Draft 1: Recovering what is Humane in Humanity
Jessica Ramos
ENG 100
Assignment #3: I –Search Paper
Due: 12/4/14
Recovering what is Humane in Humanity
1. Proposal
I have chosen to write about testing biomedical products on animals. My research question is: Is there a necessity to test biomedical products on animals? I wonder this because I believe, as a future Veterinarian and a current Veterinary Technician, that animals should never be harmed or mistreated in any way. I have always believed that there were alternatives to testing on live animals, such as using stem cells or plants, but I have never done any research to confirm it. By using this topic, I will discover whether there is a true need to continue to test on animals or if there are good and trustable substitutes that can be implemented. In my research I will strive to educate about the topic of research with animals and the nature of that research as well as inform of the new substitutes, research laws and what is truly being enforced.
I will mainly use three sources to support the research in this paper. The first source will be the library database that my community college offers. From this source I will gather peer reviewed articles. The second source will be Google searches that I will narrow with key phrases such as “substitutes for animals in medical testing.” From my searches I will only use reliable websites and look for opinions of current researchers and doctors. The third source will be my blog post entitled Room for Debate which centralized itself on the discussion on animal rights laws. From that post I will look into authors and their professional opinions. Any other resources will be smaller portions of the paper.
2. Process
In order to have concrete information for my paper, I went to Delaware County Community College’s Library Guide to begin my search for resources. I looked for full texts and peer reviewed articles on topics including animal testing and animals in medical research. From those searches I found two definite articles, one a PDF and another one a linked website that I will be using in my paper. Next I headed to Google where I typed in similar phrases, except this time I added alternatives to animals in medical testing. After gathering a few more websites, I changed my search to something I had been talking about with a coworker. I Googled the phrase vivisection and looked into the linked before taking a few off of the search query. I finally Googled one last phrase of testing on animals to see if there would be any change in results. Many were the same as I had received before, however a few new and promising ones showed up. I gathered all of the sites that I thought would be helpful and sent them in an email to myself titled Research for I-Search Paper. In the email I had subheadings for each hyperlink to keep myself organized.
The next day I went through my email and weeded through all of the links. In my excitement I had copy and pasted a few that turned out to not be quite so helpful in the research department and more helpful in self-knowledge. I then turned to my blog post on the New York Times: Room for Debate that I wrote on Animal Cruelty Laws. I looked through the authors and pulled some of their testimony from the debate as well as personal opinion from their blogs and websites.
The following day at work I recorded a conversation I had with one of my bosses about her time in research. I uploaded it to my computer and saved it in a folder titled I-Search. Later that night I transcribed the audio into a word document.
3. Paper
Around the world science is blooming like a flower in spring. There are new drugs being discovered, new innovations and tools, new technology, and new diseases to conquer. There is something that is shriveling, however, in the shade it is cast under constantly. One of the main reasons that research is expanding so rapidly is because there is finally a test subject. Drugs are no longer given to humans without knowing the outcome. They are tested repeatedly until they reach a bar of safety and even then, the drugs undergo more trials. A broad range from white rats (commonly known as lab rats) to chimpanzees are immersed in our culture of pharmaceuticals. They are forced to trial drugs that have unknown effects so that humans can avoid damage. In this rapidly developing world, however, new testing prospects have been created. These new test subjects have caused a debate over the ethics employed within medical research. The brutality that has been uncovered in recent years has brought forth the question of whether it is humane to continue to experiment on animals. In this paper I will explore how research has evolved through animal testing and look at the new alternatives that can be substituted.
The road of animal testing has been a long one. It has been noted that one of the first documented cases of animal testing was done by Greek philosopher Aristotle in 384 B.C (Hajar, “Animal Testing and Medicine”). Nuno Franco believes that experimentation and testing on animals began as a means to explore functions of the human physiology that could not be discovered by examining a cadaver (Franco, “The History of Vivisection”). My concern with my claim is simple: why does the concern for human pain in these trials not extend to animals? Numerous studies have proven that all animals are capable of feeling fear and pain (Cooke, “Pain and Suffering in Non-Human Animals”). The main reason that animals were chosen over humans to be tested on was the concern over the pain and trauma that would be caused. Many were worried that it would be inhumane to treat humans that way (Franco, “The History of Vivisection”).
