Scientifically Flawed System
Science, we accept, is based on practical demonstration of theory. There is no other criteria required other than the validity of the line of theoretical reasoning as a legitimate basic for initial enquiry.
Whereas some continue to support the practices that have become traditional there is no reason to continue any method that is practically or ethically seen as outdated. In this category is the laboratory method of experimentation using non-volunteer animals as guinea pigs. After such a lengthy period of time having been persuaded that this action is required in order to assure good health for humans, the veil of erroneous thinking is beginning to disappear and to be seen as unreasonable.
Laboratory animals cannot come into the area of sacrificial creatures as are some human volunteers. Literally millions of animals have for a century or more been abused by suffering all manner of trials and indignities, extraordinary surgical operations and to measure levels of toxicity before drugs and methods are applied to human beings.
We surely have advanced to some degree beyond our personal emotions when considering welfare of our domestic pets. No longer is it acceptable for us as a people to behave as if all animals are ‘things’ or as termed in the sphere of medical research, and by those who supply the animals as mere ‘products’. But to just be humane is not sufficient motivation for large scale altered courses of thinking and action that are fundamentally geared to human profit and human gain. We have to offer an argument beyond just feeling and judging moral rights and wrongs. We must rely upon facts.
We must look clearly at the objections to present methods. Animal toxicity tests will produce different results depending upon varying factors such as age, sex , size and condition of an animal. With anticipated application of a product or substance to humans there is no guarantee of uniformity in results. That is why it is mandatory for drug companies to caution doctors to watch for ‘allergy’ symptoms when prescribing medicine for human patients who also will vary in age, sex, size and general state of health. It is impossible to be able to rely on a constant regarding a medication. In many branches of medicine the premise is fundamental and requires that each patient is considered as unique. Some researchers consider animal toxicity tests upon animals as very crude and inflicting danger upon the animal involved. In the cosmetic field this is specially upsetting for those who witness extreme allergic reaction to certain toxins being trialled for women’s make up and purposes based upon vanity.
Many substances tested safely on animals have proven to be dangerous to humans and vice versa so cannot be argued as reliable or even valid.
Test upon animals often use rats and mice as specimens are easier to obtain but many of the public would be unaware that experimental animals selected also include horses, dogs, cats, monkeys, rabbits and others. For those who genuinely love animals there is promise ahead. It is certain that many in the research scientific field are in favour of change away from the continued us of laboratory animals and experiments. Numbers urging reform both inside the scientific fraternity and outside are increasing. But the question that follows is naturally “what is the alternative?” There are alternative attitudes and alternative actions.
Reforms within the medical profession are occurring and alternatives being found to obviate the necessity for animal abuse and to rely on superior advance in science that will cast old methods as obsolete.
Leave a Reply