Rodriguez 1 Rodriguez Jaime Professor Hamalian English 114A 2 December 2013 Alternative Ways to Animal Testing Animal testing

is the use of animals in scientific experiments for health and medical research as well as cosmetic testing. Many scientists use this method for educational purposes and to better understand the human body. Animal testing is a method that gets results, but with what price? According to Help Animals in Labs Now-Heres How an article from Peta, the largest animal rights organization, by Jeff Mackey, informs its readers that more than 100 million animals in laboratories die due to improper care. Many people argue that animal testing is unethical and it shouldn't be the means of research. While others argue that animal testing is vital for the enhancement of medicine. Animal testing has been around since early civilization and since then there have been many new ways that can substitute animal testing. That fact of the matter is that animals are still being harmed in labs when other procedures and non-animal methods exist. Although it appears that animal testing is indispensable, actually there are other methods that are equivalent to animal experimentation. One of the many reasons why scientists use animal testing is for medical research and to understand the causes of human disease in order to prevent them. When gathering this kind of research animals are injected with an artificial disease that can result deadly. An alternative method that can be used to get the same results, if not better is epidemiological studies. In the simplest terms, epidemiological is the study and research of human population (Anderegg, Christopher). Epidemiological studies look for reoccurring diseases and health patterns in human

Rodriguez 2 population. The information collected over the years helps researchers understand the causes of such disease. Animal experimentation and epidemiological studies are two methods that get the same medical research results. Epidemiological studies have a number of advantages: firstly, studying human population diseases can explain why some diseases, like AIDS, affect people differently depending on gender (Anderegg, Christopher). Animal testing lacks this inability to be precise in distinguishing how a disease can affect a gender differently. Secondly, epidemiological studies the lifestyles of humans to make connections to common diseases. For example, by studying the dieting of humans one can make a connection to diabetes. This kind of research can help prevent diseases. Thirdly, epidemiological studies is cost efficient compared to animal testing. There is more file work and legal issues with animal testing while epidemiological studies is all research based. Finally, no animal is being harmed in the process. Epidemiological studies have been proven that this method gets better results than animal experimentation. The relationship between cigarets and heart disease arise from epidemiological studies (Anderegg, Christopher). These results suggest that epidemiological studies are a profound alternative to animal testing for medical research. Epidemiological studies serve as a great alternative for animal testing to gather medical research. However, this method is not enough to replace the many other reasons why animal testing is still being used. Apart from epidemiological studies another alternative to animal experimentation is the use of computer simulation models. Computer simulation models are programs that design an imitation visual of the subject such as a cell ("Non Animal Research Method). Many professors from Universities use animal experimentation as a method to teach students, for educational purposes. Yet computer

Rodriguez 3 simulation models provide an easier method that can benefit both the students and the professor. Replacing animal testing with computer simulation gives the student the opportunity to make mistakes without loosing the entire experiment. If the student were to use an animal for an experiment and failed a particular procedure, the results can be fatal for the animal. Another advantage that computer simulation models offer is that students can receive help and feedback from the computer (Balcombe, Jonathan). Working with real animals would never give students this advantage. After all these are students and computer simulations benefit them over animal testing. Nevertheless, with the advance technology of computer simulations, students would find it easier to learn new knowledge and engage with the program, thus eliminating the need of animal testing. In addition to computer simulation models enhancing eduction in Universities, this method is also beneficial for real scientist. According to the article, Animal Experiments-Bad Ethics, Bad Science from Peta, computer simulation models can predict drug effects more accurately than animals. This method is also a faster process than animal testing. For the reason that computer simulations can fully replace animal testing in Universities and can benefit scientist proves the point that animal testing isn't absolutely necessary. Many animals like Chimpanzees and mice share the same traits have humans. Scientist feel that this gives them permission to experiment on these animals in order to gain new knowledge on the human body. Although it is important to understand the human anatomy, it gives no right for a scientist to start a harmful experiment when procedures like MRI exist. MRI stands for magnetic resonance imaging, which uses radio wave energy to make images of organs of the human body. MRI is considered to be an alternative to animal testing, eliminating the need