Soon testing expanded its waters from small stream laboratories to ocean wide pharmaceutical companies. Once pharmaceuticals began to become more popular, there was a need to know the outcome of the effects the drugs would have when used by humans. There was a tragic trial of the drug thalidomide in the 1950s in which many pregnant women took the pill in order to fight morning sickness (Hajar, “Animal Testing and Medicine”). Hajar notes that because there was no animal testing done on this drug, the effects were not known and as a result, “more than 10,000 children in 46 countries were born with malformations or missing limbs” (“Animal Testing and Medicine”). This is a clear case where testing of pharmaceuticals is proven to be absolutely necessary before giving them out to the population. The issue of bringing animals into the picture, however, is where I do not agree. Animals do not at all have the same physiology as humans do. Everything from their heart rates to their levels of creatinine is different from us. This factor makes me question what is truly gained from trials and experiments done on these creatures.
The hope for testing alternatives has finally turned into a reality. There are many confirmed and regulated alternatives that have proven to be successful. The first of these substitutes is the in vitro method (“Alternatives to Animals”). A breakthrough option under the in vitro testing method is the “organs-on -chips” that were created by the Wyss Institute at Harvard (“Organs-on-Chips”). These chips have been proven to replicate human physiology and responses to drugs and diseases better than animal counterparts (“Alternatives to Testing Animals”). I believe that with the use of these chips there is a great beginning to changing how the research world will work. The usage of animals will hopefully decrease and there will be a more rapid pace and higher percentage of accuracy when it comes to releasing new drugs. Another method that can be implemented is known as microdosing (“Alternatives to Animals”). Within the realm of microdosing, human volunteers are given a superlatively small, one time dosage of a drug and then undergo imaging to see how the drug interacts with their system (“Alternatives to Testing on Animals”). I do not see this catching on as quickly as “organs-on-chips” purely because it would involve humans subjecting themselves to danger. If this process were to catch popularity, however, I believe it would move the animals out of danger’s way. The final option that I will be discussing is the option of human patient simulators (“Alternatives to Animals”). According to PETA, “Ninety-seven percent of medical schools across the U.S. have completely replaced the use of animal laboratories in medical training with… virtual-reality systems, computer simulators, and supervised clinical experience” (“Alternatives to Testing on Animals). With statistics across the board in high favor of simulators over actual testing, I feel that many people are ready to move on to the next stage of medical research, a stage that does not involve cruelty to animals. The begging question, however, is will the switch be to sources as reliable?
As with any alternatives, there are pros and cons that come with each substitute option. Aside from taking animals out of the picture, the upsides of the in vitro method are that it can assess the safety of drugs and chemicals as well as mirror any irritation that would be caused to the skin (“Alternatives to Testing on Animals”). The downsides to this method are that it only focuses on cellular level reactivity and scientists argue that a full body study would still need to be conducted (“Alternatives to Animals”). Microdosing helps weed out drugs that will not work in humans, again, therefore negating any further animal testing on the drug (“Alternatives to Testing on Animals”). However, it only is considered a Phase 0, which is the earliest level of testing, to researchers which means that despite any evidence gathered a drug that proved progressive would have to then be tested on animals for assurance of safety (“Alternatives in Testing”). Finally, human patient simulators face the same issues as microdosing in which any results gathered would have to be tested in a real life scenario, and it is likely to be performed on a live animal (“Alternatives to Animals”). I realize, especially with two kittens of my own, the want to be safe in any drug that is given to the public. However, I again stress that there are so many methods being presented that offer conclusive data, such as “organs-on-chips” that I believe could eliminate testing on animals altogether. I feel the cons associated with microdosing and human patient simulators are the same ones associated with using Microsoft Word instead of writing something out by hand. The discrepancies are notable only because of the disruption to the status quo. These new innovations are coming along and kicking convention’s kickstand up. Suddenly, researchers are scrambling around wondering how to handle the complaints they are receiving.
Animal testing has been slowly regulated over time. The newest regulation is the rule known as the 3 Rs. The 3 Rs stand for reduction, refinement and replacement (Scutti, “Animal Testing”). This rule was created in order to quell the growing rage of antivivisection protesters and anti-animal cruelty groups (Scutti, “Animal Testing”). Reduction begins the process by simply asking scientists and researchers to reduce the number of animals they test on (Franco, “Animal Experiments in Biomedical Research”). There are suggestions provided such as asking researchers to use more experimental technique or ask other researchers for help (Scutti, “Animal Testing”). The issue with this is that most researchers, while agreeing that the use of animals is unethical, feel that it is necessary to continue the development of their research and scientific developments. Refinement asks the researchers to refine their experiments so that the animals suffer less (Franco, “Animal Experiments in Biomedical Research”). There is clearly no eliminating the pain, but this part of the rule strives to ease the pain. There are again, suggestions given such as using improved medical care for the animals and less invasive techniques during testing (Scutti, “Animal Testing”). I find that after watching videos of animal testing and even reading about it that there could be no way, unless the animal was dead, that there could be less suffering. The devices implanted within the cats and rabbits are generally done while they are awake and usually occupy a part of their body that is then left open through the implanted device. Unless these are not used any longer, I do not see a change in reduction occurring anytime soon. Finally there is replacement, in which researchers are asked to find replacements for the animals altogether (Franco, “Animal Experiments in Biomedical Research”). This is the point in which I have hope. The suggestions are the options that I discussed in the previous paragraph about in vitro testing methods and computer simulators. If this had been the first rule, I feel the 3 Rs, while not received with smiles, would have worked better.
