The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation
Introduction
In contemporary society, there is a rapid emergence of new diseases, and scientists are actively responding to the trend by trying to discover and reveal medicines that can cure such diseases that emerge. Before the medicine, they need to see whether the medicine can be used by humans or it can cause harm to human; therefore they take the non-human(animals) and experiment the medicines with them. This is carried out in two phases the basic which involves the investigation of human biology and disease, and the applied which entails research on the drug, its development, toxicity, and safety. The aim of the experimentation is to acquire information about the biology of humans and promote efficacy during treatment. The experimentation does not take into consideration of the categorization of animals and humans. The animals are subjected to suffering during the experimentation. The experiment is done without considering the harm it can cause to the animals. This article will talk about the danger of experimentation on the animals and why the biological researchers cannot rely on animal experimentation and the utilitarian theory.
It is acceptable that medicines should be applied based on the evidence. It goes against this believe that human medicine experiments on animals without evidence of their efficacy. The medicine is applied to the animals without any examination about their validity. The experimentations are harmful to the animals it should not be approved. Despite causing harm to the animals, the experimentation can be unreliable and offers poor predictions.
Reasons why animal experimentation is not reliable
The outcome of the experiment is likely to be affected by the laboratory procedure and the environment. The conditions in the laboratory have an impact on the physiology and the behavior of the animal put under experimentation; the implication is the expected results might be altered. During the experimentation, the environment of the animal’s changes they are placed in the involuntarily. The conditions in the laboratory are not favorable to the animals; hence they have the capability of changing the behavior of the animals. The laboratory conditions can also affect the neurochemistry of the animals, their genetic and nerve regenerations.
To come up with the desired results, the researchers are trying to standardize the conditions of the laboratory; the procedures and settings. The researchers decided to understand how the laboratory environment affected the behavior of the mice; they carried out an experiment of the neurobehaviors of the mice in three laboratories and the results obtained were not the same. These results indicate that the environment is essential affects the outcome of the drugs in animals. Therefore, when carrying out the experimentation, the researchers under different laboratory conditions will come up with varying results. Such results cannot be relied on to give predictability of the effect of the drug in humans.
There is an inharmonious relationship between the Human Diseases and the Animal Diseases models. The existence of a lack of congruity between the human and animal disease models brings about unreliability. The human disease under study are induced to the animals artificially; this limits the usefulness. There is variation between the human and animal experiment model. Aysha Akhtar gives an example of stroke in human beings. Inducing stroke to animals is futile; it is not able to replicate stroke into the animals, therefore, the researcher will need to come up with more advanced study over the same. The disparities are as a result of the inability to predict the human model of diseases and that of animals. The biological researchers usually when they fail to come up with the expected results they make assumptions that there was wrong methodology, biases in publication, wrong gender and age choice of the animal experimented with and the lack of adequate preexisting disease and proper medicine administration. Such assumption forgets to consider the variation in animal disease model and the human disease model.
Another experiment was carried out concerning the cancer development model in humans and animals, traumatic brain injury, Alzheimer’s disease, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. The cancer models in why tumors were induced artificially are used as the basic model in studying the main biochemical and physiological properties of cancer. This included the study from the start of cancer, its probation, and treatment. The results obtained were negative; the models did not show any predictability to humans.
High failure in clinical drug development is influenced by the lack of ability to model the diseases of humans in animals — also poor predictability of the model of animals. There was a review carried out on animal and human trial on the treatment of the injuries of the head, osteoporosis, stroke, respiratory distress syndrome, and hemorrhage. It was observed that the results in human and animal varied in accordance with half of the time taken.
Research shows the at least 92% of the drugs that are approved after the preclinical test and animal testing do not go beyond that level to the market. The researchers have tried to improve the level of predictability in animal testing; the rate of failure is becoming high in is approximately at 96%. This failure is caused by a lack of adequacy in the level of safety and effectivity challenges that were left unpredicted during the animal experimentation.
