Animal Experimentation
Viewpoint: There are alternatives to animal testing
Howard, Carol. "Alternative Testing Can Replace Animal Experimentation." At Issue: Animal Experimentation. Ed. Ronnie D. Lankford, Jr. Detroit:Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. INLAN - Gonzaga University Library. 17 Mar. 2010<http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010002240&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=gonzagaufoley&version=1.0>.
Author Carol Howard uses the "Three R's" to explain how we can find alternatives to animal testing in the future. They are replacement, reduction and refinement. Replacement refers to the fact that we can replace animals with other forms of testing. The other two R's refer to finding ways to reduce the ways in which we use animals as much as possible and refining our methods so they are less destructive to animals. "Alternative" does not necessarily mean not using animals entirely, but it means working to find methods that work just as well if not better. We need to get educate the future generations of scientists about the search for alternatives that are more humane and simply "better" science.
Jenna Grabarek
Viewpoint: Animal Testing is unscientific.
Burgos, Javier B. "Animal Experimentation Is Unscientific." At Issue: Animal Experimentation. Ed. David M. Haugen.San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. INLAN - Gonzaga University Library. 17 Mar. 2010 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010002211&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=gonzagaufoley&version=1.0>.
This author argues that there is not enough scientific research that actually proves 100% of the time that what happens in animals bodies in test would also happen to people. Animals are not humans, and therefore we cannot always trust research results that come from animal testing. On many occasions animal testing has failed to answer our questions about human health problems. Also, studies have shown that some antibiotics that poison the human body are perfectly consumable by some animals, and vice versa. Our health care systems already spends too much on ineffective testing, and animal testing fits under that category. True clinical research needs to be the emphasis in health studies.
Jenna Grabarek
Animal Experimentation is Necessary to Ensure Safety
Research, PIR Partners. "Animal Experimentation Is Necessary to Ensure Product Safety." At Issue: Animal Experimentation. Ed. Ronnie D. Lankford, Jr. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. INLAN - Gonzaga University Library. 17 Mar. 2010 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010002236&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=gonzagaufoley&version=1.0>.
Partners in Research (PIR) is a Canadian national charity established in 1988 to educate the public—particularly young people—about the history and accomplishments of health research. Animal testing has aided humans in a number of important ways. Because of toxicity testing, for instance, poison centers are able to aid parents when a child has swallowed a harmful product. Before animal testing, humans served as the first test subjects for new drugs; because of multiple accidents, however, the government eventually required drug companies to test new products on animals. Scientists have worked to limit the number of animals used in experiments; alternative testing methods have also helped reduce the number of animals used. But the complexity of human biology makes it impossible at present to eliminate animal testing. Until effective technology is available, animal testing will remain a valuable aid to ensuring the safety of new drugs.
Nicole Apted
Animal Experimentation is Unscientific
Burgos, Javier B. "Animal Experimentation Is Unscientific." At Issue: Animal Experimentation. Ed. David M. Haugen.San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. INLAN - Gonzaga University Library. 17 Mar. 2010 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010002211&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=gonzagaufoley&version=1.0>.
This author argues that there is not enough scientific research that actually proves 100% of the time that what happens in animals bodies in test would also happen to people. Animals are not humans, and therefore we cannot always trust research results that come from animal testing. On many occasions animal testing has failed to answer our questions about human health problems. Also, studies have shown that some antibiotics that poison the human body are perfectly consumable by some animals, and vice versa. Our health care systems already spends too much on ineffective testing, and animal testing fits under that category. True clinical research needs to be the emphasis in health studies. Nicole Apted
