Paper from another class

Animal testing: The great debate

Introduction 

Animal testing is a hot phrase nowadays. Many people have heard about this phrase but do not completely know what is involved in it. Animal testing is commonly used in biomedical research, including the pure research, the applied research, the toxicology testing and the drug testing. This study focuses on the animals used in the drug testing. Animal testing refers to the experiments which use animals as objects (Murnaghan). Scientists generally do animal testing before that the new drugs are put into the market to assess the safety and effectiveness, and to predict the responses human beings’ bodies may make (Murnaghan). As for the procedures, firstly, scientists give the certain disease to animals and then use the homologous drug to see whether it can stop the disease or not. Secondly, they give this drug to healthy animals to ensure the side effects. Thirdly, they count the number of the diseases this drug can cure through the dates (“Reasons for Animal Testing”). Additional, with animal testing is used commonly; many problems are explored to the public. Animal testing shows the conflict between animals’ rights and human beings’ safety. Except the conflict, the results of animal testing are also controversial. Consequently, some people support the use of animal testing but others do not. In this study, it is involved in both two sides to see animal testing exhaustively.

Statement of the problem

Animal testing is a controversial issue. In the journal Editorial, the author gives an example that pregnant women in the 1950’s the United States got harm by the thalidomide because the scientists did not do animal testing. After animal testing, the harm effects of that drug were easily discovered (“Animal research is a source of human compassion, not shame”). Animal testing protects human beings from toxicant. However, some other issues show the harmful aspects of animal testing. PETA in the United States invokes that human beings should protect animals from cruel animal testing to prevent their rights. PETA asserts that animals are treated badly in the experiments. The great number of animals has serious dieases and even dies. What is more, Megan Kelly points that human beings should not use animals in the experiments because animal testing is ineffective and the results of it cannot 100precent show the reactions which human beings have after using the new medicines (Kelly).

The issues expressed above are largely debated on various websites, blogs and via social media. According to these issues, I can obviously know that animal testing has advantages and disadvantages. Animal testing does not completely protect human beings, and does harm on animals. It is worth collecting public’s opinions. Their opinions may become solutions about improving the accuracy of animal testing and reducing the harm on animals.    

The purpose of this study is to collect the opinions from 28 Wenzhou Kean University students and 2 faculties about animal testing after they know that animal testing has advantages and disadvantages. Their opinions may become a solution or alternative to this problem. 

Research questions

The controversy of animal testing is shown in two aspects. 1).The conflict between animals and human beings. 2).The accuracy of animal testing. Specifically, the research questions this article endeavors to address are:

(1) What are college student's perceptions about the issue of animal testing?

Definition

Animal testing: “Use of animals in experiments and development projects usually to determine toxicity, dosing and efficacy of test drugs before proceeding to human clinical trials” ( Biology Online).

Literature review  

The conflict between animals and human beings is the conflict between animals’ rights and human beings’ safety, which is mainly caused by the first step of animal testing. In the first step, scientists give health animals certain diseases, which is regarded as infringing animals’ rights and inhuman. Animals are given drugs and even having artificial holes in their skulls. For example, because of a new drug, mice have tumors as big as their entire bodies. Even some animals die in the experiments. They suffer a lot from these experiments. Some of them even die during the experiments What is more, they do not get cure after experiments. The only thing they can do is waiting for the death (PEAT). Doris Lin states that “Humans do not have the right to use animals” (Lin). As human beings cannot make experiments on humans without their consents, human beings also cannot do experiments on animals. Human beings are much smarter than animals, which does not mean human beings can control non-humans’ lives. “Like humans, animals are sentient beings with interests in their own lives and freedom” (Lin).

However, some scholars point out that animal testing for the new medicines protects human beings from toxicant. In the journal Animal research is a source of human compassion, not shame, the author gives an example that people get hurt because of the untested drugs. A lot of children got hurt or even dead because of the medicine which was not tested on animals by scientists in 1937(“Animal research is a source of human compassion, not shame”). After that tragedy, Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act was passed by Food and Drug Administration to require scientists do drug-safety testing beings (“Animal research is a source of human compassion, not shame”).

