Draft 3: Dissecting the Living - Animal Testing's Ugly Waters
Jessica Ramos
ENG 100
Assignment #3: I –Search Paper
Due: 12/16/14
Dissecting the Living – Animal Testing’s Ugly Waters
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? As a future Veterinarian and a current Veterinary Technician, I wonder this because I believe 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 two 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.
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 links 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.
The research information that I found helped me realize what exactly I wanted to talk about in my paper. The world of animal testing is so vast that the paper could have gone on for days and in several different tangents. By looking into several different options, I realized that I could narrow my paper into sections of: the debate on testing, two alternatives, and drawbacks and benefits of the alternatives. My research also showed me how many options of testing alternatives are out there, old standbys and new options that I had never heard of. These options made me want to look further into the world of researching and testing after my paper is finished.
3. Paper
Imagine a baby, only two days old, happy and full of life. Imagine a mother, loving and fierce, holding onto her baby and protecting him with her life. Now watch as that same mother is injected with a sedative so that she cannot hold or protect her baby. Watch as her baby is taken, screaming away from her, confused and scared. This baby is now transported to a glass room, no bigger than he is. There is barely enough room for him to move his little arms and legs around. Suddenly, large figures with frightening masks approach the baby, making loud noises and banging on the glass. The baby screams and cries, desperately banging on the walls, but no one comes to his rescue. His mother is forced to watch from another room just feet away, too sedated to be able to save her child. The baby begins to rock back and forth and claw at his own skin in fear and nervous anxiety. Imagine once more, however, instead of a human baby, see a baby chimpanzee and his mother. Realities such as the one described are happening every day in a National Health Institute facility in Poolesville, Maryland. There is no reason that this kind of testing should have to happen. I will argue why inhumane testing, such as a baby being ripped from its mother’s arms, is wrong and should be stopped. I will also provide two alternative methods to be used and give their drawbacks.
The road of animal testing has been a dark and dreary one. Vivisection, as animal testing is known as to researchers, was once a respected process. Many would gather to watch as researchers tied animals down and opened them up in search of the key to human functioning. Dr. Nuno Henrique 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”). I have many issues with this reasoning, the first being that researchers began cutting open animals in search of what was inside of humans. Secondly, animals were used for this research in tortuous methods. Many were dissected alive in order to view the function of and harvest organs.
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. Rats and felines, which are usually the first round of animals that pharmaceuticals are tested on, have almost nothing in common with humans. Everything from their heart rates to their levels of creatinine are different from ours ("Resting Heart Rates"). It is true that chimpanzee DNA has been proven to be ninety-nine percent similar to human DNA, however as Dr. Pam Ozenkowski states, “that 1% difference puts the chimpanzee on one side of the glass in the zoo and you on the other” (“Common Sense: Framing the Scientific Argument”).
Although the history, past and present, of animal testing is dark, there is hope on the horizon. There are many confirmed and regulated alternatives that have proven to be successful. The first of these substitutes is the in vitro method. The in vitro testing method involves taking human tissue and cell samples and using them in laboratory cultures and toxicity tests (“Alternatives in Testing”). A breakthrough option under the in vitro testing method is the “organs-on-chips” that were created by the Wyss Institute at Harvard. These chips have been proven to replicate human physiology and responses to drugs and diseases better than animal counterparts (“Organs-on-Chips”). Director of the Wyss Institute Don Ingber says that the team that developed “organs-on-chips” has also developed an instrument that could link the chips together, therefore creating a “Human-Body-on-Chips” (“Organs-on-Chips”). This “Human-Body-on-Chips” could, as Ingber states, “measure of the efficacy and safety of potential new drugs, chemicals and cosmetics, while reducing the need for traditional animal testing” (“Organs-on-Chips”). 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. This invention can measure rates and differences in cultures labs in a way that could never have been done before, fueling the research world one step further into the future of change.
