Final Essay 5979 Words

8/9/2019 Final Essay 5979 Words

1/11

AbstractThis investigation offers a personal analysis as to whether or not animaltesting should be banned; relying on structured questionnaires I createdand my personal background research into previous theories andpersonal opinions that are relevant to the debate. Using primary andsecondary data, I have attempted to answer the question based on a

general feel of people within the societys personal views. Picking up onprevious medical disasters, I have chosen to base my project along thesimple past, present and future layout, so its easier to understandwhere the debate is going. I contacted people such as RosaleenSimmonds, Mel Broughton and Alastair Buchan via e-mails and Letters inorder to gain their useful conception of animal testing in todays society.Each of these 'speakers' have been largely affected by animal testing intheir very own unique ways. The overall conclusion reached was basedpurely on my research, in my experience, its very hard to put aside mypersonal views and opinions and reach a conclusion on the evidentsources. According to society, animal testing should be banned in thecases of cosmetic research, but there's a justifiable reasoning when itcomes to scientific research for medical advancement; even though

disasters such as thalidomide have previously been proven an issue, theuse of animals for vaccines and cures for diseases seems greatlyunderstandable according to public opinion. I am also going to highlightthe problems I faced throughout my investigation, such as ethical issuesand the subject of plagiarism, to the problem with letters being ignoredby the receivers. How I overcame this and learnt from this amazingexperience has yet to be discussed. National statistics will also help meillustrate my point further

The evolutionary theoryCharles Darwin believed species mutated and changed over time, histheory of evolution is one of importance to the argument upon animaltesting for a number of different reasons. It could be said that if itwasnt for Charles theory, testing on animals might have come at a laterdate, or, might not have even been considered any relevance to humanscience. Charles Evolutionary theory dates back to the 1850s, hesuggested the change that generations go through is a process betterknown as natural selection. In order for a species to survive over time,they have to adapt to their environment In order to avoid extinction. Thesuccessful, will then live long enough to reproduce and pass on theirtraits to the next generation.

Because animals are so similar to human beings in terms of basicorgans, the similarities outweigh the minor differences between the two.

Its because of this similarity, that Charles Darwin supported animaltesting, going on to say him self"I know that physiology cannot possiblyprogress except by means of experiments on living animals, and I feelthe deepest conviction that he who retards the progress of physiologycommits a crime against mankind."

Charles Darwin justified the use of animal testing in order to betterstudy human beings. Since then, Animals have been tested on todiscover a variety of different scientific advancements.

The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (1959) Darwin, Francis, ed. New York: BasicBooks,Inc., 382-383. 23-02-10

Behavioural Theory


2/11

Another example would be Ivan Pavlov, a Russian scientist who in thetwentieth century discovered his very own behavioural theory. Theexperiment he conducted was carried out on animals; dogs to beprecise. Pavlovs research provided evidence that all animals could betrained or conditioned to expect a consequence on the results ofprevious action. In other words, he discovered humans and animals

could be conditioned to associate with a specific action with a reward ifthis is reinforced repeatedly this was referred to as classicalconditioning. Because Pavlovs research proved to be a reliable source,it seemed more and more experiments were taking place on animals,only resulting in further evidence supporting the idea that animals wereneeded in order to gain knowledge of how the human body works, itseemed The evolutionary theory and the behavioural theory madeanimal testing much more popular.

It seems the more research that was conducted on Animals, consideringthe evidence was reliable (at these times most research being conductedwas proven relevance to scientists) the more popular animal testing wasbecoming considering the scientific advancements were proving useful

to humans.