 Animal testing really infringes animals’ rights. We human beings give diseases to them without their permissions. Animals suffer a lot from the diseases and the side effects of new drugs helplessly. On the other hand, through animal testing, scientists can know more about the effectiveness of new drugs. Patients can get better cure safely. For human beings, it is a difficult choice. It is very difficult for them to protect animals and themselves at the same time. To this problem, Hope R. Ferdowsian and Nancy Beck refer to the "3 Rs" principles which were published in William Russell and Rex Bruch's book. "3 Rs" principles mean reduction, refinement and replacement of animals in medical testing. These principles lead scientists to come up with more humane way to test drugs. Although it cannot deal with the problem exhaustively, it can reduce the pains animal have. At same time, it can protect human beings.

The reasons why animal testing is not completely reliable are in four aspects. Firstly, human beings and animals have different live systems though there have some similarities among them (Megan Kelly). Animal studies cannot completely predict human beings' outcomes ("Problems with Animal Research."). Secondly, 90% drugs which are promising on animals are failing on human beings ("Problems with Animal Research."). The concordance between man and animal toxicity tests, assessing three decades of studies on the subject, was somewhere below 25 percent (Arthur Allen). These statistics show that the successful probability of animal testing is low. Thirdly, animal testing may obstruct the discoveries of drugs. Some drugs are regarded as failing drugs because they are not promising in animal testing. For example, Lipitor, a drug to reducing cholesterol was not useful on animals. Later, it was tested on human beings and scientists discovered that it is useful on human beings. Because of the different live systems, animals cannot response the drugs as what human beings will do, which directly leads scientists to miss the useful drugs ("Problems with Animal Research."). Fourthly, in the animal testing, every condition is limited, which is not the real world. The experiments cannot imitate the real world entirely ("Problems with Animal Research."). There so many events existing when the drugs are used by patients. The results of animal testing are limited in the certain which are not feasible to all situations.

There are many examples indicating that animal testing is not 100 percent reliable. For example, Clinicians in London did a medicine experiment on several volunteers. The medicine is used to cure rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis, and is proven to be safe in animal testing. However, within minutes, the volunteers suffer extremely painful (“Of Mice or Men”). In Animal Testing Debate Topics, Kelly gives an example that in the late 1950s, one kind of sedative made10000 children were born with severe deformities because scientists just like animals the sedative did not harmful to human beings (Kelly). 

Facing animal testing, different people have different opinions. 185 British and 143 American undergraduates are given a survey about their opinions of animal testing. After analyzing their opinions, these attitudes can be separated into two groups. One is the general attitudes towards animal testing. The other one is the attitudes towards welfare of animal testing. Overall, they all agree about doing animal testing under the right conditions ("Free The Animals? Investigating Attitudes Toward Animal Testing In Britain And The United States.").  

Methods

Participants

Altogether 30 participants (28 students and 2 faculties) from Wenzhou-Kean University took part in the questionnaire survey, and about 2 students out of 28 students and 1 faulty out of 2 faculties were interviewed. Various factors were taken into consideration in order to make the participants maximally representative of their respective groups:

·      Student participants: age, gender, and disciplines.

·      Faculty participants: age, gender, and academic qualifications.

This variation was acknowledged as a way to increase the validity of the research result.

All 28 students were native Chinese, being ranked in age from 18 to 22(Mean= 18.9). Among these students, there were 14 females and 14 males. They were from three disciplines: Accounting (10, 35.7%), English (10, 35.7%), Finance (8, 28.6%). One of the faculties was native Chinese, and the other one was from the United States. The faculty who was native Chinese was a female, working as academic assistant. She was 25 years old and had Master’s Degree. The other faculty was a 35-year-old male, and had Doctor’s Degree. He taught creative writing. 

Data collection

Two instruments (questionnaire survey and focused interviews) were used in this research. The questions in the two instruments were familiar, but there were two versions of them. One was more suitable to the survey. The other one was more suitable to the interview. I used the website called Qualtics to build my questionnaire survey and then sent my survey to all participants. All the student participants were chosen randomly according to the disciplines and genders. The faculty participants were chosen randomly in terms of the academic qualifications and genders. I chose 2 students randomly in the student group, and chose 1 faculty randomly in the faculty group. I interviewed them individually in the classroom. I used graphs to collect the data from the survey. Pencils and the recorder were used in the focused interviews.   

