How Many Years Has Animal Testing Been Going On
Source: Ben Goldacre, "Fauna Research Study Shows Many Tests Are Full of Flaws," theguardian.com, Jan. 22, 2010
An estimated 26 million animals are used every twelvemonth in the United States for scientific and commercial testing. [ii] Animals are used to develop medical treatments, determine the toxicity of medications, check the condom of products destined for human use, and other biomedical, commercial, and health care uses. Research on living animals has been practiced since at least 500 BC.
Proponents of animal testing say that information technology has enabled the evolution of numerous life-saving treatments for both humans and animals, that there is no alternative method for researching a complete living organism, and that strict regulations prevent the mistreatment of animals in laboratories.
Opponents of animal testing say that it is vicious and inhumane to experiment on animals, that culling methods available to researchers can supervene upon animal testing, and that animals are and so different from human beings that research on animals oftentimes yields irrelevant results.
Regulations
Animal testing in the United States is regulated by the federal Brute Welfare Human activity (AWA), passed in 1966 and amended in 1970, 1976, and 1985. [27] The AWA defines "animate being" as "any alive or dead dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or such other warm blooded fauna." The AWA excludes birds, rats and mice bred for research, cold-blooded animals, and farm animals used for food and other purposes. [three]
The AWA requires that each inquiry facility develop an internal Institutional Animal Committee (more than commonly known as an Institutional Brute Care and Utilize Committee, or IACUC) to "represent order'due south concerns regarding the welfare of creature subjects." The Commission must exist comprised of at least iii members. One member must be a veterinary and one must be unaffiliated with the institution.
While the AWA regulates the housing and transportation of animals used for inquiry, it does not regulate the experiments themselves. The Usa Congress Conference Commission stated at the time of the bill's passage that it wanted "to provide protection for the researcher… by exempting from regulations all animals during actual inquiry and experimentation… Information technology is non the intention of the committee to interfere in any way with research or experimentation." [66]
Animal studies funded by U.s.a. Public Wellness Service (PHS) agencies, including the National Institutes of Wellness (NIH), are further regulated past the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Employ of Laboratory Animals. [27] All PHS funded institutions must base their beast care standards on the AWA and the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (also known as "the Guide"), prepared by the Plant for Laboratory Animal Inquiry at the National Research Council. Different the AWA, the Policy on Humane Intendance and Use of Laboratory Animals and the Guide cover all vertebrate animals used for research, including birds, rats and mice. The Guide "establishes the minimum upstanding, practice, and care standards for researchers and their institutions," including environment and housing standards and required veterinarian care. The Guide stipulates that "the avoidance or minimization of discomfort, distress, and pain when consistent with sound scientific practices, is imperative." [71]
Source: wikipedia.org (accessed October. 22, 2013)
The Usa Section of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Establish Wellness Inspection Service (APHIS) reports the number of animals used for research each twelvemonth, though information technology excludes animals non covered by the AWA. For fiscal twelvemonth 2010 (the latest yr for which data are bachelor as of Oct. 11, 2013), 1,134,693 animals were reported. [26] Since the data excludes cold-blooded animals, subcontract animals used for food, and birds, rats, and mice bred for use in research, the total number of animals used for testing is unknown. Estimates of the number of animals not counted by APHIS range from 85%-96% of the total of all animals used for testing. [2][65][72][1]
The USDA breaks down its data past three categories of pain type: animals that feel pain during their use in research simply are given drugs to alleviate it (339,769 animals in 2010); animals who feel pain and are not given drugs (97,123); and animals who do not feel pain and are not given drugs (697,801). [26]
The Usa Food and Drug Assistants, which regulates the development of new medications, states that "At the preclinical stage, the FDA will generally ask, at a minimum, that sponsors… determine the acute toxicity of the drug in at least two species of animals." [73]
Public Opinion
A public outcry over creature testing and the treatment of animals in full general broke out in the United States in the mid-1960s, leading to the passage of the AWA. An commodity in the November 29, 1965 issue of Sports Illustrated most Pepper, a farmer'due south pet Dalmation that was kidnapped and sold into experimentation, is believed to have been the initial catalyst for the rise in anti-testing sentiment. [74] Pepper died after researchers attempted to implant an experimental cardiac pacemaker in her torso. [75]