Eytan Avital; Animal traditions; Behavioural inheritance in evolution(2000) pg323-325 pub cambridge university press 11-02-10

ThalidomideWhat happens when research goes wrong?Is animal testing always proven to be successful?Animal testing has been around for well over two hundred years now,and clearly science has progressed greatly thanks to the evidence fromanimal testing, but surely, with all the success stories comes along somedisasters.In the late 50s early 60s, a German company called Chemie GrunenthalProduced a drug that treated the symptoms of morning sickness inpregnant women.However, this drug was not tested on pregnant animals at the time, andas a result, the drug caused thousands of babies to be born withdeformities. Its estimated that over three thousand five hundred babiesdied before their first birthday. The thalidomide disabilities were man-made by a drug, it seems this might have avoided if the manufactureshad carried out the adequate testing on the drug in the first place.After doing some background research in to the Thalidomide disaster, Idecided to try and contact someone who suffered from the tragedy.Someone who has had to live with knowing they are disabled becausetests were not carried out properly holds great relevance to this debate

on animal testing.

Born freak Happy birthday thalidomide, channel 4. 21-01-10

Rosaleen SimmondsAfter e-mailing Rosie with the details of my personal research intoanimal testing, I gained her consent to ask her the questions I wished, Imade it clear that she did not have to answer any of the questions if shefelt uncomfortable answering them.I only asked her four open questions, because I believe quality is more ofan issue then quantity, and because if I felt I could not draw a conclusionupon these results, I could simply ask Rosie some more questions.her answers gave me an insight into other persons personal beliefs on

the topic matter. From her answers, I can draw the conclusion thatalthough her life was dramatically effected by the failure to test


3/11

Thalidomide correctly, she does not hold a strong belief that animals areno use to scientific advancement, as illustrated in question 2, she sharesthe beliefs of many individuals who feel Animal testing is justifiable inthe sense of medical research. However, her answer to question threebrings me to a important point in animal testing; . . . no real legislativeaction taken to avoid the recurrence of another Thalidomide tragedy. . . .

. The law on animal testing is yet to be brought to my attention. All ofRosaleens responses can be in the appendix provided

SPEAK campaignWhen conducting my primary research, I decided it would be a good ideato try and contact someone who holds a strong opinion for animaltesting, I thought Mel Broughton was a good candidate, as she hasdedicated most of her life into researching alternatives and trying tochange other peoples personal opinion on animal testing. I researchedher campaign group called SPEAK; they are currently pushing for alegislation completely banning animal testing. Mel Broughton was alsosuspected of involvement of the bombs that were let off in oxfords newanimal testing lab (these allegations have recently been dropped). Its

clear Mel has a passion for Animal testing and feels its Morally wrong,looking at her research, I thought it would be useful to Contact Mel vialetter, asking her to answer a few questions I had conducted (samequestions Rosaleen was happy to answer) However, after six weeks ofanticipation, I decided to research other theorists relevant to animaltesting in case I never received a reply from Mel.As weeks continued to pass, it was made clear that Mel was not going torespond to my letter.

Alastair BuchanAfter failure contacting a pressure group, I decided to try and contactAlastair Buchan; he is head of medical science and animal testing atOxford University.Alastair Buchan is openly FOR animal testing; he has held many publicspeeches and informs many people in society of the great work andknowledge that comes from the use age of animal testing. It was notpossible to get Alistairs address via the Internet. His personal e-mailwas the only available source and so I opted for an email asking for hispermission to then forward him a set of questions. This was the sameway I gained my results form Rosaleen; Asking for consent beforeforwarding the questions seemed a much politer way to ask for hispermission. It also clears up the ethical issue of informed consent Allthe people I have had contact with I explain why I am contacting them,where the research results will be published and it was clearly explainedin my emails that this research is being produced for my own personal

gain.Unfortunately, as well as Mel not replying to any of my attempts tocontact her, neither did Alastair. I cannot comment on as to why theychose not to participate, I can only assume they are very busy peopleand therefore, did not have the time on their hands to participate in myextended project.This was a major weak point in my research, and I was thankful I hadalready made alternative research planning in order to overcome thishuge problem. When looking at my previous research in the past, it wasalready brought to my attention that I may have to deal withunresponsive people, so I had already started to research alternatives Icould use in order for my topic debate to reach an overall finalconclusion.