Data analysis

Questionnaire survey

Multiple choices and opening questions were developed specifically to investigate participants about their opinions of animal testing. First of all, I reviewed all the results of multiple choices. Secondly, I made several tables to make the data more readable. Thirdly, I compared and contrasted females’ and males’ opinions. After getting a pool of the answers of yes-no questions, I reviewed the answers of the opening question, and summarized them to get general opinions.

Focused survey

I interviewed 3 participants in the same classroom and at the same period of time. After getting a great quantity of opinions, I compared and contrasted their opinions.

Strengths and limitations

I could get data from participants who had different genders, ages, disciplines and education levels. However, I could not ensure everyone would voice their opinions because of the several limitations, like time, English vocabularies, English listening skills and spoken English skills.

Findings

Questionnaire survey

After getting a pool of answers, I discovered that most of the college students and faculties had heard about animal testing. However, most of participants did not get involved in animal testing deeply. Even more than half of participants thought they had no relationship between themselves and animal testing. Twenty three participants (76.7%) chose to stop animal testing after they read the article about that animals got severe injuries in animal testing. Nineteen out of 30 participants still agreed that scientists should rely on animal testing to test drugs after reading the article which gave examples of the wrong results of animal testing. As the final opening questions, only 15 participants (50%) answered the question.

Twenty five participants (83.3%) had heard about animal testing, including 2 females and 23 males. (See the Table1)

Table1

Among 30 participants, twenty two participants (73.3%) did not know the processes of animal testing, and 2 participants did not give their answers. As for the participants who knew processes of animal testing, they got information either from news or from high school classes. There were 5 females and 4 males thinking they had the relationship with animal testing. (See the Table2)

Table2

Five out of 9 participants who thought they had the relationship with animal testing considered that some products they used were tested by animals. Only one participant (1 out of 9, 11.1%) thought he should protect animals, so he had the relationship with animal testing. Other participants thought they had done experiments on animals in high school classes so they had the relationships. Fifty percent participants knew some products they used are tested by animals. Medicines, clothes and skin products were mentioned for many times.

I gave an article which was from the legal organization in the United States named PETA to all participants. In this article, the writer talked about the hurts animals got in animal testing. Twenty four participants (80%) gave their agreements about stopping animal testing after they read the article. What is more, I gave another article to them which referred to that the wrong results of animal testing led harm to human beings. Only 11 participants (36.7%) pointed out scientists could not rely on animal testing at all. As about the last opening question, only 15 participants gave their opinions. Three participants thought scientists should use animals which did harm on human beings to test medicines. Nearly 20% participants mentioned that testing on animals was better than testing on human beings directly. Only one participant thought scientists must stop animal testing. 

Focused interview   

All the interviewees knew animal testing. In their comprehension, animal testing was a scientific method to test drugs using animals. All of them did not know the procedure of animal testing. After I told then the processes of it, one interviewee thought human beings also needed animal testing to protect themselves though it might bring harm to animals. One interviewee thought scientists should use primate animals to do experiments. The last interviewee had no idea about it. Two of three interviewees thought they have relationships with animal testing but they could not figure them out.

As for the products which might be tested on animals, all of the interviewees had no ideas. After they read about the article which was about the harm that animals got in animal testing, three participants claimed that human beings needed animal testing. To protect themselves, human beings had no other ways but did animal testing.

After they knew that animal testing might hurt human beings, all of them expressed that they could not deny the contributions of animal testing because of several wrong results of animal testing. Facing that animal testing was a very controversial issue, three interviewees had different opinions. One interviewee thought human beings could not live without animal testing even though it did harm to animals. There was no way to protect animals and human beings at the same time. One interviewee said that he had no extra thoughts about animal testing. He could understand animal testing but did not have better way to protect animals and human beings at the same time. The last interviewee said it was more important to protect human beings so it was right to do animal testing.

Flaws

In the focused interview, I discovered that some interviewees could not use English to express their opinions clearly and completely. Consequently, next time, I will use Chinese to interview my participants and let them use Chinese to answer my questions.            