In addition to that, animals and humans have different physiology and genetic makeups. Even if there could be congruency in animal disease model and the human disease models still the variation in genetics, physiology, pharmacokinetics, and behavior would influence the reliability of the experimentations. Each animal and human being have different anatomical, neurophysiology, and behavior; therefore the efficacy of the medicine cannot be the same. Species have different genes thereby response to medicine varies depending on the genes that the animals and the humans have.
For instance, a spinal cord injury research conducted proved that vary depending on the species and the species and the strains of the species used. The recovery varied in rat and mice that were used. The variance was even evident in rats that were purchased from different sellers. The results obtained when the experimenting response to the sensitivity of pain 12 behavioral measures was used where 11 varied with no greater difference that made it difficult to predict the response of each strain. The variation in response had an impact on how the animals react to injury and therapy. The drug applied helped some mice to recover and failed in others. The researchers came into the conclusion that the animal disease model in spinal cord injuries has not proven to be efficient for use in humans.
Another medicinal experiment that shows the physiological difference in species is the treatment of inflammatory diseases which is perceived as misleading. Basically, it is stated that mice have a greater variation from humans when it comes to reacting to inflammatory complications. The variation was experienced when the genes were turned on and off. The model of disease in the mice differed within themselves during the response to medicine. “our study supports higher priority to focus on the more complex human conditions rather than relying on mouse models to study human inflammatory disease.” (Akhtar p.411). The variation observed indicated that failure of drugs.
The researchers have tried to deal with the difference in the genetic composition by using genetically modified animals; for instance, the use of transgenic models of mice that are modified by being inserted with human genes to their genome. The process cannot work the same as it does in humans because the physiological mechanism in the mice is not the same as in humans. In humans, there are hormones and proteins that are not present in the mice. When such genes are introduced into the mice their functionality changes, an example is a protein that controls the blood sugar levels, when induced into the mice they loss the function of blood sugar control. Using the genetically modified mice has not so far been a success to give positive results about the human disease model that can be used clinically to benefit researchers in obtaining best medicines.
The researchers in other occasions use Non-Human Primates rather than the mice, or they use different animals, the assumption is they can give better results but instead they have failed too. For example, in finding medicine for the Parkinson’s the NHPs models have not been successful.
When the researchers were looking for HIV/AIDS vaccine, they used NHPs the results obtained were negative. The research consumed a lot of time and resources. Most vaccines that were successful in the animals were a failure in humans. One of the notable vaccines that proved effective in the Chimpanzees was the gp120 that did not work in humans. The commentary was written in an article which said that the research was a total waste of time and resources and it also misleads the researchers to take the wrong direction in the research. The assumption that NHP can be used to has led to the suffering of humans. People were put in trial after the drug proved effective in the Chimpanzees; this subjected them to risk of being harmed. Hormone Replacement Therapy is also another drug that gave a positive result in NHPs later it was put under trial with women who were suffering from HRP; the medication had negative implications after it was administered. It led to increment in stroke and exposed the women to the risk of getting breast cancer. The trial of the medicine was terminated in its second phase. In this phase the patients had developed complications in the brain; swelling and yet in the mice and the NHPs the drug had no negative effect.
Another incidence of human suffering can be seen when people were injected with an immunomodulatory drug. After administration of the drug, the patients had a severe reaction that caused a problem to organ failure. The drug was purposely made to lessen immunity, but the outcome was exactly the opposite of the expected result. Before the drug was administered to humans, it was proved effective after giving positive results in mice, NHP and rabbits. In NHPs the dose was applied for two weeks to determine the level of toxicity, the NHPs did not show any negative result. Monkeys we also put under the same experiment; the rhesus and cynomolgus monkeys were selected; there was no negative implication observed either. Then it was concluded that the drug could be effective in humans unexpectedly it had severe reactions in humans. NHP cannot be relied on to give predictions on human reactions as compared to experiments with other animals. It can be deduced that animal experiments cannot be relied on to give information about human medication. The results obtained have very little or no predictability of the outcome and effect the drug can have in humans.