Alternative Methods


4/11

What does the future hold for animal testing?Before researching the future of testing on animals, I already had somebackground knowledge of my own that I wanted to know was validinformation. A lot of people I had spoke to believed their was a currentlaw passing through the legislative process in order to completely bananimal testing, as scientists had found greater alternatives to testing on

animals and they were no longer needed for lab experiments.Using the internet (mainly the search engine Google) I came to theconclusion that this was simply hear say; scientists had discovered away of creating human skin cells in laboratories which meant thatanimals are now not needed for certain experiments. However,currently, there is still a need for animal testing. The only law I foundwhen regarding the use of Animals was The Animals act 1986 and thehome office allowing people to hold a licence for animal testing in theirdepartment. These laws are simply in order to monitor and assess thelevel of harm the animal is suffering; it is not clear in the law exactlyHOW this is monitored and assessed.New technology has developed which now allows skin cells to beartificially grown in a laboratory, and they can then be tested instead of

animals. This alternative can be used to demonstrate the effects ofchemicals or topical treatments on human skin. The only problem withthis method is the fact that it doesnt completely abandon the idea ofanimal testing. The use of Animals is still relevant for vivi-sections andother scientific research. What about the costs involved with thesealternative methods? Wherever a new method is available, there is alsothe issue of cost to be covered. Its highly unlikely, scientists will turn toalternative methods if there is a high cost around the method suitable touse as an alternative. When considering artificial skin production, thisseems to be a much more cost efficient alternative rather than usinganimals for tests

Ethical concernsThe question that has now been brought to my attention is one arisingfrom the issue of ethics. A question of Specism is now to be discussed. Isit morally right for humans to use animals for our personal gain? Is it fairthat animals suffer in order for scientists to advance their knowledgewith the newest mascara? These questions are not easily answered, asthey require a subjective point of view; they cannot be answeredobjectively as there is a need for personal opinion, there is no right orwrong answer.It would seem, judging by my research (primary and secondary) thatSpecism is overridden by the positive attributes of animal testing;specifically Banting and bests research into diabetes. There researchsaved the lives of millions of people, for the sacrifice of ten dogs. It

seems research like this and the previous ones I have explored clearlyshows that some research conducted on animals is largely life saving,and has made millions of peoples lifes much more manageable.Therefore, animal testing in terms of Specism is out weighed by themillions of lives saved over the years from the evidence provided.

Nature vs. NurtureWhen focusing on the question in debate, I decided it would bebeneficial to my personal research if I look further in to where thedebate stands in terms of the nature versus nurture argument. First ofall, it can be said that humans are choosing to use live animals for thebenefits of the human race; there seems to be no reward or gain for theanimals themselves. It can also be said that because animals cannot

talk, they cannot express there pain and suffering easily to humans,which allows humans to ignore the fact that pain and suffering is being


5/11

felt on the animals side in the first place. All in all, animal testing is aproduct of nurture. We as humans have learnt that it is justifiable to killor put in danger another living creature in order for our own scientificadvancement, and we have also learnt that this is justifiable consideringthe outcomes that have been delivered. We are not born with a naturalinnate inhibition to use animals for our own benefit; it is therefore learnt

through our environment, modern day society. Although this seems tobe a problem, it can also be argued that because humans have learntthat animal testing is justifiable, we as a society could also change thisview, through vicarious reinforcement. Eventually, as a society it ispossible to ban animal testing and change societies view on the topicone day in the future.Specism is the name often used when humans use animals for their ownpersonal gain.

