M. Sahithi
(Gitam School of Law)
"Protect Animals from testing."
"Animal testing" as we assume, the animals are being tested or the animals are being used for testing. Okay, it's obvious that the animals are being used for testing. But why the animals are being tested. There may be other reasons, but the issue of testing is not animal abuse, if yes then why this research is not prohibited. Couldn't the animals have rights? Within this society, only human beings have rights against suffering. And if these questions are to be answered, we must understand about the animal testing and why the animals are being tested?
What is animal testing?
An animal testing is a medical experiment or procedure in which a living animal is required to experience something that is likely to cause distress, pain, trauma or permanent harm. The Animal testing refers to procedures conducted on live animals for the purposes of fundamental biology and disease studies, evaluation of the effectiveness of new medical drugs, and testing of the human health and/or environmental protection of the consumer and industrial goods such as cosmetics, household cleaners, food products, pharmaceuticals and industrial/ agrochemicals. Some of the animals are killed at the end of the experiment, but some can be reused in future analyses.
What are the animals used for testing?
The most prevalent are mice, fish, rats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, farm animals, birds, cats, dogs, mini-pigs and non-human primates (monkeys, and in some countries, chimpanzees).
There are many reasons why animal use is important to biomedical research:
Animals are very similar biologically to humans. In reality, mice share with us over 98% of DNA
Animals are vulnerable to many of the same health problems that humans face – obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc.
Despite a shorter life cycle than humans, animal models can be observed over their entire life span and over many generations, a vital factor in understanding how a disease progresses and how it interacts with a complete, living biological system.
Is animal testing is necessary?
The use of animals has long been a topic of heated discussion in scientific research. On the one hand, treating animals in this way purely for the benefit of humans is considered morally wrong.
On the other hand, eliminating animals from the laboratory fully would hinder our understanding of health and disease, and thus impact the production of new and critical treatments. While such experiments often impair the quality of life of these animals, there are rigorous measures in place to ensure that they are carried out in a humane manner.
There may be many reasons for this to be necessary diseases such as asthma and cystic fibrosis? They include very complicated physiological processes that can only be observed in a living animal as a whole. Until there is a cell that can be individually studied and exhibit human-like reactions, animals are needed.
Legally, all drugs must be tested for safety on animals before they can be used in humans.
Where there are reliable alternatives in scientific research, no use shall be made of animals. There must always be a very valid scientific reason for animal research to be considered.
By testing on animals, they may be able to ensure that any dangers of the medication are detected and reduced before being administered on humans through clinical trials? This helps to reduce side effects and human deaths.
But even though this is necessary,there is no reason to inflict discomfort and distress to animals because various analytics technologies, statistical simulations, human tissues and cell cultures and more concentrated scientific trials will now demonstrate what occurs to our bodies through illness.
Animal welfare Act 1966
In agreement with the Federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) , animals used for research are expected to have adequate accommodation, medication, medical care, food and water. Nevertheless, the vast majority of animals used for testing are exempt from the rights provided for in the AWA. In addition, an exception to the AWA provisions occurs if the researcher decides that it is not medically appropriate or would have a detrimental impact on the results of the experiments. As such, many of the current legislation and regulations, like the AWA and many state anti-cruelty legislation, are often ineffective. The aim of the Animal Welfare Act was not to govern how animals are used for research purposes, but rather to set requirements for how they are received and treated at the facility. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) does not pertain to rats, mice, fish and birds, which make up 95 per cent of the animals used in research. The Animal Welfare Act has failed to prevent brutal cases of animal abuse in research laboratories.
Pros and cons of Animal testing
Testing on animals will give a new meaning to the medical field or some other, but the suffering of these animals? So let us see the advantages and disadvantages of this study.
Pros of the animal testing
● The animal testing equates to life-saving treatment and treatment.
● The animal testing is crucial to ensuring the safety of vaccines.
● There is no suitable alternative to evaluating a live, whole-body system.
● Animals are appropriate research subjects because they are in numerous ways similar to human beings.
● Animals must be used in situations where ethical issues prohibit the use of human subjects.
● Animals themselves are benefiting from the effects of animal research.
● Animals also have better test subjects than humans because of their shorter life cycles.
Cons
● The handling of animals is barbaric and inhumane.
● There are now new forms of research that can eliminate the need for livestock.
● Drugs move across the animal
● Only 5% of the animals used in experiments are protected by law.
● Most animals testing are defective, wasting the lives of animal subjects.
● The Animal Welfare Act has not succeeded in preventing horrible cases of animal abuse in research laboratories.
Morally and Ethically animal testing is true?
Animal rights activists also view those who experiment with animals as being so inhuman that they have effectively lost their own moral status.
Yet the question is whether the findings are morally right or incorrect. The general moral existence of the experimenter is irrelevant.