Another method that can be implemented is known as microdosing. 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”). These small doses are detected within the volunteers by using a device known as an accelerator mass spectrometer which is a machine that can detect even one milliliter of a substance that has been diluted in something as vast as the ocean (Watts, “Alternatives to Animal Experimentation”). I believe this method is another step in the right direction. It is another means to getting animals out of the laboratories and into safe environments. Many worry whether human will be at risk when volunteering, but the dose given in these trials is, “too small to create either a pharmacological effect or an adverse reaction” (Watts, “Alternatives to Animal Experimentation”). With that fact in mind, I hope that this could be an incentive that will bring more volunteers out.
As with any alternatives, there are positives and negatives that come with each substitute option. Aside from taking animals out of the picture, the positvies 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”). However, taking the “Human-Body-on-Chip” into consideration, in the near future, a full body, and non-live human study may soon be able to be done worldwide. 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”). Some researchers are on the fence about whether to continue trying to move forward with non-animal research and testing. However, Dr. Gill Langley of the Dr. Hadwen Trust for Human Research, stands clear on her thoughts saying, “If we can move the atoms on a molecule using a beam of laser light I don't see why we can't replace animal experiments. If the full force of the world's scientific brains were turned on this problem there could be enormous strides” (Watts, “Alternatives Animal Experimentation”). I hope that with strides in invention such as “organs” and “Human-Body” on chips and microdosing that the future will be filled with less cruelty.
English philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote, “The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer” (Franco, “Animal Experiments in Biomedical Testing”)? Bentham drives home the point I am trying to make in this paper. It does not matter what species testing is being done on, the only concern is the cruelty involved. There would never be a world where it would be okay to take a human baby from its mother and torture him. So why should there be a world where it is okay to do that to creatures that share ninety nine percent of our DNA? In a world where testing substitutes such as “organs-on-chips” and microdosing are used, the baby and his mother would never be separated. They would live happy lives together, growing and learning about their own species and how the world works according to their laws, not the cruel world they were subjected to in Poolesville, Maryland. Animal testing has been a long developed path, so it will not be broken overnight. Breaking the reality of testing will require help from everyone. There are simple ways to help such as going to PETA and signing petitions against testing that get sent into local government as well as buying products that are cruelty free. For a list of cruelty free brands and products you can go to NAVS. Baby chimpanzees are still being taken from their mothers every day. To join in the fight to help save their lives and their mothers’ lives go to PETA Investigations and Action.
4. Ponder
The number one take away that I had from my research was that animal testing is an ever expanding territory. Subjects and information that I thought were relevant five years ago have drifted into the wind and are now replaced with even more horrifying actions, but also with more exciting prospects. Although I felt drowned in my research at first, once I took the time to weed out bad sources I found really interesting topics such as “organs-on-chips” which I was not even aware of until I started my paper. I also learned more about the opposing side of the topic just from the amount of pro-testing websites and advocates out on the internet. While I may not agree with what they have to say, I do understand why it is important to hear and understand what they are saying and why they are saying it. My major research blunder was being too involved with the topic. While researching I would either get too caught up in following a certain story or I would get too opinionated in my own paper. While this is an I-Search Paper, I understand that it still had to be professional. Next time I would probably choose a topic I am not as strongly attached to.
Future research questions I have:
“Should there be regulations on the safety of animals used in the food industry?”
“How should animal cruelty be punished?”
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.
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.
Ozenkowski, P. “Common Sense: Framing the Scientific Argument”. Animals in Science.
National Antivivisection Society. 2013. Web. 5 Dec. 2014.
Oil Painting : Franco, N. ““Animal Experiments in Biomedical Research: A Historical
Perspective”. animals. NAVS. 2013. Web. 3 Dec. 2014.
"Resting Heart Rates". Merck. Merck Veterinary Manuals. n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2014.
Watts, G. “Alternatives to Animal Experimentation”. NCBI. National Institutes of Health. 27
Jan. 2007. Web. 7 Dec. 2014.
