Animal Testing Data Not Accessible; Are Scientists Hiding Something ?

by giselle.basquecortez on September 10, 2013 - 9:46pm

Summary

This article focuses on the transparency of animal testing and its data.  The author affirmed that the University of British Colombia released their official data on their animal testing which alerted several animal rights groups due to their unexpectedly high numbers.  The honesty of their numbers released is doubted since the university maintained verbally that they had experimented on about 100 000 animals in 2010 but the data released that same year shows that the number of animals used at UBC was the double.  The author clearly presents the facts in a way of showing that the transparency of animal testing and its data is wrong.

 

The Debate

The moral question being asked concerning this issue is if animal testing is right or wrong.  Moreover, should data on animal testing be accessible?

 

The facts are that animal testing leads to several discoveries that are valuable for the future but that to achieve this, animals have to be encaged and experimented their whole lives, which can cause them to suffer or die.

 

For

- Development of science

- ``Test one animal now, save thousands later``

- Learn more about how physical bodies work

- Animal testing teaches us more on how diseases develop and spread

- Allows us to develop new methods of detection and treatment

- The use of animals in research is done only when absolutely necessary and caringly

- Medical advancements that we now take for granted (blood transfusions, antibiotics, vaccines or other medications) could never have been achieved without animal research

 

Against

- Animal well-being and rights

- Animals feel pain and fear just as we do

- Their natural instincts, just like ours, are to be free and to survive in the environment, not to be locked up in cages, where their destiny is chosen for them

- Animals are subjected to suffering and abuse that would be intolerable yet, illegal if it took place somewhere else

- Animals should never be forced to face being genetically modified to develop diseases

- Around 90% of medications tested on animals fail in humans, which results in failure of projects and wasted lives

 

 

Those in favor of animal testing have values such as acknowledgement, advancement, awareness, consciousness, discovery, learning, perseverance, science and education.  For them, it is important to experiment and make tests on animals to be able to make important discoveries.  It is only logic to test animals in order for all species to survive better and longer.   Those against animal testing and its transparency hold values such as awareness, care, compassion, conservation, correctness, empathy, fairness, justice, respect and wealth.  For tem, animal testing should be banned because it does not respect and goes against animal rights.   

 

My Opinion

I approve the transparency of animal testing and its data.  If numbers and information is hidden to the society, people cannot know what is going on and nobody gets the right to develop an opinion on the issue.  I am against animal testing because I am a careful person who thinks it is inhumane to use animals as scientific models their whole lives.  It is against nature and do not classify myself in a higher social class to decide on the destiny of animal`s lives.  It also causes animals to feel pain and suffer throughout the experiments.   What is worse is that there are very large chances that the experiments fail which will have as consequences health problems or death.  Moreover, I am definitely for the transparency of their data to be able to access the information without difficulty.  Scientific are very proud to announce their findings on medical cures, which is understandable but do not show how many tests and experiments they have done to achieve the responses.  Besides of hiding of shame and guilt of their high numbers, why would scientists hide important statistics, results and data on their research?

 

 

Bebeto Matthews. ``Should more institutions release their data on animal testing ?``  CBCNews Community (Fall 2011): 1-1, Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 Sept. 2013.

Comments

I admit that the title of your article really made me curious. Although I have always been aware of animal testing and the fact that it happens, I have never realised that the data on animal testing was not made available to the general public. My position on this matter may seem confusing, but is very clear to me. I believe that it sometimes necessary to test on animals (when it comes to medical research, and when assuring that the animal does not have to suffer more than it has to). As harsh as it sounds, I grant more importance to human health and development than I do to sympathy for animals. I also believe that, when used for medical purposes, the testing of one animal can benefit us all greatly, and that it would be inhumane to test things on people. However, I believe in trust, honesty, and knowledge; which is why I consider it important that the numbers for these experiments be easily accessible to the general public. In the article you read, did it specify WHY these numbers were hidden? Is it always like this? Or was this unique to one research firm?

I also am in favour of testing on animals to a certain extent. There are certain areas where I believe that testing should not be performed on animals for instance, cosmetic products. I don’t think it is necessary to make animals suffer for the sake of looking pretty. However, I do think it can be an advantage, and maybe even necessary, to use animal testing to find cures, vaccines, or various advances in the medical field in order to prevent suffering for humans. You mentioned that care and compassion are two values held by the defenders of animal rights. I think those values can be applied even by those in favour of this practice. Scientists whose goal is to improve the care that can be given to a sick person to me express both of those values. I don’t think that it is possible to stop testing on animals completely, not in the near future anyway. Implanting strict regulations as to what should and should not be allowed in such experiments can be a good way to reconcile both sides of the issue. For that to happen I think that the transparency of the results is necessary; public awareness can go a long way. Possible regulations could prevent poor testing conditions and unnecessary use of animals while allowing the practice to help improve our healthcare.

a) good choice of title
b) I am also in favour of animal testing, but at the same time I disapprove for certain reasons. I believe that we exaggerate our right in animal testing on subject like cosmetics. Animal testing should be used as a primary source only for survival need for instance, a cure for cancer. We should value care and compassion in both sides of the debate because we need to find resources and animals are our only help to find something that is right to use on humans. We should implement severe rules and limits on animal testing to compensate both sides of the debate.
c) What kind of regulations should be applied for animal testing?

The topic you chose really interests me, since I am against animal testing because of my love for animals.

I acknowledge the arguments that support animal testing and I cannot say that they do not make sense, but the point that this post focusses on is the fact that animal testing data should not be hidden from the public, either if we are for or against animal testing in general. The scientists should not hide the true data from the population if they do not feel guilt towards testing on animals and if they think that what they are doing is right. I personally think that honesty, knowledge and the right of knowing the truth are very important.

However, from the scientists' perspective, what would happen if they gave out the true shocking animal testing data to the public? Would they have to possibly stop animal testing, therefore stop doing what they do and stop progressing in terms of science or medicine?

Your title really caught my attention and pushed me to read your article. I was not aware that scientific were not releasing data about the number of animals they were using for their experiment and on this point i agree with you that we should know these datas because I think it is important because it can change our way to see animal testing. But for me, even after read this data, it did not change my opinion about this subject. I think animal testing is optimal to find advance our medecine and be able to save for life. I think these tests can not be on humans because it's inhumane and I value more a human life than a life of an animal. So, I would say that animal testing is a bad for a good. If we would not do those tests on animal, do you think we would be able to find new ways to cure diseases?

Your title definitely intrigued me, simply because animal testing is something I am truly interested by. I am fully and completely against animal cruelty, for the simple reason that they, just like humans, are living creatures on this planet and if it is "immoral" to test on humans, then the same should apply for animals. I believe that animals were put on this earth to progress with nature and evolve, not live their life strapped down to a medical table or spend their every day in a steel cage. I believe that animal testing simply goes against autonomy because humans are not allowing them to live their life how they are supposed to, in freedom. It also defies the moral principle of not using people as means, in a way, seeing as animals are living things, just as humans, and they should not be regarded as a source of means. Using animals to test products on or cure a disease is wrong and can be seen as going against their will, simply because they are unable to express themselves the same way that humans do. I also believe that all data that comes out from these experiments should be shown to the public simply because if animal testing isn't considered immoral, than scientists should feel no shame in exposing their data to the public. Can the fact that scientists or experimenters are holding back there data show that the public isn't aware of something truly immoral behind animal testing? Is it because the data that they hold private from the public so shocking and inhumane that if made public, animal testing would be put to an end?