Animal Experimentation is the use of non-human animals in experiments. Several organizations estimate that 100 million vertebrate animals (those with backbones) are experimented on globally per year; this number does not include invertebrates (those without backbones), like insects, which make up the majority of test subjects.
There are laws which regulate the usage of animals. One of these laws in the United States is the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). According to the National Agricultural Library of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) @ http://www.aphis.usda.gov,
- The AWA requires that minimum standards of care and treatment be provided for certain animals bred for commercial sale, used in research, transported commercially, or exhibited to the public. Individuals who operate facilities in these categories must provide their animals with adequate care and treatment in the areas of housing, handling, sanitation, nutrition, water, veterinary care, and protection from extreme weather and temperatures.
Interestingly, only warm-blooded animals are covered in this act. Cold-blooded animals like reptiles, insects or fish are not included in the AWA.
Our class confronted the controversy of animal experimentation during the final science fair experiment when they investigated previously-tested variables (like type of liquid or amount of acidity) on animals. The earlier experiments focused on plants and tried to discover a way to ensure maximum plant growth. The idea was to increase plant growth while minimizing environmental impacts. [For example, fertilizer increases plant growth but when it washes into nearby ponds, lakes, or other aquatic environments, it starts a process known as Eutrophication. Eutrophication leads to the death of some aquatic organisms and the disruption of food chains.] Some students wanted to know if their variables would also impact animals, like fish or insects. Other students were uncomfortable with this idea. Some parents did not give permission; they did not see the value in causing "certain" death during experiments. Ultimately, most students decided to test their variables on different species of plants. A minority of students decided to test on worms, insects and small bait fish.
Many questions remain. Should students be allowed to experiment on animals? What factors must be considered when conducting experiments on animals? Please leave your thoughts and questions below. Feel free to include links, videos and pictures but explain and acknowledge sources for visuals and videos.
Image source of rat: http://visualsonline.cancer.gov/details.cfm?imageid=2568
Posts
i think its strange and unfair that the AWA does not cover cold blooded animals. why doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteI disagree with natasha. i mean, it is unafair but it's also logical. often, scientists look for new medicines for humans to use. once they create the medicine, they have to test it on animals. those animals have to be simialar to humans, therefore, they have to be warm blooded.
ReplyDeleteI think that the animals should be used to save humans lives. To me, it matters is that the animals are treated fairly before being tested. If more organisms are saved than killed, it is a successful experiment. I do not think, however, that students should be allowed to experiment on animals unless they are serious scientists.
ReplyDeletekate, the fact that the animals are similar to humans does not mean that they HAVE to be tested on. They have their own lives too.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion(spelled right?) students over the age 10 should be able to conduct experiments on animals, but only if they pass a certain test/application. Then we can be sure all students testing on animals are educated in the area and can handle what may happen.
ReplyDeletecallum i do not a agree with you or martin. you should not kill an animal to create a conclusion. if we were the animal we would not like to be killed to have scientists create their answer. in addition to this animals should not be used to save human lives. and Callum i do agree with you that those people who test with animals should be certified, but they should be older. and Kate why are reptiles so horrible. they should be equal.
ReplyDeleteCallum and Martin, I agree with you. Killing 10 animal to save 1000 is a sacrifice that, while sad, is worth it. Kate, I also agree with you. If we were to test medicines for, say, high blood pressure, a cold-blooded lizard might have a very different reaction than a warm-blooded guenia pig, who theoretically would have a more similar reaction to a human than a lizard.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Danny, Martin, and Callum. As Danny said if 100 animals are killed to save 1,000 humans than its worth it. However, if the test is unsuccessful than you killed a lot of animals for no reason. I think that testing on animals is very helpful for humans but also horrible that we kill other organisms for our benefit.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Danny, Martin, and Callum. As Danny said if 100 animals are killed to save 1,000 humans than its worth it. However, if the test is unsuccessful than you killed a lot of animals for no reason. I think that testing on animals is very helpful for humans but also horrible that we kill other organisms for our benefit.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Danny said, but I think it would be a hundred times better if scientists (not us kids, but serious scientists) experimented on humans, who did not mind being a part of an experiment.
ReplyDeleteI think that though useful, we should not test on animals. Certain tests may have a 50/50 chance of working or not working. For these tests I would say maybe. However, if they are testing risky ideas like the healing powers of being bitten by a Cobra, or the advantages of using nails instead of needles in acupuncture, I would say no because odds are, the animals will die. So yes, Callum, I do agree that scientists should be trained, or even have to be a college graduate before being allowed to test on animals, especially because a trained scientist would not test bad experiments on an animal. However, I don't want to take some medicine and then die because it was bad for me. Therefore, here is my solution... in our stage of technological achievements, ie. iPods, robots, and computers, we should be able to make a virtual human. To do it we would have to study the human body a lot more, and we would have to study how the body part works. Then we could have a list of real chemicals and when you chose which chemicals were in the medicine, the computer would have a prediction of what would happen, and then show you how the medicine would travel through the body, and its effect on the different body parts as it went along. To check the computer's accuracy, scientists could research it a lot more, and confirm if it was true, close to true, or completely false. Imagine if you were an animal, and you were taken to a Lab and killed in testing different medicines, this is what to animals if the Animal Welfare Act is not enforced.
ReplyDeleteKitty, what if the volunteers die?