Conclusion

Through this research, I discovered that most of the participants had heard about animal testing but they did not have deep conceptions about it. Twenty five participants heard about animal testing but only 7 participants knew the procedure of it. They knew animal testing only through high school classes and some newspapers. Consequently, their sources of animal testing were deficient and limited. That was because more than half of participants thought that they had no relationship between themselves and animal testing. They did not spend time knowing or learning something that was not related to them. Through the statistics, I also discovered that females had less knowledge about animal testing than males. Only 2 female participants heard about animal testing but there were 23 males hearing about it.

Additionally, females had more sympathy than males because the number of females who thought scientists should stop animal testing was large than the number of males after reading the articles. Males were much more rational than females. They thought scientists should keep doing animal testing to protect human beings, which was the most important thing. This thought was not influenced by the several failure examples of animal testing.

As for the opinions about reducing the harm to animals and protecting human beings at the same time, participants’ opinions were useful. Some participants referred to combine animal testing and technologies. Scientists could imitate some experiments on the computer. Some participants mentioned that scientists could use artificial organs to do testing. However, some participants thought there was no way having the win-win result.

I thought this research was helpful and meaningful. Firstly, I knew more about animal testing while I did my literature review. Secondly, I knew the conceptions of animal testing our students and faculties had. Thirdly, the opinions my participants had were valid to reducing the harm animals had.

Some of my participants brought forward that it was better for me to prepare a Chinese version survey questions so that they could understand my questions much clearly. One of my interviewees also had the same opinion that he could express himself much better if he could use Chinese in the interview. Secondly, they mentioned that it was better to provide some videos than articles for them to watch. They could catch the main ideas in a short time, and videos were more interesting.

According to these recommendations, I would improve my research in these two aspects. Next time, I will also do a more deep research into this topic.             

 Appendix

Survey questions

1. What is your gender?

2. What is your age?

3. Have you ever heard about animal testing?

4. Have you ever seen the video or any other media talking about the processes of animal testing? If your answer is yes, please write the procedures below the choice.

5. Do you think you have any relationship with animal testing? If your answer is yes, please explain your answer.

6. Do you know if any product you use is tested on the animals? If your answer is yes, please give some examples.

7. On one side of the controversy, researchers or authors argue that new drugs may be harmful to animals and potentially cause suffering. One example: "At more than 1,000 laboratories across the country, monkeys are addicted to drugs, cats are deafened and have holes drilled into their skulls, sheep and pigs have their skin burned off, and rats have their spinal cords crushed. Tiny mice are made to grow tumors nearly as large as their entire bodies, kittens are purposely blinded, and rats are made to suffer seizures. Dogs are intentionally poisoned with experimental drugs, chimpanzees are infected with debilitating diseases, and rabbits have grotesque devices implanted into their bodies. There’s likely a hellish laboratory like these right in your city. "After knowing this material, do you think scientists should stop doing animal testing?

Read more: http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-medical-experiments/

8. On one side of the controversy, researches or authors argue that the results of animal testing are not completely accurate. One example: "In the late 1950s was "proven" to be a safe and effective sedative during animal tests. The drug was marketed to pregnant women, and despite the fact that it was tested, up to 10,000 children were born with severe deformities after expecting mothers took the drug." After reading this example, do you think scientists should still rely on animal testing?

Read more: http://www.ehow.com/info_7817870_animal-testing-debate-topics.html#ixzz2lzpDSH6H

9. What do you think scientists can do to improve animal testing? (Reduce the harm to animals and protect human beings at same time)

Interview questions

1. Have you ever heard about animal testing? If the answer is yes, what do you think is animal testing? If the answer is no, I give a brief issue about animal testing. After knowing what the animal testing is, what is your feeling?

2. Have you ever seen the video or any other media talking about the processes of animal testing? If the answer is yes, what the processes does animal testing have? If the answer is no, I give a brief introduction about the processes. After knowing what the procedures of animal testing are, what is your feeling?