Governments are funding the researchers; they are accruing various opportunity costs. Other researches end up being unreliable after spending huge finances. This affects the development of more productive and accurate methods of testing. The researchers should instead use human organs that are developed in the laboratories — for instance, using the 3D printing of human living tissues, the cognitive computing technology and use of human organs on a chip. These methods can be more effective to use during preclinical experimentation and give predictable results because they are based on the biology of humans. Applying such a strategy will reduce the levels of guess work. The methods can be productive than when using animal experimentation. Another advantage of the above systems is encompassing the whole-systems of biology. Such systems are still developing; the governments need to fund them for their fast development. They can make data obtained to be more predictive
The harm that arises from the misled animal experiments
It is clear that the animal disease model and human disease models are different; both animals and humans belong to different species and have varied genes. It can be concluded that there are more biological differences between animals and humans as compared to similarities; therefore the information obtained from the experimentation cannot be relied on. “It has been argued that some information obtained from animal experiments is better than no information.” (Aysha Akhtar p. 413). The data obtained can cause human suffering; it can give misleading information about the safety of the drug and efficacy. It can also cause the avoidance of essential medicinal treatment and give misleading information that can distort the effectiveness of the methods used to test.
The harm to humans is as a result of the information obtained from the animal experiments which is misleading; the results are not precise. When these results are used in clinical trials, they subject the patients to various risks; there is also wastage of the resources of research. When testing the toxicity of drugs, experimenting in animals gives the poorest predictability of the toxic effects on humans.
Promising drugs can be abandoned due to the misleading results obtained from animal experimentation. This may result in human suffering. Most drugs are seen worth and applicable if they give positive results after being experimented on the animals, the ones that give negative results are abandoned, and they could be the best ones to help humans. Akhtar (p.414) suggests an example of opportunities missed whereby the animals showed a delayed response to cyclosporine that treats disorders which are autoimmune and they are also used in the rejection of organ transplant. During the experimentation of the drug its responsivity differed among the species and the researchers concluded that the drug could not be used by humans.
The results obtained from the experimentation can be direct the biological researchers to doing wrong research hence wastage of time and money in investing in the wrong medicine. The data provided by experiments from the animal experiments is likely to be inaccurate, and irrelevant to the biology of humans.
The Utilitarian Theory- Peter Singer
Utilitarians believe that the “right” action is the one that produces the most and the good for all those involved. Act utilitarianists focus on directly delivering the most significant good through activities while rule utilitarians prefer to act indirectly through rules that if followed consistently, would do produce the greater good.
Peter Singer suggested that there is a necessity of the principle of equality, which states that should have equal considerations. The principle disregards all the differences that exist between human beings. It advocates for a moral relationship between human beings and the species of their own. It also extends to accepting to treat other species morally; non-human species. The reflection here is removing the prejudices against the animals. There should be consideration of interests of all species. The principle indicates that our interests for other people rely on what we love and what they have. Disregarding other individuals because they are not intelligent according to utilitarian it is unethical. The tenet, therefore, suggests that given that animals do not belong to humans’ species they should not be exploited. It also argues that animals are less intelligent than human beings, therefore, the human beings should not take advantage of them. It further states that animals should not be disregarded in any way.
Singer advocates that equal consideration of needs is a form of moral tenet. The tenet is applicable beyond our species. Jeremy Bentham concurs with Peter Singer to champion the utilitarianism. When we consider suffering, then humans tend to be active in equal consideration. Just the same case that one cannot see a person suffering and assume to take action to help the person from suffering. Human beings never subject each other willingly to suffering. Equity is also depicted when humans always strive to make each other happy.
When beings are subjected to suffering situations, justification of morality cannot be seen if the being cannot take consideration about the suffering. Regardless of the nature of the being the tenet demands that the suffering and pain be measured equally with the nature of suffering. An account cannot be taken if a being does not experience happiness, suffering and experience joy. The limit of sensory awareness can be used to determine the concern of others’ interests.