A May 2013 Gallup poll found that 56% of Americans say medical testing on animals is morally acceptable (down from 65% in 2001), with 39% saying it is morally wrong. [76] Younger Americans are less likely to accept animal testing. 47% of people aged 18-34 say that animal testing is morally acceptable, whereas 60% of people anile 35-54 and 61% of people aged 55 and older say it is morally acceptable. [77] 67% of registered voters in the U.s. are opposed to using animals to examination cosmetics and personal care products, according to a 2013 nationwide poll conducted by Lake Research Partners. The poll plant that women are more probable to object, with 76% of women under 50 and 70% of women over 50 being opposed to animal testing, and 63% of men under and over 50 beingness opposed. 52% of voters said they feel safer using a product that was tested using non-animal methods, while 18% said they feel safer with products tested on animals. [78]
Early on History
Descriptions of the dissection of alive animals have been found in ancient Greek writings from as early as circa 500 BC. Doctor-scientists such equally Aristotle, Herophilus, and Erasistratus performed the experiments to discover the functions of living organisms. [79][80] Vivisection (dissection of a living organism) was practiced on man criminals in aboriginal Rome and Alexandria, but prohibitions against mutilation of the human trunk in aboriginal Greece led to a reliance on brute subjects. Aristotle believed that animals lacked intelligence, and so the notions of justice and injustice did non utilize to them. Theophrastus, a successor to Aristotle, disagreed, objecting to the vivisection of animals on the grounds that, similar humans, they can experience pain, and causing hurting to animals was an affront to the gods. [80]
Source: Lindsey Nield, "History: The Nature of the Animal," bluesci.org, January. 4, 2010
Roman physician and philosopher Galen (130-200 AD), whose theories of medicine were influential throughout Europe for xv centuries, engaged in the public dissection of animals (including an elephant), which was a pop form of entertainment at the fourth dimension. [81][eighty] Galen also engaged in animal vivisection in gild to develop theories on human being anatomy, physiology, pathology, and pharmacology. [82] In one of his experiments, he demonstrated that arteries, which were believed by earlier physicians to contain air, really independent claret. Galen believed that animal physiology was very like to that of human being beings, merely despite this similarity he had little sympathy for the animals on which he experimented. Galen recommended that his students vivisect animals "without pity or pity" and warned that the "unpleasing expression of the ape when it is beingness vivisected" was to be expected. [80]
French philosopher René Descartes (1596-1650), who occasionally experimented on live animals, including at least one rabbit, every bit well as eels and fish, believed that animals were "automata" who could not feel hurting or suffer the way that humans do. [66] Descartes recognized that animals could experience, merely because they could not think, he argued, they were unable to consciously feel those feelings. [83]
English Doc William Harvey (1578-1657) discovered that the center, and not the lungs, circulated claret throughout the body as a result of his experiments on living animals. [84][85]
Beast Testing in the 1800s and Early 1900s
There was little public objection to animal experimentation until the 19th Century, when the increased adoption of domestic pets fueled involvement in an anti-vivisection movement, primarily in England. This trend culminated in the founding of the Society for the Protection of Animals Liable to Vivisection in 1875, followed past the germination of similar groups. [79][87]
1 of the get-go proponents of beast testing to respond to the growing anti-testing movement was French physiologist Claude Bernard in his Introduction to the Report of Experimental Medicine (1865). Bernard argued that experimenting on animals was ethical because of the benefits to medicine and the extension of human life. [79]
Queen Victoria was an early opponent of beast testing in England, according to a letter written past her private secretarial assistant in 1875: "The Queen has been dreadfully shocked at the details of some of these [animal research] practices, and is about anxious to put a cease to them." [88] Soon the anti-vivisection campaign became potent plenty to pressure level lawmakers into establishing the first laws controlling the use of animals for inquiry: Bang-up Britain's Cruelty to Animals Act of 1876. [15]
Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936) demonstrated the "conditioned reflex" by preparation dogs to salivate upon hearing the sound of a bell or electrical buzzer. In order to measure "the intensity of the salivary reflex," wrote Pavlov, the dogs were subjected to a "minor operation, which consists in the transplantation of the opening of the salivary duct from its natural place on the mucous membrane of the mouth to the outside skin." A "minor drinking glass funnel" was then fastened to the salivary duct opening with a "special cement." [86][75]