3. Do you think you have any relationship with animal testing?

4. Do you know any product you use is tested on the animals? If you know, please give some examples.

5. On one side of the controversy, researchers or authors argue that new drugs may be harmful to animals and potentially cause suffering. Give the interviewee a relevant article. What is your opinion about animal testing? 

6. On one side of the controversy, researches or authors argue that the results of animal testing are not completely accurate. Give the interviewee a relevant article. After knowing this, do you think animal testing is reliable?

7. Animal testing is cruel to animals, and it may mislead the scientists. At the same time, animal testing actually benefits human beings. Consequently, animal testing is controversial. Facing this controversial issue, what are your opinions about animal testing? How can we improve animal testing to both protect human beings and animals as possible as we can?

Interview transcripts

Frank Zhu is the first interviewee. Stan Cao is the second interviewee. CiCi is the third interviewee.

Q: Have you ever heard about animal testing?

Frank: Yes.

Stan: Yes.

CiCi: Yes.

Q: What do you think is animal testing?

Frank: Using animals to do experiments to test medicines.

Stan: Mice. Give medicines. See the mice are alive or not.

CiCi: When scientists are researching medicines, they use animals to test them.

Q: Have you ever seen the video or any other media talking about the processes of animal testing?

Frank, Stan, CiCi: No.

Q: (I told them the processes of animal testing.) What is your feeling?

Frank: Need

Stan: I have no idea.

CiCi: Scientists should use primate animals to do experiments

Q: Do you think you have any relationship with animal testing?

Frank, CiCi: Yes.

Stan: No

Q: Do you know any product you use is tested on the animals?

Frank, Stan, CiCi: I know them, but I cannot figure out them.

Q: On one side of the controversy, researchers or authors argue that new drugs may be harmful to animals and potentially cause suffering. Give the interviewee a relevant article. What is your opinion about animal testing?

Frank: It is unfair to animals, but human beings have to do it to protect themselves.

Stan: It is necessary. Scientists cannot let human beings suffer the pain.

CiCi: I sympathize them, but human beings have to do it. 

Q: On one side of the controversy, researches or authors argue that the results of animal testing are not completely accurate. Give the interviewee a relevant article. After knowing this, do you think animal testing is reliable?

Frank: We cannot deny animal testing because of several failure examples.

Stan: We should increase the accuracy of animal testing.

CiCi: I have no idea.

Q: Animal testing is cruel to animals, and it may mislead the scientists. At the same time, animal testing actually benefits human beings. Consequently, animal testing is controversial. Facing this controversial issue, what are your opinions about animal testing? How can we improve animal testing to both protect human beings and animals as possible as we can?

Frank: We cannot protect human beings and animals at the same time.

Stan: No idea.

CiCi: It is more important to protect human beings.

Works cited

Allen, Arthur. "The Problems with Animal Testing." Slate Magazine. N.p., 01 June 2006. Web. 21 Nov. 2013.

"Animals in Medical Experiments." PETA.org. PETA, n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.

"Animal research is a source of human compassion, not shame." Lancet 04 Sept. 2004: 815+. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 Nov. 2013.

"Animal Testing." N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2013.

Ferdowsian, Hope R., and Nancy Beck. "Ethical And Scientific Considerations Regarding Animal Testing And Research." Plos ONE 6.9 (2011): 1-4. Academic Search Premier. Web. 9 Nov. 2013.

Hajar, Rachel. "Animal Testing and Medicine." NCBI. U.S. National Library of Medicine, n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.

Kelly, Megan. "Animal Testing Debate Topics." EHow. Demand Media, 19 Jan. 2011. Web. 21 Nov. 2013.

Murnaghan, Ian. "What Is Animal Testing?" About Animal Testing. N.p., 1 July 2011. Web. 21 Nov. 2013.

"Problems with Animal Research." -The American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS). American Anti-Vivisection Society, n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.

"Reasons for Animal Testing." EHow. Demand Media, 23 Sept. 2009. Web. 21 Nov. 2013. 

Swami, Viren, Adrian Furnham, and Andrew N. Christopher. "Free The Animals? Investigating Attitudes Toward Animal Testing In Britain And The United States." Scandinavian Journal Of Psychology 49.3 (2008): 269-276. Academic Search Premier. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.