“It may be cruel, but it can help us understand the human condition,” runs the argument for animal testing. “Absolute rubbish”, (Fano)

Vivisection, (the act of cutting into or dissecting a living body) has been practiced since the beginning of scientific medicine. In the second half of the nineteenth century, experimentation on living animals became a quintessential part of physiology as an institutionalized profession (LaFollette). According to estimation by the American Medical Association, biomedical researchers use between 17-22 million animals each year (LaFollette). A sufficiently large enough number of animals are used in biomedical research to warrant a scientific and more evaluation of the practice (LaFollette).

Even when disagreeing about the moral appropriateness, parties on both sides of the debate assert the scientific validity of animal research

The EPA still conducts the Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) test - recording how much chemical kills 50% of the animals in a test group - even though a majority of scientists agree that the test is a lousy predictor of human risk. In these tests, animals suffer convulsions, severe abdominal pain, seizures, tremors, and diarrhea. They bleed from their genitals, eyes and mouth, vomit uncontrollably, self-mutilate, become paralyzed, lose kidney function, and fall into comas. Up to 2,000 animals may be killed in these ways to test just one chemical (Fano)

Fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine, two drugs that were publicized as the answer to a dieter's prayer a few years ago, was extensively tested on animals and found to be very safe. Unfortunately, it caused heart valve abnormalities in humans. Then there was arthritis drug Opren? When it was tested on monkeys there were no problems, but it killed 61 people before it was pulled off the market. As for the argument of having to choose between rats and your child, Cylert, given to children with attention deficit hyperactive disorder, was fine for animals but caused liver failure in 13 children. (Jerome Burne) These facts alone should make us want to re-evaluate the current way we test for disorders in the human species. I for one would be very apprehensive about using an experimental drug that has not been tested on humans.

There are many who are unconvinced that scientists can learn anything from infecting an animal with a human disease and then trying to find a cure for it. The results cannot be extrapolated to humans. It has been found that animal testing was unnecessary when pressure was applied to cosmetics-industry and product-safety testing 10 years ago (Horvitz 40). The human body fights infection and disease different from animals. There are several factors, which aid in the fight against illness. For example, stress levels, diet, the surrounding environment, even the size of cage for which the animal is studied.

Animal research has the very real possibility of catastrophe for humans. There are 55,000 primates used every year for laboratory experiments studying a range of phenomenon from brain disorders and sexually transmitted diseases to nuclear radiation and the toxicity of household products (Reitman 23). Those primates pose a threat to human health. During experimentation, mutable viruses and neurological disorders have been conveyed from primates to humans (Reitman 23).

PETA dispatches un

Some topics in this essay:
Medical Association, Lethal Dose, Niall Shanks, Marburg Reitman, Welfare Act, University Pennsylvania, Animal Experimentation, Jerome Burne, Fano Vivisection, Stephen Morse, animal experimentation, horvitz 40, animal research, reitman 23, animal testing, kaufman 1108, animal welfare act, suffering animals, animals research, validity animal, biomedical research,