|
[[Image:AnimaltestingMonkeyCovance2.jpg|right|thumb|220px|Filmed by [[PETA]], [[Covance]] primate-testing lab, [[Vienna, Virginia]], 2004-5. [http://www.covancecruelty.com/photos.asp] ]]
'''Animal testing''' is thea term used for use of non-[[human]] [[animal]]s in experiments. These may be for the purpose of testing certain substances, toincluding determinemedicines, theirto effect onprotect humans,animals and the environment or to test [[Medicine|medical]] or [[Psychology|psychological]] hypotheses. The topic is mired in [[Controversy|controversy]] with supporters and opponents arguing over both [[Ethics|ethical]] concerns and the effectiveness of the practice. However, the public are largely supportive of animal research and testing [http://www.mori.com/polls/2002/cmp.shtml], doctors and scientists overwhelmingly so.
The term "[[vivisection]]" is often used to describe all animal experiments, although it originally only referred to those that involved cutting live animals. Many dictionaries and encyclopedias now use the term "vivisection" to mean any kind of animal experiment that causes suffering, whether it entails [[surgery]] or not, although those who experiment on animals dislike this trend as they feel that "vivisection" is an emotive term (Croce 1991).
==Controversy==
{{Template:Animal liberation movement}}
There is a contemporary debate regarding animal testing, and its [[moral]] implications, as weighed against the perceived benefits to humans. Testing advocatesPeople in [[medicine]] and [[industry]] argue that humans in somemany parts of the world are alive, or maintain a higher standard of living, in terms of their health, in large part due to advances in health and manufacturing knowledge derived from animal testing. [[Animal welfare|Animal-welfare]] and [[Animal rights|animal-rights]] advocates say that testing, in particular testing for commercial, non-medical substances, is excessive and unnecessary, causing a great loss of animal life and inflicting suffering for the diminished pursuit of producing non-vital, socially irrelevant products, like perfumes, cosmetics, and cleaning products. Animal-rights advocates argue that animal experiments infringe the rights of animals and are never acceptable, even if they do benefit humankind. [http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nobis/animals/regan-emptycages.htm].
There is also controversy about the scientific validity of animal experiments, with many doctors and scientistsantivivisectionists claiming that they give misleading results which waste experimenters' time and result in unsafe drugs and products harming humans (Ruesch,1989)., and Manymany medical drugs have dangerous side-effects that were not predicted by animal experiments. [http://www.vivisection-absurd.org.uk/xerrors.html]. [[Americans For Medical Advancement]] is one group dedicated to ending animal testing.
==ExamplesClaims of abuse==
Undercover investigations claim animal abuse in laboratories. In February 2005, the [[British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection]] (BUAV), while applying for a [[judicial review]] of laboratory practices in the [[United Kingdom]], told a British courtalleged that internal documents from the [[University of Cambridge]], an animal-testing site where [[primate]]s are used in research, showed that [[monkey]]s had the tops of their heads sawn off to induce a [[Cerebrovascular accident|stroke]], and were then left alone after the procedure for 15 hours overnight, with their [[brain]]s exposed and no [[Veterinarian|veterinary]] care, because staff only worked from nine to five. SomeThey claimed that some of the monkeys were found dead in the morning. The BUAV judicial challenge followed a 10-month undercover investigationinfiltration by BUAV into three research programmes at [[Cambridge]] in [[1998]]. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1407818,00 .html] However, a thorough investigation by the Home Office Inspectorate showed there wsa no substantiation for these claims, and that the University showed an excellent culture of care for the animals in its charge [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/cambridge.html] ▼
Undercover investigations have documented and filmed examples of animal abuse and [[sadism]] in laboratories that claim to adhere to animal-welfare legislation. For example, punching puppies in their faces ("It's a Dog's Life", 1997), simulating sex acts whilst taking blood samples from animals ("It's a Dog's Life", 1997), making monkeys "dance" and screaming at them in order to invalidate blood-pressure tests ("Covance Uncovered", 2004).
▲In February 2005, the [[British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection]] (BUAV), while applying for a [[judicial review]] of laboratory practices in the [[United Kingdom]], told a British court that internal documents from the [[University of Cambridge]], an animal-testing site where [[primate]]s are used, showed that [[monkey]]s had the tops of their heads sawn off to induce a [[Cerebrovascular accident|stroke]], and were then left alone after the procedure for 15 hours overnight, with their [[brain]]s exposed and no [[Veterinarian|veterinary]] care, because staff only worked from nine to five. Some of the monkeys were found dead in the morning. The BUAV judicial challenge followed a 10-month undercover investigation by BUAV into three research programmes at [[Cambridge]] in [[1998]]. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1407818,00.html]
==Alternatives to animal testing==
Animal-rights and animal-welfare supporters, scientists, doctors, and governments generally claim to agree that animal testing should cause as little suffering to animals as possible, and animal tests should only be performed where necessary.
The "three Rs" of '''Reduce''' (the number of animals used), '''Refine''' (animal procedures) and '''Replace''' (animal tests with non-animal tests) are used as the basis for animal-testing codes of practise. In some countries, the three Rs are mandated by law. In other countries, many animal-testing facilities voluntarily ascribe to this code to demonstrate their ethical position. ▼
▲The "three Rs" of '''Reduce''' (the number of animals used), '''Refine''' (animal procedures) and '''Replace''' (animal tests with non-animal tests) are used as the basis for animal-testing codes of practisepractice. In some countries, the three Rs are mandated by law. In other countries, many animal-testing facilities voluntarily ascribesubscribe to this code . to demonstrate their ethical position.
There are a number of scientific studies and institutes that are researching complete alternatives to specific animal tests, and improvements to existing tests, in order to reduce the pain inflicted on animals, or to reduce the number of animals killed. This is claimed to be not just for the sake of ethics, but also because the research might improve the accuracy of tests or make them more time- and cost-efficient.
There are a number of scientific studies and institutes that are researching complete alternatives to specific animal tests, and improvements to existing tests, in order to reduce animal suffering, or to reduce the number of animals used.
However, those who argue that animal experiments are inherently unscientific sayclaim that thesethe facilitiesthree areRs simply there to perpetuate thea [[myth]] that animal experiments are necessary for human health, and to reassure the public that steps are being taken to find "alternatives" to what seems to many peoplesome to be an abhorrent practice. [http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/abs06p2.html#7.][http://www.carn-age.org.uk/execut5.html] They claim that these institutes are set up and funded, with what they say are trivial amounts of money, by businesses with a vested interest in the continuation of animal experiments. [http://www.carn-age.org.uk/joining.html][http://www.carn-age.org.uk/societies.html]
They also claim that the idea of "alternatives to animal experiments" is meaningless. It is impossible to find a technique that produces the same results as animal experiments, they argue, because, as one ex-animal tester put it, "it is hard to find anything in biomedical research that is .. more deceptive and misleading than vivisection" (Croce 1991, p. 21).
==Cosmetic testing on animals==
ThereDespite the fact that it is minimal, there is a great deal of controversy over animal testing to determine the safety of [[cosmetic]] products to human consumers. Many people feel it is [[immoral]] to cause harm or death to animals for the sake of human [[vanity]].
Cosmetic testing on animals includes all of these practices:
| 