ReplyDeleteHey this is Maxine, I can't get my account working, but I will talk to you about that later. I agree with Kitty completely. Except for the fact that most animal testing may kill the animal, so unless the person is willing to kill themselves, they will not volenteer.
ReplyDeletethat would be nice kitty but how do you know that they were really willing to be part of the experiment? Also I think the certification idea is smart, but i also agree with Elinor that it should be an older age mabey with a college degree in science or something of the sort? I think that it is okay to experiment on animals as long as it is for an important cause and the animals are treated well.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it is the greatest idea to experiment on animals, but if the animals are cared for and scientists have a good reason to experiment on them, then it is okay. I also agree with Kitty and if scientists test on human beings trying to find a medicine for us humans to use, then the work will be more accurate than testing on animals.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that the volunteer will most likely die(if they are testing very dangerous things).Also, in general, I think that the argument of animal testing could go both ways:
ReplyDelete- 100 million animals are dieing, let alone all the invertebrates. And I think we should stop killing animals.
or
- Well if we stop killing animals we won't advance our technology and people might die from deseases.
Therefore i dont know who's side to take.
p.s. Mr. Wilson sorry i couldnt get on the wiki (tonight)
I think that animals should not be hurt, unless for an important reason. Scientists should be trained or advanced in science before performing an experiment. A 6 year-old should not be testing on a mouse, and accidentally hurt the innocent creature. If testing on an animal it should be an animal that has lived for a couple of years instead of a baby animal. Therefore, the animal has lived most of its life instead of just being born and having to die.
ReplyDeleteI think that students like us should NOT be testing animals. Scientists have the experience and brains to actually know what is write and wrong for animals so they would have a lesser chance of harming them. However, there should be NO ANIMAL TESTING on animals for human products i.e: testing shampoo on animals. If it is for humans, why not actually test it on humans?
ReplyDeleteP.S.: Yes, they do test shampoos/cosmetics on animals: http://www.animalforum.com/gcruelty.htm
I think that in general it is wrong to test on animals. I have two geckos and a chameleon and it would kill me if someone would test things on them!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Shiraz and Kitty. I don't think that students our age should be testing on animals. I think if humans are willing to be tested on they should be because animals cannot speak and say, "yes, I want to be tested on" or "no, I don't want to be tested on" and humans can.
ReplyDeleteChuma here: I think that students like us can experiment on animals but do not harm them in the experiment. And although scientist have the experience and knowledge to know what is good and/or bad for an animal, that does not mean that they WILL give the animal what it needs to live and survive. I also agree with Booker. For example: what if a field mouses heart has the cure for cancer (I know it does not. Just making a point)? Sadly, we have to kill the animal to find that out.
ReplyDeleteWell, the volunteers volunteers and the scientists would probably have them sign a contract.
ReplyDeleteWell, the volunteers volunteers and the scientists would probably have them sign a contract.
ReplyDeleteI think that scientists should test on warm-blooded animals. I am very opposed to killing animals for no good reason, but this is a good one. If scientists test on cold-blooded animals, it might have a different affect then it does on us. The medicine might kill the cold-blooded animal, therefor telling the scientists that it might kill us. If they test on a warm-blooded animal it might have a similar affect that it would have on us. I agree with Callum and Martin. Students should not be able to test on animals unless they pass some test that tells everyone that they are capable of testing on animals.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dylan. There is no telling the difference that medicines may make in certain warm or cold blooded organisims.
ReplyDeleteI think that so many people are ignorant of how much animals give us! They give us food, and clothing! These are necessities! And yet here we are killing them over lipstick! I think that until scientists find an alternate way we should still test on some animals, but only for medicine. Even then i think scientists should do a certain amount of tests before turning to these creatures, and we should only test on older smaller creatures.
ReplyDeleteI think most people are ignorant of how much animals give us! They give us food, and clothing. These things are all necessities lipstick is not! Until a alternate way is found scientists should be allowed to test on animals provided that they have tested product beforehand though i think the testing should be limited to smaller animals with shorter life spans, and only for medicine.
ReplyDeleteI think that even though it is cruel to test on animals, it is necessary. Imagine that scientist have been working on a cure for a deadly disease for hundreds of years. The disease is spreading around the world and killing off the human race. They finally find the cure and save billions of people, so who care if a couple mice died in the process?!
ReplyDeleteClem, if a few animals die for the cure for something that would kill the human race, I would be fine with it, because it would save thousands, maybe more lives. But animals are dying for other things too. An estimate of over 50 million animals die a year for cosmetics testing alone, higher than the estimated number for medicine. The animals that do not live are usually hurt in some way ( blinded, injured by the harsh treatment, sick, etc.) and almost always killed afterwards because they are no longer useful to the testers. The result of the animals' short lived lives? A lot of new mascara and eye shadow for us, tons of money for the company that made them, and more death for the animals being tested on for the next product. Is it worth it? Is it even close to fair?
ReplyDeleteI agree with natasha. To kill that many animals for things that are not necessities, like makeup, is illogical. The only reason to ever kill animals in tests is if the tests were for a very important medicine, or a food that might save many from starvation.
ReplyDeleteI am going back to a question that was asked at the beginning of the blog, Why don't they test cold-blooded animals? and another thing that i think is that to add on to what danny was saying is that it is okay to kill one animal if you could save hundreds of thousands of other animals.
ReplyDelete