Source: thedailytouch.com, Mar. xx, 2013
In 1959, The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique by zoologist William Russell and microbiologist Rex Burch was published in England. The book laid out the principle of the "Three Rs" for using animals in inquiry humanely: Replacement (replacing the use of animals with culling research methods), Reduction (minimizing the utilize of animals whenever possible), and Refinement (reducing suffering and improving animals' living atmospheric condition). [89] The "Three Rs" were incorporated into the AWA and accept formed the footing of many international creature welfare laws. [ninety][91]
Animals in Space and the War machine
Since as early every bit 1948, animals have been used by the United states infinite programme for testing such aspects of space travel as the furnishings of prolonged weightlessness. Afterwards several monkeys died in unmanned space flights carried out during the 1940s, the get-go monkey to survive a space flight was Yorick, recovered from an Aerobee missile flying on Sep. 20, 1951. However, Yorick died several hours afterward landing, possibly due to heat stress. [7][116] The first living creature to orbit the World was Laika, a devious canis familiaris sent into space on the Soviet spacecraft Sputnik 2 in Nov. 1957. Laika died of "overheating and panic" early in the mission, according to the BBC. [92] The record for the nearly animals sent into space was set April. 17, 1998, when more two thousand animals, including rats, mice, fish, crickets, and snails, were launched into space on the shuttle Columbia (along with the vii-member homo crew) for neurological testing. [7][8]
Since the Vietnam war, animals have too been used by the US war machine. The The states Department of Defense used 488,237 animals for enquiry and combat trauma training ("alive tissue training") in financial yr 2007 (the latest year for which information are available), which included subjecting anesthetized goats and pigs to gunshot wounds, burns, and amputations for the training of armed forces medics. [6][93] In February 2013, subsequently an escalation of opposition by animal rights groups such equally People for the Upstanding Treatments of Animals (PETA), Congress ordered the Pentagon to present a written programme to stage out live tissue training. The US Coast Guard, however, which was at the centre of a 2012 scandal involving videotaped footage of goats being mutilated equally function of its live tissue training program, said in May 2013 that the program will continue. [94][95]
The Modern Debate
The 1975 publication of Animal Liberation past Australian philosopher Peter Singer galvanized the beast rights and anti-testing movements by popularizing the notion of "speciesism" as being analogous to racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice. Addressing beast testing specifically, Singer predicted that "ane mean solar day… our children'south children, reading about what was washed in laboratories in the twentieth century, volition feel the same sense of horror and incredulity… that we now feel when nosotros read about the atrocities of the Roman gladiatorial arenas or the eighteenth-century slave merchandise." [66]
In 1981, an early victory by then-fledgling animal rights group People for the Ethical Handling of Animals (PETA) served to revitalize the anti-testing motion once more. A PETA activist working surreptitious at the Establish for Biological Research in Silver Spring, Medico took photographs of monkeys in the facility that had engaged in cocky-mutilation due to stress. The laboratory's managing director, Edward Taub, was charged with more than a dozen creature cruelty offences, and an especially notorious photo of a monkey in a harness with all four limbs restrained became a symbolic prototype for the fauna rights movement. [96]
In 2001, controversy erupted over brute experiments undertaken by a veterinarian at Ohio State University. Dr. Michael Podell infected cats with the feline AIDS virus in order to study why methamphetamine users deteriorate more speedily from the symptoms of AIDS. Subsequently receiving several expiry threats, Dr. Podell abandoned his bookish career. [97] Over threescore% of biomedical scientists polled by Nature mag say "creature-rights activists nowadays a real threat to essential biomedical research." [35]
A 2007 study by the National Inquiry Council of the National Academy of Sciences called for a reduction in the use of animal testing, recommending instead the increased utilise of in vitro methods using human cells. Though the report touted new technologies that could eventually eliminate the need for animal testing altogether, the authors best-selling that "For the foreseeable futurity… targeted tests in animals would need to be used to complement the in vitro tests, because current methods cannot yet adequately mirror the metabolism of a whole animal." [104]
