This class emphasizes the importance of double-blind experiments in scientific discoveries, and many of the studies discussed involve animal research.

For example, Andrew mentioned in class that when scientists studied tobacco they did tests on monkeys to study the effects.  The tests found that tobacco was indeed harmful.  It saved humans, but what about the monkeys?

The Humane Society lists the following definitions of animal testing:

• “Forced chemical exposure in toxicity testing, which can include oral force-feeding, forced inhalation, skin or injection into the abdomen, muscle, etc.
• Exposure to drugs, chemicals or infectious disease at levels that cause illness, pain and distress, or death
• Genetic manipulation, e.g., addition or “knocking out” of one or more genes
• Infliction of wounds, burns and other injuries to study healing
• Infliction of pain to study its physiology and treatment”

This article about animal testing from ProCon.org reports that millions of animals are used for scientific and commercial testing every year in the United States.  Research on living animals has been around since 500 BC, and “proponents of animal testing say that it has enabled the development of many life-saving treatments for both humans and animals.”  They say there is no better alternative.

Those against animal testing call it “cruel and inhumane.”  Animal testing does not always yield accurate results, and they believe it is time scientists find an alternative.

I found it interesting that at the top of the ProCon website they had a message to readers that read “DEAR PROCON.ORG READERS: We’re being outspent by biased organizations that use millions of dollars to misinform you.”  They’re asking for donations in order to maintain and provide “unbiased information on important issues.”

Vegan Peace refers to “animal testing” as “animal cruelty.”  They are completely against it as it causes “horrific suffering to animals.”  The article shows some pretty horrific pictures of animals who have been tested on and explains how animal testing is inefficient and unreliable.  The article lists better and more accurate alternatives to animal research such as “computer simulators and imaging techniques, epidemiological studies (studies of human populations), clinical research, in vitro research (in a test tube) and replacing animals with human cells in safety tests.”

The Science Action Network lists forty reasons that explain how animal research is beneficial, almost necessary, and really not that bad.  It lists multiple different medical discoveries that animal research made possible.  It says “household cats kill approximately 5 million animals every week” which is “more than the total number of animals used in medical research every year.”

It seems almost everyone has an agenda.  Vegans don’t even drink milk, so it makes sense that they are entirely against any harm to animals.  Scientists want to continue to make scientific discoveries, so of course they’re pro animal testing.

The Animal Welfare Act is the only Federal law in the United States “that regulates the treatment of animals in research, exhibition, transport, and by dealers.”  The law excludes birds, rats, and mice that have been bred for research.

So it’s not like all scientists are ruthlessly harming animals on purpose and nothing is being done to protect them, but it seems the research will continue and the poor mice will continue to suffer.

I don’t have the answer to whether or not animal testing is right or wrong because I can see both sides of the argument.  Animal research is controversial and has been for quite sometime.  What I find interesting about the situation is the different organizations who present biased information in an attempt to convince the public either way.