Saturday, February 7

Proposal J and animal research in general

I believe that animals are essential for research, and to not use them at all, would in my belief not be right. There has been huge advances in medicine due to animals being used for research. A very common case that refers to animal research is in the 1920-1930s, a rabbit would be injected with urine from a woman who thought she might be pregnant, the rabbit would eventually die and the doctor would check the rabbit's ovaries for detection of pregnancy, and if there was growth on the ovaries (Corpus Hemorrhagica) the woman would know she was pregnant. Using animals, was the very first way to detect pregnancy and now, there are more advance technologies to distinguish pregnancy. My question is do you think we would have even made those more defined advances without using the rabbit? Maybe, but most likely it would have taken a lot longer. I mean someone might have thought over time, well let me just see if my pee helps with knowing if I'm pregnant or not. But the rabbit helped detection of pregnancy advance more and also for researchers to gain more knowledge. With proposal J, yes I think they should use an animal to test the product first, but as we discussed in class it would be more beneficial to use an animal that has closer characteristics in skin as us, such as a pig. That way the researchers will not spend time shaving a dog (which a shaved dog isn't common anyways) and will also be able to get faster/more common results from the pig, hence not spending as much money on research. One of the main reasons some people are now having such a big deal about using animals is research, is due to the media and animal activists groups that are now forming, such as PETA. As Rollin mentioned in his book, the scientists don't do a good enough job expressing to the public about facts etc. So instead the public then gets a precieved perception on certain topics because they hear it from PETA etc. Common example is BST being administered to cows. Most super markets will now not buy milk that has BST (Bovine Somatropin) added to it. Number one, BST is a hormone. Hormones are specific to each species, in other words BST will not affect humans. BST is already in the blood system of cow, more is injected so the cow can produce more milk so it can keep up with the growing amount of people who drink milk everyday (so yes it is our fault). To have animal treated without more BST is fine, but then it is required to pump out more milk with out another injection, which may be torture to the cow anyways. I'm sure you don't see very many adds that say "oh by the way a cow already has BST in it or it is just a hormone that won't affect humans" I think if there were adds out like that more people wouldn't care if there is BST in their milk, but instead due to the media and animal groups, it is now a big deal. I also see where people may come from with the whole consent situation, but I'm sorry, they are just animals. If we kill a rabbit, they freakin multiply in days! Just get a new one and problem solved. No animal has ever gone extinct from animal research. I would have to agree to use a more common animal for research though however, such as a dog vs a panda. If we used pandas, there is where I would have a problem. I'm sorry this blog is so long, I'm sure I have angered at least some people by now, I just thought I would express my opinion when it comes to animal research. Feel free to leave your opinion too.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.