NEGATIVE By Akhadov Bilol KT Reporter
These days, a lot of people make arguments about animal testing. The positive side insists to do it because of human’s safety. The negative side insists not to do it because of animal rights. In this argument, my opinion supports the positive side. I think animal testing is needed for humans because it keeps humans away from the serious side effects of what humans try for the first time. It is also needed for humans to have a healthy life.
To state the reasons, firstly, it takes a long time to get testing results from humans because subjects need to be investigated through many generations. A human’s lifespan is up to 70 to 80 years while a house mouse is up to 2 to 3 years. Therefore, there is a limit to do a human targeted experiment. Secondly, you must look at the Elixir Sulfanilamide tragedy. When an antibiotic named Sulfanilamide was developed in America, it was used immediately without animal testing. The result was terrible. 107 people died because of side effects. After that, researchers did animal testing and which resulted in the animal’s death. . Therefore, if they had done proper animal testing before humans took it, they could have saved 107 people’s lives. Thirdly, inoculation and treatment of various diseases are the result of an experiment. For example, Pasteur's principle of vaccination developed the vaccinations for measles, rubella, and other diseases that many people suffered from at that time while studying rabies. Discovery of insulin was also made through dogs and prion was made through hamsters. The next reason is that animal testing can detect fatal side effects of a product. Products that you eat or put directly on people's bodies, such as cosmetics, cigarettes, and food, should be tested on animals to determine the risks you may have. Lastly, you cannot test people for toxicity. Humans made social promises not to test on each other. In addition, according to human rights, it is difficult to do a human experiment. However, products that contain toxic substances, such as pesticides, need to be determined how much of the toxin will affect the human body. This determines the amount of toxic substances that can be dangerous to humans and limits their use by designating them as toxic or specific poisons. Therefore, we must do animal experiments to test the level of toxicity. For these reasons, I think animal testing is needed for humans.
We are not aware of the negative side to animal testing yet. It is indeed surprising how this phenomenon which includes poisoning, shocking, burning and killing animals still exists or even gained popularity. I assume, these atrocious acts would be regarded as felonies provided that they were conducted outside laboratories. However, those innocent laboratories experience suffering and death of unprotected animals on a daily basis. In my opinion, this should be halted since they are unreliable which may bring catastrophic results and are ineffective because of the differences between human beings and animals.
Initially, despite showing successful outcomes in animal tests, 90% of drugs fail when it comes to human trials because of safety grounds or they simply do not work. Only 8% of neurology, 6% of psychiatry and only 5% of cancer drugs are permitted for public use after clinical analysis. On most occasions, involving dogs, rats, mice and rabbits to test a new drug does not guarantee the high safety degree when consumed by a human being. Secondly, relying on the results of animal testing completely can bring several dangerous results. Here, I have included the most catastrophic ones. Vioxx, an anti arthritis drug caused around 320,000 heart attacks in which 140,000 people died. Yet, this tablet was claimed to be non-hazardous after being probed on monkeys. A drug which was planned to cure anxiety and Parkinson’s disease was firstly tested on mice, rats, dogs and monkeys. When it was tested on a group of volunteers in France, it resulted in the death of one and a severe mental injury on the other 4 volunteers. An anti Hepatitis B drug Fialuridine had to be removed from doctors’ prescription list since it brought a serious liver injury in 7 patients, 5 of whom died. Finally, the anatomic, metabolic and cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models for human beings. Animals do not catch illnesses such as Parkinson’s disease, heart problems, various types of cancer, Alzheimer’s disease or HIV. Therefore, it is ineffective to test new drugs that cure these illnesses on animals. Macaque (monkey), which is the most widespread Drug Safety Tester, is resistant to a large amount of paracetamol that could bring deadly effects in humans. Toxic products for dogs such as chocolate, grapes and avocados are harmless in people. Aspirin would not have been sold in our pharmacies if it had been experimented on cats, mice, rats. (It is really toxic for these animals)
Animal testing prolongs the squandering of precious time, money, resources and mainly millions of thinking, feeling animals’ lives. Do you think we can permit this thing to continue? From my point of view, it should be prohibited to save millions of alive creatures and millions of sums that can be spent on other undeveloped spheres.