Considering racism, the racists give much weight on the interests of the groups of their own and clash the interests of others. For instance, white racists may not take into account pain inflicted on the blacks as it can be when it is inflicted on another white. The speciesists have a higher weight regarding the interests of members of their species in moments of the clash between their needs and the needs of the other species. This brings out the ideology that human beings do not consider the is worse when induced in a pig or a mouse as it can be felt by other humans.
The above argument can be extended to the tenet of equity to the nonhuman animals. Other individuals can argue that of course the pig and the mouse can feel pain, but they are not aware as compared to the awareness that human beings hold concerning pain, therefore, human suffering can be considered worse than in animals.
Consider a person suffering from cancer, the suffering in that being is worse than the suffering of the same in a nonhuman. This case does not violate the policy of equality to the nonhumans; the implication is we need to take into account when comparing interests across different species. Depending on the type of interest we are comparing, one species can feel pain than the other, but the tenet of equity will remain the same but giving priority on the one that feels the more pain. For instance, if a person hits a donkey with a stick, and uses the same frequency to hit another person with the same stick then, the person will feel more pain that the donkey.
Both beings can feel pain; only the extent differs depending on what inflicted the pain. For instance, in humans, they possess the greater mental capacity, advanced memory and even higher levels of knowledge of events that can cause pain and suffering. The perception that and individual suffering from cancer experiences much pain than a nonhuman it is because of the human mind. There is an assumption that animals might be suffering more because of the lack of the ability of understanding.
Suffering and pain are not endurable experiences to both humans and the nonhumans; therefore it should be avoided in all costs regardless of the species. The intensity of pain can be determined by its duration, either long or short it bad; it does not matter if it is felt by animals or human beings. Life is so valuable no matter animal or human life that it should be kept from pain.
Experimenting on animals
Speciesism inequality is evident in this case. Human species use animal species in experimentation. The human species only seek to make discoveries about medicines; they do not look at the negative impact that the experiments might cause to the animals. They claim to be making discoveries that can help them cure diseases that bring about human suffering. And if this is the case that human medicine can be tested on nonhuman, then the implication is there is a relationship between them thereby they should not be experimented on regarding the equality tenet.
The researchers in most cases take assumptions that experimentation on animals fulfills essential medicinal purposes and that the medicines are taken to reduce suffering rather than increasing; this is indeed a fallacy. For example, when pharmaceutical companies manufacture medicines and cosmetics that are to be used by human beings they test them on the nonhumans; LD50 which is used to determine the number of medicine patients should use when tested on the nonhuman then the nonhuman dies. The deduction, in this case, is that not all the tests reduce human suffering others increase the suffering.
Singer suggests that if the researchers carry out an experiment on a nonhuman, then the experiment turns out to be beneficial to human beings then that can be justifiable. But the researchers are unsure of what experiment will be justifiable, they keep on experimenting on the animals, if a drug fails to work in humans they possibly carry out the test in another, they keep on guessing. Singer argues that experimentation on the nonhumans is evil and unethical than being good. The benefits that the experimentations have to humans are ignorable. Even if the tests helps the humans to come up with medication that can reduce human suffering, they never show any form of appreciation to the animals. The animals during experimentation might feel pain, but they cannot be able to express their suffering.
Singer argues that the researchers fear and they cannot attempt to carry out tests on infants, but they can comfortably carry out the test on animals; he suggests that they should not carry test on the animals either. Singer further discusses the use of animals as food in the form of meat. He says that using the nonhuman as the meal is a minor interest; therefore balance is needed for the life and welfare of the nonhumans. The tenet of equity discourages sacrificing of significant interest or the less significant ones.
Works cited
Akhtar, Aysha. “The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics24.4 (2015): 407-419.
Regan, Tom, and Peter Singer. “Animal rights and human obligations.” (1989).