Research methodsBefore conducting my research, it was vital to actually look into whatresearch methods would be suitable to use. It was clear the ways inwhich the research was conducted and analysed was an important

decision I had to make. I chose to create a questionnaire to hand out toa small scale sample of twenty people; I created and first and seconddraft, and evaluated them both in order to come up with my finalquestionnaire. As well as a questionnaire, I thought it would be useful totry and contact some speakers who would be relevant to the animaltesting debate; I therefore, chose to contact these people via e-mailsand letters in order to gain there views and opinions on the subjectmatter. A letter would be more reasonable way of gaining their viewsbecause its a more formal and polite way of contact. Its also worthstating that recorded delivery could well of been an option I should ofconsidered further, if I chose recorded delivery, perhaps I would haveknown the sources actually received the letter but clearly, chose not toreply. Secondary research including a lot of usage around the internet,many of my sources were from the internet itself, and main issues thatwere brought to my attention here the reliability and validity of thesources available on the internet. Wikipedia is a source I purposelychose not to make use of in this extended project, because anyone canuse the wikipedia I therefore found it a unreliable piece of data. I usedsome information from books, but very little and any quote orinformation used was then referenced in the Harvard way, to make sureI had no other problems arising from the topic of plagiarism. I alsoconsidered the media to have a huge impact on the debate itself;looking at my personal research, I found newspaper articles that havebeen published influence societys moral viewpoint on the debate itself.A prime example of this would be a newspaper article written by the

sun, supporting the ban on animal testing; if the debate receives badpublicity from popular newspapers, its more likely many people will takeinto consideration what they have read and apply these views to theirown opinions and morals on the matter. All of the research I conductedand sources I used have been referenced and can be found in theappendix and bibliography section to avoid any confusement

Questionnaire analysisI only created five simple questions when it came to the development ofmy own research. I came to this decision after taking into considerationprevious research I have conducted: to my knowledge most of the publicdo not like time-consuming surveys, and to increase the reliability of theresults, I have found the fewer questions there are to answer, the more

likely the public will answer them. I also included a introduction at thebeginning of the questionnaire so the people who answered them knew


6/11

why the survey had been conducted in the first place. This was only ashort introduction, so the people who answered them did not looseinterest or get bored. As well as this, I chose to make the questionnaireAnonymous, there are many reasons for this, as during the research Iconducted when creating my questionnaire, I found that when peoplecan remain anonymous, they seem to answer the questions more

honestly; because there is no way they can be individually picked outand penalised for the answers they each produced. After creating a firstand second draft of my questionnaire, my final questionnaire was thenready to be distributed.Four of the five questions I asked, were closed questions, inevitable theanswers will only be the ones that are available to choose from on thequestionnaire itself. However, I included an open question on the mostimportant question in the survey, because qualitative data is vitalbecause its in detail, which is exactly what I need for variation. Thequestion I left open was if you could change anything around thetesting on animals, what would it be? Samples of twenty people wereasked this, and I have recorded some of the results below:

Ban it completely; animal testing is not acceptable under any

circumstances Make sure the animals involved suffered very little

If there are alternatives use them, dont allow animals to sufferunnecessarily

Animals have always been used and always will be used in thefuture; we cannot experiment on humans

There is a need for animals in science; I would change the use ofanimals for testing on cosmetics

If I take in to consideration all the research I have done, includingprimary and secondary, it would be difficult to come to a particularconclusion. It is very clear that not everyone shares the same opinion on

animal testing; the matter in debate is highly subjective, therefore wecannot conclude a right or wrong answer, as there isnt one. The onlyconclusion I can come to, would simply be that many people sit on thebench of this subjective debate. Although most people I have asked arefor animal testing, they only agree with it to an extent. It would seemmany people do not like the idea of animals being used for the purposesof cosmetic research. Clearly, this is a topic of subjective rather than anobjective issue, which could explain the arising problems of today.

