
Tutor:
Date:
Disagreeing
For several centuries since the beginning of scientific experiments, researchers have been using animals to test the safety of all the drugs that doctors use to treat human beings (Rollin 429). Accordingly, science has consumed billions of animals in processes believed to be inhuman and unacceptable to animal rights activists and people advocating for alternative test subjects (Franco 239). As a result, the use of animal subjects in laboratory experiments has elicited a heated debate around the world. However, laboratory technologists foresee a time when animal specimens will no longer be used for drug tests. In particular, Andrew Rowan, chief executive officer of Humane Society International (HSI) and chief scientific officer of Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) shared their views on the issue and revealed that they expect to eliminate animal specimen in 2050. However, considering the trends and age of this debate, this response paper argues that the contents of this article are far-fetched dreams that may take forever to realize (Blakemore website). Therefore, this essay presents a disagreement refuting opinions transmitted by the author in the text.
To begin with, the author argues that since the mid-1970s, the number of animals used for experiments every year dropped by half up to 29 million animals, in America and European Union (Dvorsky website). However, he notes that this number has stagnated for the last ten years. This is a clear indication that a full reduction up to zero animals will take several decades before they eliminate animals from their test programs. In aIDition, there is no clear prediction that the number may drop below 29 million in the near future. Katsnelson says that, “it is impossible to estimate that 29 million animals will escape toxic experiments when the number has remained untouched during the last decade” (Franco 266). Conversely, rats and mice constitute 80% of all animals used in experiments, a trend that continues to remain highly popular among researchers. Dvorsky notes that, “this is because these animals are easily available, docile, cheap, and excellent specimens for genetic engineering experiments”. In aIDition, they do not have as much animal rights as compared to other creatures that the law protects. Moreover, man has practically the same combination of genes as rats and mice thus making them biologically similar. This makes rats and mice suitable subjects to conduct laboratory experiments. For instance, the bodies of rats and mice respond to diseases and treatments in the same fashion as humans (Dvorsky website).
Secondly, the author claims that rapid technological advancements will eradicate the use of animals in studies and make it traditional and irrelevant (Franco 239). This essay disagrees because it is obvious that ‘non-living’ models can never show the same capability of replicating all the applications of animals in the laboratory (Dvorsky website). For instance, in the midst of these entire advocacies to eliminate animal specimen in laboratories, the advocates understand that, in some experiments, it is difficult or impossible to find an equivalent non-animal alternative (Rollin 431). For example, when formulating a new drug that reduces joint pains in people suffering from arthritis, the scientist must only use a model that imitates human conditions and behavior during pain. This may not be possible when using test subjects such as cell cultures and computer simulations. In a related discovery, scientists at Seattle used an electric brain implant to enhance limb movement in a paralyzed monkey (Katsnelson website). In my opinion, this discovery creates the sensations of using the same technology to enable persons with disabilities regain their movement (Rollin 431). Nonetheless, scientists know that computer simulations cannot paint a true model of what is considered for simulation. For instance, scientists and technologists cannot possibly simulate phenomena that they do not comprehend. Consequently, if these models vary slightly from the real object, the whole simulation will have a high divergence from expectations and reality. Therefore, it is impossible to foresee a future in which scientists INSERT animals with “cell cultures, magnetic resonance imaging, isolated tissues, and technological inventions” that cannot expose the answers that animals provide (Franco 251).
Thirdly, only a legal enactment can ban and eliminate the use of animals in laboratory experiments (Franco 261). However, this is not forthcoming since the same law requires pharmaceuticals and other manufacturers of drugs to test them on animals before the government can approve them for human prescription (Rollin 433). For example, the United States and the European Union outlines that the efficacy and safety of a drug can only be approved and ascertained after successful tests on animals (Katsnelson website). Therefore, the law must be changed to make animal tests optional instead of being compulsory.
Fourthly, for the many centuries when science has used animals for experiments, human race has derived invaluable gains during the process (Franco 245). Accordingly, it will be impossible for experienced and highly qualified scientists to rule out animal specimens in the absence of decent alternatives (Blakemore website). Over the years, significant advancements in the medical field have developed from tests done on animals. For example, HIV-AIDS treatment, antibiotics, cervical cancer and polio vaccines, insulin, organ transplants, and heart-bypass surgery substantiate the significance that animal specimens have towards medical progress. The test for all these discoveries cannot be done on humans because some may be unsafe (Rollin 427).
The author also advocates for the elimination of animal specimen pointing out that research using experiments involving animals is complex, time consuming, expensive, and subject to several regulations (Blakemore website). These sentiments are correct, but they do not offer convincing reasons to accept the perceived elimination of animal subjects during scientific experiments to determine the efficacy and safety of newly manufactured drugs. To dismiss the argument against time consumed, “it is significant to note that attempts to INSERT animals with other models began over 50 years ago” (Franco 269). However, after all this time, the efforts have only achieved half of the results and continue to stagnate for the last one decade. Therefore, the process of creating technological options and other alternatives seems to be an eternal process when compared to the use of animal test subjects. In aIDition, technological innovations are often complex and require financial investments and safety tests before they can become functional (Rollin 429). Technology has kept on changing and becomes obsolete as fast as possible. This makes it impossible and insignificant to carry out scientific investigations using different equipment every time technology changes. Accordingly, technological innovators are likely to be subjected to several years of designing non-animal models and aIDitional years of mastering their new specimens and equipment (Blakemore website).
Lastly, medical research involves numerous complexities that require every tool within its reach. For instance, there are several incurable and dreadful diseases such as multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer, and schizophrenia among others (Katsnelson website). In aIDition, some disease strains keep on evolving and develop resistance to drugs. This compels medical researchers to conduct continuous research and experiments to counter the resistance. However, to achieve this tall order, scientist and other researchers must have unlimited access to all possible specimen including animals (Rollin 434).
No medical researcher rejoices in using animal subjects when doing scientific experiments to determine the efficacy and safety of drugs. It is time consuming, expensive, subject to a number of regulations but still remains the best alternative in exposing the causative agents of diseases and possible treatments (Franco 271). The proposed technological options and non-animal alternatives cannot offer the same results as the animal subjects and enable a conclusive study on all experiments. In aIDition, the decline on the use of animals has stagnated for several years thus making the agenda a stalled project that will take a lifetime to accomplish (Blakemore website). In contrast, researched strains are in a constant mode of evolution; therefore, ‘obsolete’ technology cannot be involved in studying such diseases (Dvorsky website). It is justifiable to conclude that the objective of using non-animals in all scientific projects is desirable and noble but may not succeed when the people consider the significance of animal specimens during similar experiments (Rollin 433). However, scientists should embrace several alternatives in their experiments to reduce the number of animal specimens. Moreover, some researches might not be conducted using computer models; therefore, animals can be used in such exceptions under tight regulations.

Works Cited
Blakemore, Colin. “Should we experiment on animals? Yes.” 2008. Web. 9 Sep 2013.

.

Dvorsky, George. “Can technology help us put an end to animal experimentation?” 2012. Web. 9 Sep 2013.

.

Katsnelson, Alla. “Will we ever… eliminate animal experimentation?.” 2013. Web. 9 Sep 2013.

.

Franco, Nuno Henrique. “Animal Experiments In Biomedical Research: A Historical Perspective.” Animals (2076-2615) 3.1 (2013): 238-273. Academic Search Premier. Web. 9 Sept. 2013.

Rollin, Bernard. “Animal Pain: What It Is And Why It Matters.” Journal Of Ethics 15.4 (2011): 425-437. Academic Search Premier. Web. 9 Sept. 2013.