I have discussed the nature of animal testing over time as well as covered the various options for replacement of live animals for cell research.
4. Ponder
I feel the main issue that I had with this research topic was enthusiasm. I was so motivated to write about something I have been passionate about for so long, that I got lost in my research. I tried to work with too many resources and ended up getting writer’s block just knowing where to begin and end. This is normally and problem I have never had. I hope in my revisions of this paper to narrow my sources down and to carve off the dead meat of this original draft.
Works Cited
“Alternatives to Testing”. Alternatives. neavs. n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2014.
“Alternatives to Animal Testing”. Animals Used for Experimentation. PETA. n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2014.
“Alternatives to Animals”. Ethics of Medical Research with Animals. Hastings Center Report, 42, no. 6. 2012.
The Hastings Center. Web. 2 Dec. 2014.
“Organs-on-Chips”. Organs-on-Chips. Wyss Institute. n.d. Web. 3 Dec. 2014.
Cooke, S. “Pain and suffering in non-human animals”. Pain and Suffering in Non-Human
Animals. n.p. n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2014.
Franco, N. “The History of Vivisection”. Animals in Science. National Antivivisection
Society. 2013. Web. 2 Dec. 2014.
Franco, N. “Animal Experiments in Biomedical Research: A Historical Perspective”.
animals. NAVS. 2013. Web. 3 Dec. 2014.
Hajar R. “Animal testing and medicine”. Heart Views. Gulf Heart Association. Volume 12,
Issue 1. 2011. Web. 2 Dec. 2014.
Scutti, S. “Animal Testing: A Long, Unpretty History”. Medical Daily. n.p. 27 Jun. 2013.
Web. 3 Dec. 2014
ENG 100
Assignment #3: I –Search Paper
Due: 12/4/14
Recovering what is Humane in Humanity
1. Proposal
I have chosen to write about testing biomedical products on animals. My research question is: Is there a necessity to test biomedical products on animals? I wonder this because I believe, as a future Veterinarian and a current Veterinary Technician, that animals should never be harmed or mistreated in any way. I have always believed that there were alternatives to testing on live animals, such as using stem cells or plants, but I have never done any research to confirm it. By using this topic, I will discover whether there is a true need to continue to test on animals or if there are good and trustable substitutes that can be implemented. In my research I will strive to educate about the topic of research with animals and the nature of that research as well as inform of the new substitutes, research laws and what is truly being enforced.
I will mainly use three sources to support the research in this paper. The first source will be the library database that my community college offers. From this source I will gather peer reviewed articles. The second source will be Google searches that I will narrow with key phrases such as “substitutes for animals in medical testing.” From my searches I will only use reliable websites and look for opinions of current researchers and doctors. The third source will be my blog post entitled Room for Debate which centralized itself on the discussion on animal rights laws. From that post I will look into authors and their professional opinions. Any other resources will be smaller portions of the paper.
2. Process
In order to have concrete information for my paper, I went to Delaware County Community College’s Library Guide to begin my search for resources. I looked for full texts and peer reviewed articles on topics including animal testing and animals in medical research. From those searches I found two definite articles, one a PDF and another one a linked website that I will be using in my paper. Next I headed to Google where I typed in similar phrases, except this time I added alternatives to animals in medical testing. After gathering a few more websites, I changed my search to something I had been talking about with a coworker. I Googled the phrase vivisection and looked into the linked before taking a few off of the search query. I finally Googled one last phrase of testing on animals to see if there would be any change in results. Many were the same as I had received before, however a few new and promising ones showed up. I gathered all of the sites that I thought would be helpful and sent them in an email to myself titled Research for I-Search Paper. In the email I had subheadings for each hyperlink to keep myself organized.
The next day I went through my email and weeded through all of the links. In my excitement I had copy and pasted a few that turned out to not be quite so helpful in the research department and more helpful in self-knowledge. I then turned to my blog post on the New York Times: Room for Debate that I wrote on Animal Cruelty Laws. I looked through the authors and pulled some of their testimony from the debate as well as personal opinion from their blogs and websites.