Further researchIf I had more time on my hands, I could have carried out further researchinto my extended project and looked into various aspects of the debatein which I failed to highlight in my research. Looking at all my research,

it is not clear the surrounding costs of alternative methods into animaltesting; from what I have read on the internet, many people are unclearas to whether or not the expenses of alternative methods are muchhigher than testing on animals. If this is the case, then this could be themain reason as to why a development of alternative methods appears tobe a slow procedure in itself. As well as this, I would have liked to lookfurther into other campaigns and increased my population sample whenI handed out my questionnaire. If I had asked more people what thereopinion was on animal testing, maybe I would have had a larger varietyof different answers, contrasting with one another, and I would havealso liked to investigate in to animals being used for the purposes ofcosmetic testing and products such as bleach (household products),from what I have already discovered, lots of people do not like the ideaof animals being tested on for cosmetic purposes, however, I failed tofind out why because my research was focused mainly on medical


7/11

research. If given the chance I would have investigated this muchfurther.

Bibliography

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, 1986

Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned Reflexes: An Investigation of thePhysiological Activity of the Cerebral Cortex. Translated and Edited byG. V. Anrep. London: Oxford University Press. Lecture three.

Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals (1995) HMSO,London

"Thalidomide:40 years on". BBC news. BBC. . Date published 05-01-2009

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2031459.stm Date viewed 23-10-2009

'Facts and figures on animal research in Great Britain' (1995) RDS

John Bryant, _Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic(Washington D C, PeTA, 1982). p. 15

Animals and the Advancement of Science (1990), BAAS

http://www.armyths.org/

http://www.politics.co.uk/briefings-guides/issue-briefs/environment-and-

rural-affairs/animal-testing-$366650.htm

http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk

Appendix

Rosies reply to my e-mail1. Do you think Animal testing is relevant in todays society,

considering scientists have found alternative methods for medicalresearch ?First and foremost, I don't have a great deal of knowledge aboutanimal testing per se. However, I don't like the idea of animalsbeing used to test things like cosmetic make up, washing powder,

alcohol and so on.Further, I am not familiar with what the alternative methods are inrelation to medical research. Consequently, I feel that there is stilla necessity to use animals for testing purposes in relation tomedical research.

2. Mice and Rats are the most commonly used animal when doingmedical research; do you think this is justifiable considering theoutcomes of scientific research? (Vaccines and cures for diseases)I understand that mice and rats are the most commonly usedanimal when doing medical research because of their similarity tohuman beings! I do feel that this would be justifiable in relation tovaccines and cures for diseases.

Further, if Chemie Grunenthal (the German company who initially


8/11

produced Thalidomide) and Distillers Company (Biochemicals)Limited (the company licensed to distribute Thalidomide in theUK), had tested Thalidomide on pregnant rats, they would havediscovered the association between Thalidomide causing defectsin foetuses, and hundreds and thousands of babies would nothave been affected.

Here is a quote from page 13 of my book talking about theirfailure in the testing of Thalidomide on pregnant animals:-"Crucially, they had failed to test the drug on pregnant femalesduring their testing of animals, and it never seems to haveoccurred to anyone to do so later, when it was being promoted asbeing safe for expectant mothers. Even though Germanregulations concerning new drugs were in place to ensure thatunapproved medication would not be available, the companycheerfully ignored these. No clinical trials had been completed,and no application had been made for approval of the drug otherthan to have it classified as a sedative."

3. Animal testing is reported to have improved since the

Thalidomide tragedy in the 1960's, however, it is still reported tothis very day that prescription drugs kill 100,000 people everyyear. Do you think animal testing is therefore ineffective?The Medicines Act 1968 and the Congenital Disabilities (CivilLiability) Act 1976, both of which were enacted as a direct resultof the Thalidomide scandal, and generally there have been manychanges throughout the world of medicine and society as a wholealso directly as a result of the Thalidomide scandal. However,there has been no real legislative action taken to avoid therecurrence of another Thalidomide tragedy.As to the number of people killed every year by prescription drugsI can only assume that that is as a result of taking the drugsincorrectly, abuse of drugs, lack of information and knowledgeabout the drugs, over prescription by doctors, overdoses bypatients etc. I cannot see the link between this and animal testingand therefore cannot comment as to whether it is ineffective ornot.

