Micah Stewart

Mr. Samuel Hackworth

English 102

12 February 2016

Are science and society ready for alternatives to animal testing?

Animal testing is a very hot topic for debate that is frequently met with many different viewpoints, the leading two being, "animal cruelty is wrong and unethical" and "it is for the good of society and necessary for medical advancement". The most significant viewpoint is often overlooked, the compromise, the side that agrees that testing is an important part of development but also needs to be done ethically and with standards; this side is searching for an alternative to replace animals in the testing cycle. I believe there is a third side of every issue, that is why I am interested in this research question, there is always a solution that benefits all. I hope that the answer to this question is yes because I am definitely against animal cruelty but at the same time I would have had to attend many more family funerals, without medication created from animal testing. I have no direct personal experience regarding animal testing but have seen the results of having no treatment to an illness and also animals that have been permanently scarred from horrific experiences in their life. I possess no qualifications to give me credibility to this topic except the research I have found and articles that I have read regarding both points of view.

The first article argues that animal testing is not efficient and is unreliable. It addresses physiologically that animals are not little humans and thereby produce false results and pointless experimentation. Even though we may share similar genes with different species they function differently, scientists try to take account for this by manipulating the genes to make them more "human" but still to no prevail. A major value is all the time and resources wasted on "guessing" what genome structure is compatible. A large percentage of the overall testing is used to find a compatible gene structure that is similar enough to humans so that the results of the medical testing will reflect true results; the amount of time squandered with trial and error is far too high; and this is all before the experiments that involve testing the drug. The author is a highly qualified neurologist, she works for the Emerging Threats of the FDA, and is a highly involved animal activist. Though her article is highly informative, she skillfully tries to write so that the article appears neutral, although the evidence only addresses one side. The article is not quite unbiased as it doesn't mention any pro-animal experimenting points in the information.

The second article addresses that animal experimentation is cruel and immoral. The article informs us that 50 to 100 million animals are killed annually worldwide for experiments and research. It states that animals feel the same amount of pain as we do as they have similar nerve structures, much to contrary belief. It also argues that humans do not have the right to treat members of a different species in such a way that would be considered racism or sexist if we acted like so to one another. There are many issues concerning the equality of animals when compared to humans, and why humans are justified with their actions. The author, Steve Hoagland, is a research administrator and a member of boards overseeing the use of animals and humans in research. He also educates other officials about the problems involved, proving that he is knowledgeable about the topic. With his use of actual events and outcomes to support his argument, it makes it harder for individuals to argue with his facts rather than possible emotion.  There is an obvious bias as it is clear that he is against animal experimentation. 

The main topic in the final article is the development of a new technique that may be able to transition testing from in vivo (within the living) to in silico (on computers). By identifying specific features within individual molecules that cause certain events, researchers say that it should be possible to make accurate predictions about the effects of new and untested chemical compounds.  Instead of testing on animals, scientists would be able to screen a chemical's molecular structure using customized computer software. This is very valuable as it saves millions of animals and at the same time produce better results. This new technique will also reduce all of the time and resources wasted pretesting for similar genome structures. This new technique has potential to increase the rate of development and discoveries exponentially, saving thousands of lives in the process. This article was published by the University of Cambridge, so besides being one of the most prestigious schools, has no other credibility. This is an informative article so has hardly any bias besides the fact that it feels that there is a better solution for researching without using animals.

The research question is debatable as some would say that the introduction of an alternative would take years to perfect and thereby put current development on hold during the transition. On the other hand, this change is inevitable so making the change now is perfectly reasonable, and the time lost will certainly be made up due to the efficiency of the alternative, saving millions of animals in the process. The sources have not had any direct disputes, though there has been a debate on results over necessary sacrifices, in terms of animals. After researching and analyzing the articles, I stand with my original view if not more inspired to find an alternative, which at this time seems highly likely of coming into play. I might have to revise the part about 'society being ready' in my research question, since nothing in the sources have much to do with society, and replace it with something more conflicting.

Works Cited

Aysha Akhtar, M.D., M.P.H., "Why Animal Experimentation Doesn't Work. Reason 3: Animals Aren't Little Humans", The Huffington Post, Huffpost Science, Jan 23, 2014, Jan 29, 2016, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aysha-akhtar/why-animal-experimentatio_b_3997568.html 

Wright, George, and Steve Hoagland. "Counterpoint: Animal Testing Is Cruel And Immoral Regardless Of The Benefits Associated With It." Points Of View: Animal Experimentation (2015): 3. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 5 Feb. 2016.

Univ. of Cambridge, "Technique Could Eliminate Animal Testing", Laboratory Equipment, November 19, 2014, February 5, 2016, http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2014/11/technique-could-eliminate-animal-testing