The following day at work I recorded a conversation I had with one of my bosses about her time in research. I uploaded it to my computer and saved it in a folder titled I-Search. Later that night I transcribed the audio into a word document.
3. Paper
Around the world science is blooming like a flower in spring. There are new drugs being discovered, new innovations and tools, new technology, and new diseases to conquer. There is something that is shriveling, however, in the shade it is cast under constantly. One of the main reasons that research is expanding so rapidly is because there is finally a test subject. Drugs are no longer given to humans without knowing the outcome. They are tested repeatedly until they reach a bar of safety and even then, the drugs undergo more trials. A broad range from white rats (commonly known as lab rats) to chimpanzees are immersed in our culture of pharmaceuticals. They are forced to trial drugs that have unknown effects so that humans can avoid damage. In this rapidly developing world, however, new testing prospects have been created. These new test subjects have caused a debate over the ethics employed within medical research. The brutality that has been uncovered in recent years has brought forth the question of whether it is humane to continue to experiment on animals. In this paper I will explore how research has evolved through animal testing and look at the new alternatives that can be substituted.
The road of animal testing has been a long one. It has been noted that one of the first documented cases of animal testing was done by Greek philosopher Aristotle in 384 B.C (Hajar, “Animal Testing and Medicine”). Nuno Franco believes that experimentation and testing on animals began as a means to explore functions of the human physiology that could not be discovered by examining a cadaver (Franco, “The History of Vivisection”). My concern with my claim is simple: why does the concern for human pain in these trials not extend to animals? Numerous studies have proven that all animals are capable of feeling fear and pain (Cooke, “Pain and Suffering in Non-Human Animals”). The main reason that animals were chosen over humans to be tested on was the concern over the pain and trauma that would be caused. Many were worried that it would be inhumane to treat humans that way (Franco, “The History of Vivisection”).
Soon testing expanded its waters from small stream laboratories to ocean wide pharmaceutical companies. Once pharmaceuticals began to become more popular, there was a need to know the outcome of the effects the drugs would have when used by humans. There was a tragic trial of the drug thalidomide in the 1950s in which many pregnant women took the pill in order to fight morning sickness (Hajar, “Animal Testing and Medicine”). Hajar notes that because there was no animal testing done on this drug, the effects were not known and as a result, “more than 10,000 children in 46 countries were born with malformations or missing limbs” (“Animal Testing and Medicine”). This is a clear case where testing of pharmaceuticals is proven to be absolutely necessary before giving them out to the population. The issue of bringing animals into the picture, however, is where I do not agree. Animals do not at all have the same physiology as humans do. Everything from their heart rates to their levels of creatinine is different from us. This factor makes me question what is truly gained from trials and experiments done on these creatures.
The hope for testing alternatives has finally turned into a reality. There are many confirmed and regulated alternatives that have proven to be successful. The first of these substitutes is the in vitro method (“Alternatives to Animals”). A breakthrough option under the in vitro testing method is the “organs-on -chips” that were created by the Wyss Institute at Harvard (“Organs-on-Chips”). These chips have been proven to replicate human physiology and responses to drugs and diseases better than animal counterparts (“Alternatives to Testing Animals”). I believe that with the use of these chips there is a great beginning to changing how the research world will work. The usage of animals will hopefully decrease and there will be a more rapid pace and higher percentage of accuracy when it comes to releasing new drugs. Another method that can be implemented is known as microdosing (“Alternatives to Animals”). Within the realm of microdosing, human volunteers are given a superlatively small, one time dosage of a drug and then undergo imaging to see how the drug interacts with their system (“Alternatives to Testing on Animals”). I do not see this catching on as quickly as “organs-on-chips” purely because it would involve humans subjecting themselves to danger. If this process were to catch popularity, however, I believe it would move the animals out of danger’s way. The final option that I will be discussing is the option of human patient simulators (“Alternatives to Animals”). According to PETA, “Ninety-seven percent of medical schools across the U.S. have completely replaced the use of animal laboratories in medical training with… virtual-reality systems, computer simulators, and supervised clinical experience” (“Alternatives to Testing on Animals). With statistics across the board in high favor of simulators over actual testing, I feel that many people are ready to move on to the next stage of medical research, a stage that does not involve cruelty to animals. The begging question, however, is will the switch be to sources as reliable?