The problem of animal experimentation is clear if we agree that animals have rights: if an experiment violates the rights of the animal, it is morally unethical and it is immoral to infringe the rights of the animal.
The possible advantages to society of experimenting are entirely unrelated to the morality of the situation, as rights should never be abused (except in obvious situations such as self-defence).
The morality of conducting experiments with animals on the basis of rights is exactly why people always justify animal experiments on grounds of consistency; by demonstrating that the benefits to humanity justify the suffering of the animals concerned.
A significant ethical issue with animal research is that, under certain conditions, it causes harm, suffering and discomfort. While researchers also tackle the potential for pain by taking steps to mitigate it wherever possible, they are unable to fully prevent any pain from occurring. Where appropriate, pain killers may be used, but with certain forms of testing, the use of a pain medication may mean an association with the drug being tested. For this reason, animals will feel the effects of a single medication and if it causes pain, it is an unpleasant question for researchers.
Are there any alternatives for animal testing?
There are a range of reasons to move away from animal health and toxicity studies and to alternative animal research. Ethics are one reason, because these conventional healths and toxicity testing techniques cause high rates of animal abuse.
The Alternative is the term commonly used by the research world to describe "3Rs" —
The three R's
The three R's are a series of guidelines that scientists are expected to obey in order to reduce the effects of animal testing.
The three R's are: Reduction, Refinement, Replacement.
Reduction:
Reducing the number of animals used for research by:
Improved testing methods
Improved data collection methods
Sharing of knowledge with other researchers
Refinement:
Refining the experiment or the manner in which the animals are cared for to the their pain by:
Development of less harmful technology
Continued to improve medical treatment
Better living standards
Replacement:
Replacing experimental animals with alternative methods such as:
Experimenting with cell cultures instead of entire animals
Usage of design templates
Studying Volunteer People
Usage of epidemiological research
The alternatives to animal testing fall into three main categories. The alternative is a research method that has been approved by the relevant authority as being able to completely substitute the current regulatory test system with a system that does not use live animals:In vitro (primary cultures, cell lines, 3-D cell culture) , ex-vivo (isolated animal tissues and organs) or silicon (mathematical models, computer simulations) methods. The alternative reduction is a technique that decreases the number of animals used. And an alternative to perfection is a practice that reduces an animal suffering.
A new or alternative method of testing for toxicity may be very different from the current method of testing for animals, but it must have the same or improved prediction of human health effects if it is to be approved by regulatory agencies.
Why animal testing should be banned?
I believe that animal research is more unethical than scientific. Animals are not well served and are also neglected by their trainers. Small animals share a shoe box with at least eight other small animals. This isn't a way to stay. Imagine forcing eight human beings into a standard bedroom. How are you going to sleep or get dressed? Not simple right, huh? Animals may be held down by metal bands or placed in small cages with a hole cut out for the head of the animals to be stuck in, so they can't jump around and be in trouble when being checked. Definitively, animal abuse should be banned in its entirely, and no animal should be subjected to cruelty, torture and suffering. In reality, in today's world, non-animal experimental testing is humane, less time consuming, less costly, as well as more effective. Given the slow speed of development, a lot of work is expected to turn to advanced methods of exploration using technology. The animal testing prohibits researchers from collecting the necessary information while at the same time killing and causing damage to humans and animals. Industries and other groups will advocate for animal rights to avoid animal cruelty. Therefore, in my view, animal testing should be banned.
Animal testing in India is illegal.
India has been a major spot for consumer goods, including those known to carry out animal testing when manufactured. Nevertheless, after being one of the few countries to ban animal-tested goods, India did away with these good. One of the few countries to ban animal-tested goods. The ban on animal-tested substances came after the government gave in to the immense pressure imposed by the ministers of the Union, animal rights organizations and PETA India. Some prominent figures in India, such as celebrities, have also been instrumental in forcing the government to enforce a ban, using their power to gain popular support. The country has imposed a complete ban on animal-tested cosmetics through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The prohibition was implemented in the amendment to the Regulations on Drugs and Cosmetics.
Many other nations where animal testing is banned are Australia, New Zealand, and other countries around the world are now in the process of enacting laws banning animal testing and the selling of animal testing items.
Conclusion:
Each of us can help avoid animal abuse and death by purchasing cruelty-free goods, contributing only to organizations that do not experiment on animals, asking for alternatives to animal dissection, urging the compulsory adoption of humane, successful non-animal experiments by government agencies and companies, and relying on our awards received to stop testing on animals.
References
[DISCLAIMER: This article is for general information only. We have tried to include as much information as possible but there are chances that some important information may have been missed .It is NOT to be substituted for legal advice or taken as legal advice. The publishers of the this article shall not be liable for any act or omission based on this note].