End Animal Research

In these times of AIDS, cancer, and other diseases, scientists and researchers search everywhere to find the cures for these deadly illnesses, scouring the deep seas and tropical rainforest. Every day new drugs and treatments are developed and tested with the hope that they might help those who suffer. Though we are far from a cure for some of the most lifethreatening conditions, advancements have been made. But what about those who suffer for those advancements: the millions of animals that must die or endure pain in laboratory research? In animal research the ends rarely justify the means; the experiments nothing more than a brutal practice. It's time to put an end to the brutality and show the world that animal research is wrong, both morally and medically.

One of the main controversies among those who oppose animal research and those who support it is a question of ethics. Is it morally right to inflict unnecessary pain, sufferings, and even death on an innocent, defenseless, and unwilling creature? The most common argument made by supporters is that animals are inferior to humans and have neither souls, nor rights to which they are entitled. But few have been able to sufficiently argue that animals are lesser beings than humans are. They claim that the ability to feel emotions, communicate, and reason is what separates us from other mammals, however there is no proof that animals don't possess these capabilities. In fact, there have been several instances that prove otherwise.

As an example, during the 1600's and 1700's it was believed that animals were slaves to their emotions, fighting when angry, fleeing when scared, etc (Day, 1994). This belief didn't serve to separate human and animal behaviors but to reinforce the idea that animals do in fact experience emotions. Also, in the 1960's, primates were taught sign language, thus being able to ask for things they wanted or express their approval or disapproval for something. One chimp, named Lucy, after tasting watermelon, signed the fruit as "candy drink" because of its sweetness and watery content. Does that not show the ability to reason? When Koko, the gorilla's pet kitten died, she made the sign for sadness, a good example of the emotions and moral attitude she is capable of (Williams, 1991).

On the subject of an animals' ability to follow a code of morals or ethics, Sir Charles Darwin wrote that morals "can be traced back to social instincts in animals which lead them to take pleasure in each other's company, feel sympathy for each other, and perform services of mutual assistance". Darwin, the man credited for developing the concept of evolution, the idea that man has descended from apes, is also recorded as saying: "We have seen that the senses and intuitions, the various emotions and faculties such as love, memory, attentions, and curiosity, imitations, reason, etc., of which man boasts may be found in an incipient, or even sometimes a welldeveloped condition, in the lower animals" (Day, 1994).

Dolphins in the Kewalo Basin Marine Mammal Laboratory have been taught to understand 50 words and can distinguish the differences between the phrases "to left Frisbee, right surfboard take" and "to right surfboard, left Frisbee take" (Day, 1994). These phrases use the exact same words but have entirely different meanings. There are humans who do not have the reasoning capabilities to understand either phrase. Is either species inferior?

This list is by no means exhaustible; every day more instances occur in which animals show how truly intelligent they are. Perhaps one should keep in mind the words of British philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who states: "Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a fullgrown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, a week, or even a month old" The question is not "can they reason?" nor "can they talk?" but "can they suffer?" (Sherry, 1994).

Those who support the use of lab animals again try to justify the cruelty by arguing that because of animals used in medical research, significant advancements have been made. This statement can be grossly misleading. While it is true that animal research has been of assistance in the development of medications and treatments, it is not enough to justify their suffering. Any benefits of using animals in a laboratory setting are circumstantial or unnecessary or in some cases, results from animal research are totally inapplicable to humans. Animal testing can do more harm than good. In the 1960's researchers tested the effects of tobacco by forcing lab animals to inhale cigarette smoke. Those animals didn't develop any serious complications, so people believed that cigarettes didn't cause lung cancer (Williams, 1991).

Take as an example the Salk vaccine. Developed as a cure for polio, it saved many lives and many supporters will claim that the vaccine couldn't have been deemed safe for the population had it not been tested first on animals. However, the Salk vaccine, before being approved for use on humans, was tested on "tens of thousands of monkeys" (Day, 1994). Was it really necessary to subject tens of thousands of innocent animals unnecessarily? The vaccine was developed as a cure for human patients suffering from a human disease; it would seem rational that it should be tested on humans suffering from that same disease. A patient, lying in bed as the polio destroys his body, probably does not want to be told that doctors might have a cure but they can't give it to him until they waste it on a monkey who wasn't even sick to begin with.

Animal rights activists have worked to uncover the true nature of animal research and expose the shocking mistreatment to the public. Members of various organizations have infiltrated animal research laboratories and reported their findings. Some tests seen include horrific acts such as puppies being burned, the eyes of cats sewn shut, and baboons' heads being crushed. Unspeakable acts of cruelty committed unnecessarily. One group of researchers turned 64 monkeys to drug addicts by automatic injections, then abruptly withdrew the drugs to study the effects of withdrawal. Some of the monkeys died in convulsions, others plucked out their hair or bit off their own fingers or toes before dying (BLTC, 2002). Was that really necessary? What good came of it?

Vivisection is defined as the act or practice of cutting into or otherwise injuring living animals, especially for the purpose of scientific research. Vivisection has a poor track record for several reasons. One of which being the obvious fact that human medicine cannot be based on veterinary medicine. Animals differ from humans, and indeed from each other, anatomically, genetically, physically, and in many other ways. Different species react differently to substances. Some drugs may cause cancer in humans but not in primates or lab rats, or viceversa. The naturally occurring diseases found in human patients are also substantially different from the artificially induced diseases in lab animals.

The FDA requires that all new drugs and treatments should be tested for safety before they can be marketed. The test they use is called the Lethal Dose 50. Any new drug or possible dangerous chemical is given to 100 animals. The dosage is increased, the animals given more and more drugs, until 50 of them die, thus establishing what a lethal dose is (Sherry, 1994). The Lethal Dose 50 is hardly necessary when common sense can prevent an overdose of a drug. 50 animals do not need to die for every new diet pill and antacid put on the market.

While there is a fair number of people who support the use of animals in research, that group is far outnumbered those who fight for the rights of those who can't speak for themselves. The organization PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) alone has over 250,000 members (Day, 1994). Thousands of other organizations like PETA exist, and people around the world are struggling to put an end to the unnecessary cruelty of animal research. Compassion for the distant cousins of humanity in the animal world is not a recent trend. The religion of Hinduism is one of the oldest in the world; part of the Hindu belief system is that animals have immortal souls just like humans. Hindu people practice vegetarianism and treat animals with compassion. Perhaps it's time for us to do the same by passing a law that puts an end to these cruel acts against nature.