summary post

More people are coming to the conclusion that animal testing is a program we need, to further medical research. A portion of these people agree with the testings’ as long as the care and treatment is kept to a high standard. However, there are still many that believe the testing is inhumane, unnecessary, and repetitive. The article After Recent Gains, Activists are Now Under Attack by Marc Leepson will explore many issues from both sides of the table. Such as, abuse with testing, alternatives for testing, and the legal protection of the animals while in captivity. With the current situation between animal rights/welfare groups and the science community coming to a constant wall in their road. The situation between both groups is unclear if they will ever come to a common decision whether to work together or keep working against each other.

Laboratories around the world test on millions of animals each year. Most of these tests are for scientific purposes such as cancer treatments, safety of pharmaceuticals, or pregnancy issues. Many of the medical breakthroughs of the past century resulted from research using laboratory animals (Leepson). Some animals do suffer physical or mental pain but the medical outcome surpasses the pain that might be, only for a short time. Most Americans accept the use of animals in scientific research as a necessity. However, some animal welfare activists are more concerned about the humane treatment of animals than the debate over their rights.

There are many different types of animal rights and animal welfare groups such as, The Humane Society of the United States, and PETA. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has been known to be a much more extreme group. They are known for infiltrating laboratories and destroying important medical research, which had taken years to compile just to free these animals. Some members have also set fire to medical labs causing hundreds of thousands of dollars. PETA’s co-founder has said “the only difference between humans and other animals is a difference of degree, not kind”. What he means is we are all living things with feelings, and emotions, just in a different way. All animal rights groups have the same common goal. To make sure researchers only use these animals where there is not another reliable alternative, eliminate unnecessary tests and pain, and to provide the public with their plan for the treatment of their animals.

Researchers say the number of animals used in research has come down in recent years (leepson). This decrease could be due to some of the new found alternatives. With technology becoming more and more advanced we are finding there could be possible alternatives to animal testing. However, some scientists say these alternatives would have to be in combination with the animal testing. There currently is not enough information to rely on with the alternative testing alone just yet. Some biomedical research is done alternatively “in vitro” or through test tubes. This also has lessened the need for many animals in the lab. Some scientists actually prefer this way because they can calculate the correct amount of chemicals they need. This method is only a short term alternative because, not all tests can be answered through the test tube and still would rely on a living test subject in the end.

Many of the animal welfare/rights groups have been the founders and contributors of our animal rights acts today. The first attempt to ban experiments on animals was in 1880 which proved to be no success. By the late 19^th century every state had enacted some form of legislation to protect animals. After World War II many of these groups succeed in bringing attention to the treatment of laboratory animals. This again was a short fall because of the medical breakthrough of the polio vaccine, an early cancer treatment, and the advancement in heart surgery (leepson). Currently we only have one law that was passed in 1966 regulating the care and treatment of laboratory animals. This law has been amended several times from 1970 to lastly in 1985 to include animals in zoos, circuses, and other exhibits.

There are two lobbying groups to defend the use of animals in laboratories. These groups were founded to oppose the legislation that would restrict animal testing of biomedical and consumer products. The secretary of Health and Human services Constance Horner said “We must not permit a handful of extremists to deprive millions of the life-sustaining and life-enhancing fruits of biomedical research”. This in turn would mean that we should not deprive ourselves of medical possibilities for our future, from a select amount of people who disagree with animal testing. These lobbyists want to work with the animal rights groups to write the laws and standards that protect animals in laboratories. They also want to help to protect the scientists and workers in these fields from harmful action that may come about from the animal rights groups. Which many young scientists and doctors were refusing to undertake needed research from pressure from the activists. This lobbying group’s main goal is to inform the public about why there is a need for such testing, and to openly speak about the treatment of these animals while in the care of a laboratory.