Jessica's Essay

Should new drug be tested on animal?

In the UK, any new drug that is used for medicine has to be tested on at least two different types of live mammal before the public can buy it by law . This would encourage more experiments to use animals and no one can stop it because of the law . However, the formulation of this law is too hasty because this law have not taken into accout for many important aspects including the weekness of testing, animal rights and the cost of it .

Animals have as much right to be free of pain as human beings . Because animals have very similar reaction to humans when in pain, distress and discomfort that means they also have the ability to ‘suffer’ ( Jeremy Bentham 1789) . It is a duty for humans not to cause them needless suffering . However, unfortunately according to the statistics , annually about 20 million animals are tested in experimentation and killed, three-fourths for medical purposes that nealy eight million are used in painful experiments and at least 10 percent of these animals do not received painkillers( Michael Allen Fox 1986) . What the researchers have done is arbitrarily unjust for animal and they should have moral responsibilities to the animal and the public . Because Animals also are subjects of a life like humans and the interests of animals should be respected, which includes respect for their interest to be free from undeserved pain (Jerrold Tannenbaum and Andrew N. Rowan 1985) . So based on the grounds of morality, the testing is quite cruel to animals .

Animal testing is incredibly expensive but unproductive . Animals used for testing are usually obtained from specific facilities for breeding and controlling environment but it generally costs an enormous amount of money . However, the values of output are far less than that of investment . Take AIDS research in Ametica for example, this research was in a heavy investment but the testing result for animal were disappointing . Animals being infected with HIV had not quite similar reaction compared with humans when they have AIDS and 15 laboratory workers in the US have been killed by the Marburg virus and caused by vivisection .

Animal test is not the best method for people to test new drug and it should be replaced . The main problem of this method is that the test result of animal isn’t exactly same as human because of the different physical structure, which will lead to potentially dangerous . In other words drugs that are safe or benefical to animal sometimes prove highly dangerous to us（Tom Regan and Peter Singer 1989）. Penicillin is an interesting example of a drug useful to humans that are deadly to many animals . Obviously, the difference is always existed that means the dangerous is always existed, which is difficult to eliminate . So with this dangerous problem, the method should be replced . In fact, there are many alternatives invented successful now such as human tissue sample and even computer models and programmes . These methods can be used without worring about the difference from animals and can give more accurat testing result instead of animal test . Therefore, the method using animal is not a good choice for testing drug compared with alternatives .

However, those who support animal testing argue that there is almost no differences in lab animal and humans for testing, so it is no need to worry about adverse reactions for humans different from animal . Even though the difference happened, the probability is quite low and even can be ignored . It is a truth that every coin has two sides like the testing , so there is no any weaknesses that is impossible . Also, it have made great contributions to help people against disease . On balance, its accomplishments outweigh its faults.

This point of view is correct to a certain extent, but the low probability does not mean low dangerous . At the current medical level, it is difficult to predict how dangerous the testing result will be, which is also dangerous . Furthermore, it is not the only option for testing new drug and there are many successful alternatives, then it can be easily abandoned regardless of uncertainty whether it’s dangerous .

In conclusion, it is clear that there are several main problems of the law for testing new drugs on animal . The Government should reconsider whether to continue the implementation of the law and the researcher worker should think about the ethical issues involved and to choose technique that will not only answer the scientific question but cause least distress to the animal.

Bibliography

Allen Fox, M (1986) The Case for Animal Experimentation (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).

Langley , G (1989)‘Some considerations when using animals for scientific purposes’, Animal Experimentation, pp. 170-171.

Regan, T & Singer, P ( 1989)‘The use of animal in science’， Animal Rights and Human Obligations , p. 202.

Tannenbaum, J & N. Rowan, A (1985)‘Rethinking the Morality of Animal Research’, Hastings Center Report, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 32-43.