Source: Jane E. Allen, "Animate being Rights: Scientists' Billboards Enquire Whether You'd Save a Kid or a Lab Rat," abcnews.go.com, Apr. 14, 2011
In Mar. 2013, the European Union banned the import and auction of cosmetic products that use ingredients tested on animals. Some proponents of animal testing objected, arguing that some animal tests had no non-beast equivalents. A spokesman for the trade clan Cosmetics Europe stated information technology is likely "that consumers in Europe won't have access to new products because we can't ensure that some ingredients will be safe without access to suitable and adequate testing." [98] India and Israel have as well banned animal testing for cosmetic products, while the The states has no such ban in place. [99]
Communist china is the merely major marketplace where testing all cosmetics on animals is required past law, and foreign companies distributing their products to China must also take them tested on animals. [65][43] China has announced that its brute testing requirement will be waived for shampoo, perfume, and other and so-chosen "non-special use cosmetics" manufactured by Chinese companies after June 2014. "Special utilise cosmetics," including hair regrowth, pilus removal, dye and permanent wave products, antiperspirant, and sunscreen, will continue to warrant mandatory fauna testing. [114] China's National Medical Products Administration announced that animate being testing for "ordinary" cosmetics (those that do not make claims such as "anti-aging") will no longer be required as of May 2021. [149]
Subsequently ceasing to breed chimpanzees for inquiry in May 2007, the United states of america National Institutes of Health announced in June 2013 that it would retire most of its chimpanzees (310 in full) over the next several years. While the decision was welcomed past animal rights groups, opponents said the determination would have a negative impact on the development of critical vaccines and treatments. The Texas Biomedical Research Constitute released a statement claiming that the number of chimps to be retained (upwards to 50) was "not sufficient to enable the rapid development of better preventions and cures for hepatitis B and C, which kill a million people every year." [100] On Nov. eighteen, 2015 the United states of america National Institutes of Health appear that its remaining fifty inquiry chimpanzees volition exist retired to the Federal Chimpanzee Sanctuary System. [117] Gabon remains the only country in the world that still experiments on chimpanzees. [4]
The Ecology Protection Agency (EPA) released a plan on Sep. 10, 2019 to reduce studies using mammal testing by xxx% past 2025 and to eliminate the mammal testing altogether by 2035. [131] In Nov. 2019, the FDA enacted a policy allowing some lab animals used for creature testing to be sent to shelters and sanctuaries for adoption. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) adopted a like policy in Aug. 2019 and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) did so in 2018. [146]
On Sep. 2, 2021, Mexico became the 41st country and first in North America to ban cosmetics testing on animals, according to the Humane Order International. [150]
Animal Testing and COVID-19
The COVID-19 (coronavirus) global pandemic brought attention to the debate nearly creature testing equally researchers sought to develop a vaccine for the virus as apace as possible. Vaccines are traditionally tested on animals to ensure their rubber and effectiveness. News broke in Mar. 2020 that there was a shortage of the genetically modified mice that were needed to test coronavirus vaccines. [133]
Meanwhile, other companies tried new development techniques that allowed them to skip animal testing and start with human trials. Moderna Therapeutics used a synthetic copy of the virus genetic code instead of a weakened form of the virus. [143] The FDA approved an application for Moderna to brainstorm clinical trials on a coronavirus vaccine on Mar. four, 2020, and the get-go participant was dosed on Mar. 16, 2020. [147]
A shortage of monkeys, including pinkish-faced rhesus macaques, threatened vaccine evolution at the kickoff of the pandemic and as variants of COVID-19 were constitute. The monkeys were previously flown in from Red china, but a ban on wild animals imports from Prc forced researchers to look elsewhere, a difficult job every bit Cathay previously supplied over 60% of research monkeys in the Usa. [148]
| More than Animal Pros and Cons |
|---|
| Should zoos be? Proponents say zoos brainwash the public about animals. Opponents say wildlife should never exist kept captive. |
| Should M-12 students dissect animals in science classrooms? Proponents say dissecting real animals is a improve learning experience. Opponents say the practice is bad for the environment. |
| Is CBD good for pets? Proponents say CBD is helpful for pets' anxiety and other conditions. Opponents say the products aren't regulated. |
Source: https://animal-testing.procon.org/history-of-animal-testing/
Posted by: montanomingat79.blogspot.com
0 Response to "How Many Years Has Animal Testing Been Going On"
Post a Comment