Rodriguez 4 to use animals with similar genes to humans. The technology of MRI captures a detail image of a human organ. Furthermore, scientist can use a MRI image to understand the function of an organ. A MRI can also suggest diseases like Parkinsons and Neurological conditions (Balcombe, Jonathan). The results that an MRI and animal testing conduct are the same only that animal testing methods uses the recycling of dead animals. Also note that using animal testing to understand the human body is skeptical because of the fact that animals and humans are not 100% identical, even if we share some common genes. It becomes clear that the only true method to gain new knowledge of the human body is conducting studies on patients. Studying patients and animal testing are two completely different methods. Unlike animal testing, studying on a patient is harmless and most importantly it is voluntarily. MRI, an alternative I mentioned before, is one way of studying patients. By using patients, scientist and doctors can make implications on human behavior, the human anatomy, and even on the study of human disease. According to A Critical Look At Animal Experimentation an article magazine from the Medical Research Modernization Committee, shows examples of how patient studies impact medical research. Specifically, the article mentions a cardiologist named Dean Ornsih, who successfully studied on patients to demonstrate that heart disease can be reverse with a low-fat vegetarian diet and daily exercise. Many people would argue that these alternatives: epidemiological studies, computer simulations and studying patients are not good enough alternatives to replace animal experimentation. These methods have been proven to work just as well as animal testing. Rachel Hajar, from The Official Journal of the Gulf Heart Association, writes in an article titled, Animal Testing and Medicine, arguing animal testing is essential to human life, that without it

Rodriguez 5 we are depriving the advancement in science. In support of her argument she mentions that in 1937 a medicine that was put on the market without being tested by animals caused the lives of many people. Hajar also refers that in the 1950s painkillers for pregnant women were the cause of children being born with a deformity affect. Both of Hajars claims are irrelevant to the modern time we coexist. Technology has advanced so much since then, and both the painkillers and the medicine could be tested today with a different method other than animal testing. One might argue that the Animal Welfare Act is a law protecting animals from being harmed. Little do people know that the Animal Welfare Act only protects a handful of animals out of the countless of others. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) is regulation that protects certain animals being tested. The AWA excludes animals like birds, mice, rats and horses (Kuwahara, Steven S). These regulations are not enough to say that animal testing is safe for animals. There is no need for the captivity of animals in labs. Animal Testing: Is It Worth It an article by Geoff Watts from Clinical Research Education talks about how non-animal testing methods are more appropriate in research labs and in conducting experiments. There are methods like the ones I mentioned in this paper that can replace animal testing. Picture the countless lives of animals that would be saved by taking a different approach in medical research. To conclude, there are alternatives to animal testing that can reduce, if not eliminate the need of animal experimentations.

Rodriguez 6 Works Cited Anderegg, Christopher. Archibald, Kathy. Bailey, Jarrod. Cohen, Murry. Kaufman, Stephan. Pippin, John. A Critical Look at Animal Experimentation, Medical Research Modernization Committee, 2002. Article Magazine, Web. Balcombe, Jonathan. The Use of Animals in Higher Education: Problems, Alternatives, and Recommendations. Washington, D.C.: Humane Society Press, 2000. Web.

Hajar, Rachel. "Animal Testing and Medicine." Heart Views : The Official Journal of the Gulf Heart Association, 12.1 (2011): 42. Kuwahara, Steven S. "An Overview of the Animal Welfare Act." Journal of GXP Compliance, a15.2 (2011): 48-52. Mackey, Jeff. "Help Animals in Labs Now-Heres How." PETA Prime Help Animals in Labs NowHeres How Comments. Peta, 11 May 2012. Web. "Non Animal Research Method." Animal Experiments: Bad Ethics, Bad Science June 2010: 19-22. Print. Watts, Geoff. "Animal Testing: Is It Worth It?." BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), (2007): 182-184.