4. What do you think the future holds for animal testing?Whether we are for or against animal testing, I am afraid that Istill feel that there is a need for the use of animal testing,particularly with regards to medical research.Maybe in the future someone will find a way of testing drugs andother things without having to use animals that would still give

the same reliability that animals do currently

I hope this has been of some help to you, and I wish you good luckwith your projectKind RegardsRosie.

Questionnaire and graph analysis

IntroductionI am doing some research into Animal testing for a college project, andhave constructed this questionnaire in order to help me with this

research. Please answer as many questions as you can, Thank you.


9/11

1.Do you think its ok animals are tested on in order to produce vaccinesand cures for diseases?

YES NO MAYBE

2.Do you think the way animal testing has been reinforced has improved

since medical tragedies (thalidomide disaster) in the past?

YES NO DONT KNOW

3.New technology has been developed, and human skin cells can beproduced in laboratories. Do you think there is still a need to test onanimals?

YES NO MAYBE

4.If you could change anything around testing on animals; what would itbe?

5. On average, how many live animals do you think are tested on eachyear in the UK?

Hundreds thousands millions billions

New technology has been developed, and human skin cells

can be produced in laboratories. Do you think there is still a

need to test on animals?

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

yes

no

maybe

answersfro

ms

urvey

number of people

Series1


10/11

On average, how many live animals do you think are tested on each year in th

UK?

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

hundreds

thousands

millions

billions

answersgiven

number of people

Series1

Do you think the way animal testing has been reinforced has

improved since medical tragedies (thalidomide disaster) in the

past?

yes

no

dont know

Do you think its ok animals are tested on in order to pro

vaccines and cures for diseases?

0

2

4

68

10

12

14

yes no maybe

answers from surve

numberofp

eople

Series1

Letter sent to Mel

Dear Mel,


11/11

I am writing to you regarding your campaign SPEAK, as you are indeedthe manager of this group.Let me start by introducing myself. My name is Hayley Martinelli, and Iam currently studying three A-levels at college as well as an extendedproject qualification, which has led me to contact you via this lettertoday.

My project is based upon animal testing; should animal testing bebanned ? whilst conducting my research, I am in need of opinions frompeople who hold relevance to the debate. Indeed, your opinion would begreatly valued, as you have done a lot of work around formingpetitionsand of course, developed a pressure group holding all yourprogress. I am also aware that you were a possible suspect regardingthe oxford bombings, in which the charges against you were laterdropped, ( I am not sure to how true this information is, as I read itonline in a news article, and im aware that they can sometimesmanipulate the truth).It would be a great interest to me to hear your opinion on the debateitself; Why you against animal testing, do you think there will ever be acomplete ban against animal testing and whether or not animal testing

is still necessary in todays society. I understand this is a very sensitivetopic too many people, if not yourself and I hope you dont feel I amtrying to violate your privacy, I simply feel your opinion would contributeto my project. I have attached some questions to this letter for you toanswer if you wish to participate.Kind regardsHayley Martinelli

E-mail sent to Alastair BuchanDear Alastair, I am sorry to disturb you via e-mail, but i have no otherway of contacting you.I will start by saying I have recently been researching you via theinternet, and I have been looking at all the work you have conductedregarding animal testing.I am e-mailing you because I am currently at college studying A-levelsand a extended project.. The project itself is on whether animal testingshould be banned.I understand you have a strong opinion that animal testing is largelybeneficial for the scientific advancement of medicine, and because ofyour great work, I thought it would be rewarding to my project if I couldgain your opinions on the debate itself.If you are willing to give me your views on the subject itself, i will emailyou a few questions in which you can simply answer and return back tome, i understand your a very busy and i therefore do not wish to take uptoo much of your time.

If you do not wish to give your opinion, i will respect your wishes andmake no further attempt to contact you on that matter.Kind RegardsHayley Martinelli

All other work can also be found on my personal blog I created to keepmy work on. www.hmanimaltestingepq.blogspot.com/

Documents

Final Essay 5979 Words