ENG 100
Assignment #3: I –Search Paper
Due: 12/16/14
Dissecting the Living – Animal Testing’s Ugly Waters
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? As a future Veterinarian and a current Veterinary Technician, I wonder this because I believe 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 two 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.
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 links 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.
The research information that I found helped me realize what exactly I wanted to talk about in my paper. The world of animal testing is so vast that the paper could have gone on for days and in several different tangents. By looking into several different options, I realized that I could narrow my paper into sections of: the debate on testing, two alternatives, and drawbacks and benefits of the alternatives. My research also showed me how many options of testing alternatives are out there, old standbys and new options that I had never heard of. These options made me want to look further into the world of researching and testing after my paper is finished.
3. Paper
Imagine a baby, only two days old, happy and full of life. Imagine a mother, loving and fierce, holding onto her baby and protecting him with her life. Now watch as that same mother is injected with a sedative so that she cannot hold or protect her baby. Watch as her baby is taken, screaming away from her, confused and scared. This baby is now transported to a glass room, no bigger than he is. There is barely enough room for him to move his little arms and legs around. Suddenly, large figures with frightening masks approach the baby, making loud noises and banging on the glass. The baby screams and cries, desperately banging on the walls, but no one comes to his rescue. His mother is forced to watch from another room just feet away, too sedated to be able to save her child. The baby begins to rock back and forth and claw at his own skin in fear and nervous anxiety. Imagine once more, however, instead of a human baby, see a baby chimpanzee and his mother. Realities such as the one described are happening every day in a National Health Institute facility in Poolesville, Maryland. There is no reason that this kind of testing should have to happen. I will argue why inhumane testing, such as a baby being ripped from its mother’s arms, is wrong and should be stopped. I will also provide two alternative methods to be used and give their drawbacks.
The road of animal testing has been a dark and dreary one. Vivisection, as animal testing is known as to researchers, was once a respected process. Many would gather to watch as researchers tied animals down and opened them up in search of the key to human functioning. Dr. Nuno Henrique 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”). I have many issues with this reasoning, the first being that researchers began cutting open animals in search of what was inside of humans. Secondly, animals were used for this research in tortuous methods. Many were dissected alive in order to view the function of and harvest organs.
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. Rats and felines, which are usually the first round of animals that pharmaceuticals are tested on, have almost nothing in common with humans. Everything from their heart rates to their levels of creatinine are different from ours ("Resting Heart Rates"). It is true that chimpanzee DNA has been proven to be ninety-nine percent similar to human DNA, however as Dr. Pam Ozenkowski states, “that 1% difference puts the chimpanzee on one side of the glass in the zoo and you on the other” (“Common Sense: Framing the Scientific Argument”).
Although the history, past and present, of animal testing is dark, there is hope on the horizon. There are many confirmed and regulated alternatives that have proven to be successful. The first of these substitutes is the in vitro method. The in vitro testing method involves taking human tissue and cell samples and using them in laboratory cultures and toxicity tests (“Alternatives in Testing”). A breakthrough option under the in vitro testing method is the “organs-on-chips” that were created by the Wyss Institute at Harvard. These chips have been proven to replicate human physiology and responses to drugs and diseases better than animal counterparts (“Organs-on-Chips”). Director of the Wyss Institute Don Ingber says that the team that developed “organs-on-chips” has also developed an instrument that could link the chips together, therefore creating a “Human-Body-on-Chips” (“Organs-on-Chips”). This “Human-Body-on-Chips” could, as Ingber states, “measure of the efficacy and safety of potential new drugs, chemicals and cosmetics, while reducing the need for traditional animal testing” (“Organs-on-Chips”). 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. This invention can measure rates and differences in cultures labs in a way that could never have been done before, fueling the research world one step further into the future of change.
