Assignment 16- Cloe Kennedy

Good Morning!! I am Cloe Kennedy a representative from Dunder Mifflin. We are a popular paper company, responsible for stocking offices across America with all their paper needs. I am here today looking for test subjects to submit to chemical, drug, and food testing in order to make sure this paper is safe for human use. All room and board costs are covered, you will be spending your time in a luxurious 2 by 2 cage, and you are free to use any of that space for your bathroom needs. If you are interested, then please see me afterwards and we will arrange a time for you to be taken.
Ok now I understand how harsh and dramatic that does sound, but according to PETA close to 100 million animals every year live that exact life. Now although from what I have stated so far, you probably are assuming I am completely against animal testing and will detest you if your opinion differs. But today I am just challenging you to assess your thinking and take a deep look at what you truly believe. Personally, I do not fully support and believe information organizations such as PETA put out but often, I will research to see if it’s a legitimate article. Some of the points I will hit on to prompt and provide a base for you to form a proper opinion are if this system is outdated, the “pros” and “cons”, and revising current regulations.
So why are these tests done? To predict safety and effectiveness, testing ingredients and finished products traditionally involved animal use; Yet, science shows animals are too different than us to give accurate results. Nonanimal tests provide more reliable and predictive results and safer products. Animals have been used for research since before 500 BC. Galen, a Greek physician lived almost 1,801 years ago, conducted animal experiments to advance the understanding of anatomy, physiology, pathology, and pharmacology. An Arab physician in twelfth century Moorish Spain, introduced animal testing as an experimental method for testing surgical procedures before applying them to human patients. At that time, testing on animals was really their only option. Most recently, animals are being used to develop medical treatments, determine the toxicity of medications, check the safety of products destined for human use, and other biomedical, commercial, and health care uses. Although the FDA requires safety and efficacy tests before approving drugs, medical devices, and other products, they never specify that it needs to be performed on animals. Neither the FDA nor the Consumer Product Safety Commission requires it. Compared to all the other options we do have today it seems silly to continue to harm animals for things such as makeup that we seem to take for guaranteed. Although many brands have recently switched to be cruelty free, we still seem to not be doing our best. Companies aren't living in today and still depend on old methods.

Possibly, the reason we have stuck with the use of animals for testing, is because its saved so many lives. The California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals. Animal research has also contributed to major advances in understanding and treating conditions such as breast cancer, brain injury, childhood leukemia, and many others, and was vital in developing pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes, and anesthetics. In addition, vaccines that are tested on infected animals, that are effective do treat these sick and dying creatures providing them with a more comfortable life if released. But the sad reality is most often, their living conditions are not altered and either way they were most likely infected just for the test. This meaning that if animal testing was outlawed, there would be less infected with these diseases or illnesses. An additional reason for preference of using animals, they can take place in cases when ethical considerations prevent the use of human subjects. But as mentioned before, there have been medical advances that would allow for use of neither. Although there are obvious advantages with the use of animals, there are equal consequences. Were you aware that 95% of animals used in experiments are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act? Without this protection, these animals are highly vulnerable to
mistreatment and abuse. It does provide “protection” of the typical pet species that many form a connection to, but rats, mice, fish and birds still seem to be left off the list. Many justify this cruelty because it's to help human kind, saving a life makes it all worth it. But research has shown 94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials. First off, this shows how poor this system runs. According to neurologist Aysha Akhtar, MD, MPH, over 100 stroke drugs that were effective when tested on animals have failed in humans, and over 85 HIV vaccines failed in humans after working well in non-human primates. As stated in a study from Archives of Toxicology "the low predictivity of animal experiments in research areas allowing direct comparisons of mouse versus human data puts strong doubt on the usefulness of animal data as key technology to predict human safety”, no longer is “it helps humankind” a valid excuse.
The excuse is being over justified. According to Cruelty Free International, in 2014, Nestle subjected groups of dogs, mice, hamsters, rats and pigs to testing. The involved animals being force fed to obesity, exposed to radiation and suffering surgery to insert tubes. The animals were often killed at the end of the experiment. They claim that it was to test their chocolate for human consumption but as most know, animals aren't exactly the best test subjects. This brings to question, are companies able to get away with harming animals if they just say it's for human sake. The current regulations are not effective, revision is necessary if we want to ensure companies don’t advantage of creatures that can't object. If forced to go through a more thorough evaluation for obtaining the right to test on animals and being regularly upheld, the system might be more efficient. Another point, referring to Nestle’s Q&A forum, when consumers questioned whether they tested on animals, representatives answered no when they have previously admitted to. Companies should have to clearly say if they test on animals and not deny or shy away when asked. Improving regulations could mean a whole new world for animal research.
In conclusion, there is no defiant answer to whether testing on animals for human enrichment is beneficial and can be approved as moral. There has been a plethora of evidence showing it is outdated and of no real use but also presents many positives that are thought to not be achievable otherwise. If animal testing does persist, new regulations do need to be put in place. So, I ask you, what do you believe? Is it moral, or just unnecessary?