Animal testing is an issue that raises controversy on each opposing side. Many dislike the idea of testing products for commercial use and medicine, but most feel if they speak out they will be labeled as extreme.
Yet, when UA medical school, which is in partnership with ASU, announced that it would build a $15 million animal research facility in downtown Phoenix, some students did speak up. Those concerned for the rights of the animals say that much of the animal testing that goes on is useless and remarkably cruel.
What some supporters of animal rights fail to do is give alternatives to animal testing. In reality, many diseases — like polio — would probably still thrive in today’s world without the sacrifice of animals that helped develop a vaccine for them. However, more and more animals may be spared in the future due to recent scientific developments in the area of research.
But not if we don’t give these new methods a chance to thrive.
Instead of building new animal research facilities, wouldn’t it be much more revolutionary to begin research without having to breed and experiment on living creatures?
The Humane Society of the United States cited recent progress in the area of non-animal based toxicity testing on its Web site, which mentioned the rising popularity of cell-based methods. Considering the animals that most laboratories study, mice and rats specifically, are very different from humans, human cell-based technologies promise a much more thorough and accurate result of how a drug would interact within the human body. There is also possibility in the future for human test subjects to be administered test drugs at very low doses.
The technology exists, and might be further developed if scientists weren’t stuck experimenting on animals. Government mandates and health codes provide the safety net researchers need to continue animal testing.
Spokesman for University of Arizona College of Medicine, Al Bravo, said the new research facility would only conduct research on rodents in the pursuit of cures for cancer, cardiovascular disease and neurological diseases. He said the universities have a standard on how they take care of animals. Still, thousands still die or live terrible lives.
Imagine being born in a box, being poked and prodded with needles, maybe even given a disease and left to die (or miraculously recover to your remarkable life). While the picture is difficult to imagine for those of us who do not consider animals to be emotional beings, it is much more horrifying for those of us who have ever known or loved a pet.
When I was a kid, I had a pet rat. She was an intelligent animal, who knew me by face and by scent. Lab rats would be no different if they were not confined to the empty lives they lead.
The human-animal connection does not exist for most of the population — let’s face it, the human-centered mindset will continue to exist.
However, the possibility of alternative methods of research should spark at least some curiosity.
Universities should be the breeding ground for change and intellectual stimulation, not places for old methods to automatically dictate how we conduct future research.
Reach Nicole at ndgilber@asu.edu