Another method that can be implemented is known as microdosing. 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”). These small doses are detected within the volunteers by using a device known as an accelerator mass spectrometer which is a machine that can detect even one milliliter of a substance that has been diluted in something as vast as the ocean (Watts, “Alternatives to Animal Experimentation”). I believe this method is another step in the right direction. It is another means to getting animals out of the laboratories and into safe environments. Many worry whether human will be at risk when volunteering, but the dose given in these trials is, “too small to create either a pharmacological effect or an adverse reaction” (Watts, “Alternatives to Animal Experimentation”). With that fact in mind, I hope that this could be an incentive that will bring more volunteers out.
As with any alternatives, there are positives and negatives that come with each substitute option. Aside from taking animals out of the picture, the positvies 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”). However, taking the “Human-Body-on-Chip” into consideration, in the near future, a full body, and non-live human study may soon be able to be done worldwide. 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”). Some researchers are on the fence about whether to continue trying to move forward with non-animal research and testing. However, Dr. Gill Langley of the Dr. Hadwen Trust for Human Research, stands clear on her thoughts saying, “If we can move the atoms on a molecule using a beam of laser light I don't see why we can't replace animal experiments. If the full force of the world's scientific brains were turned on this problem there could be enormous strides” (Watts, “Alternatives Animal Experimentation”). I hope that with strides in invention such as “organs” and “Human-Body” on chips and microdosing that the future will be filled with less cruelty.
English philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote, “The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer” (Franco, “Animal Experiments in Biomedical Testing”)? Bentham drives home the point I am trying to make in this paper. It does not matter what species testing is being done on, the only concern is the cruelty involved. There would never be a world where it would be okay to take a human baby from its mother and torture him. So why should there be a world where it is okay to do that to creatures that share ninety nine percent of our DNA? In a world where testing substitutes such as “organs-on-chips” and microdosing are used, the baby and his mother would never be separated. They would live happy lives together, growing and learning about their own species and how the world works according to their laws, not the cruel world they were subjected to in Poolesville, Maryland. Animal testing has been a long developed path, so it will not be broken overnight. Breaking the reality of testing will require help from everyone. There are simple ways to help such as going to PETA and signing petitions against testing that get sent into local government as well as buying products that are cruelty free. For a list of cruelty free brands and products you can go to NAVS. Baby chimpanzees are still being taken from their mothers every day. To join in the fight to help save their lives and their mothers’ lives go to PETA Investigations and Action.
4. Ponder
The number one take away that I had from my research was that animal testing is an ever expanding territory. Subjects and information that I thought were relevant five years ago have drifted into the wind and are now replaced with even more horrifying actions, but also with more exciting prospects. Although I felt drowned in my research at first, once I took the time to weed out bad sources I found really interesting topics such as “organs-on-chips” which I was not even aware of until I started my paper. I also learned more about the opposing side of the topic just from the amount of pro-testing websites and advocates out on the internet. While I may not agree with what they have to say, I do understand why it is important to hear and understand what they are saying and why they are saying it. My major research blunder was being too involved with the topic. While researching I would either get too caught up in following a certain story or I would get too opinionated in my own paper. While this is an I-Search Paper, I understand that it still had to be professional. Next time I would probably choose a topic I am not as strongly attached to.
Future research questions I have:
“Should there be regulations on the safety of animals used in the food industry?”
“How should animal cruelty be punished?”
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.
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.
Ozenkowski, P. “Common Sense: Framing the Scientific Argument”. Animals in Science.
National Antivivisection Society. 2013. Web. 5 Dec. 2014.
Oil Painting : Franco, N. ““Animal Experiments in Biomedical Research: A Historical
Perspective”. animals. NAVS. 2013. Web. 3 Dec. 2014.
"Resting Heart Rates". Merck. Merck Veterinary Manuals. n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2014.
Watts, G. “Alternatives to Animal Experimentation”. NCBI. National Institutes of Health. 27
Jan. 2007. Web. 7 Dec. 2014.