As with any alternatives, there are pros and cons that come with each substitute option. Aside from taking animals out of the picture, the upsides of the in vitro method are that it can assess the safety of drugs and chemicals as well as mirror any irritation that would be caused to the skin (“Alternatives to Testing on Animals”). The downsides to this method are that it only focuses on cellular level reactivity and scientists argue that a full body study would still need to be conducted (“Alternatives to Animals”). Microdosing helps weed out drugs that will not work in humans, again, therefore negating any further animal testing on the drug (“Alternatives to Testing on Animals”). However, it only is considered a Phase 0, which is the earliest level of testing, to researchers which means that despite any evidence gathered a drug that proved progressive would have to then be tested on animals for assurance of safety (“Alternatives in Testing”). Finally, human patient simulators face the same issues as microdosing in which any results gathered would have to be tested in a real life scenario, and it is likely to be performed on a live animal (“Alternatives to Animals”). I realize, especially with two kittens of my own, the want to be safe in any drug that is given to the public. However, I again stress that there are so many methods being presented that offer conclusive data, such as “organs-on-chips” that I believe could eliminate testing on animals altogether. I feel the cons associated with microdosing and human patient simulators are the same ones associated with using Microsoft Word instead of writing something out by hand. The discrepancies are notable only because of the disruption to the status quo. These new innovations are coming along and kicking convention’s kickstand up. Suddenly, researchers are scrambling around wondering how to handle the complaints they are receiving.
Animal testing has been slowly regulated over time. The newest regulation is the rule known as the 3 Rs. The 3 Rs stand for reduction, refinement and replacement (Scutti, “Animal Testing”). This rule was created in order to quell the growing rage of antivivisection protesters and anti-animal cruelty groups (Scutti, “Animal Testing”). Reduction begins the process by simply asking scientists and researchers to reduce the number of animals they test on (Franco, “Animal Experiments in Biomedical Research”). There are suggestions provided such as asking researchers to use more experimental technique or ask other researchers for help (Scutti, “Animal Testing”). The issue with this is that most researchers, while agreeing that the use of animals is unethical, feel that it is necessary to continue the development of their research and scientific developments. Refinement asks the researchers to refine their experiments so that the animals suffer less (Franco, “Animal Experiments in Biomedical Research”). There is clearly no eliminating the pain, but this part of the rule strives to ease the pain. There are again, suggestions given such as using improved medical care for the animals and less invasive techniques during testing (Scutti, “Animal Testing”). I find that after watching videos of animal testing and even reading about it that there could be no way, unless the animal was dead, that there could be less suffering. The devices implanted within the cats and rabbits are generally done while they are awake and usually occupy a part of their body that is then left open through the implanted device. Unless these are not used any longer, I do not see a change in reduction occurring anytime soon. Finally there is replacement, in which researchers are asked to find replacements for the animals altogether (Franco, “Animal Experiments in Biomedical Research”). This is the point in which I have hope. The suggestions are the options that I discussed in the previous paragraph about in vitro testing methods and computer simulators. If this had been the first rule, I feel the 3 Rs, while not received with smiles, would have worked better.
I have discussed the nature of animal testing over time as well as covered the various options for replacement of live animals for cell research.
4. Ponder
I feel the main issue that I had with this research topic was enthusiasm. I was so motivated to write about something I have been passionate about for so long, that I got lost in my research. I tried to work with too many resources and ended up getting writer’s block just knowing where to begin and end. This is normally and problem I have never had. I hope in my revisions of this paper to narrow my sources down and to carve off the dead meat of this original draft.
Works Cited
“Alternatives to Testing”. Alternatives. neavs. n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2014.
“Alternatives to Animal Testing”. Animals Used for Experimentation. PETA. n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2014.
“Alternatives to Animals”. Ethics of Medical Research with Animals. Hastings Center Report, 42, no. 6. 2012.
The Hastings Center. Web. 2 Dec. 2014.
“Organs-on-Chips”. Organs-on-Chips. Wyss Institute. n.d. Web. 3 Dec. 2014.
Cooke, S. “Pain and suffering in non-human animals”. Pain and Suffering in Non-Human
Animals. n.p. n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2014.
Franco, N. “The History of Vivisection”. Animals in Science. National Antivivisection
Society. 2013. Web. 2 Dec. 2014.
Franco, N. “Animal Experiments in Biomedical Research: A Historical Perspective”.
animals. NAVS. 2013. Web. 3 Dec. 2014.
Hajar R. “Animal testing and medicine”. Heart Views. Gulf Heart Association. Volume 12,
Issue 1. 2011. Web. 2 Dec. 2014.
Scutti, S. “Animal Testing: A Long, Unpretty History”. Medical Daily. n.p. 27 Jun. 2013.
Web. 3 Dec. 2014