Pets & Animals >
Animal Rights & Issues
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedIs it morally wrong to use mice or dogs in medical research?
Results so far:
| No | 38% | 579 votes | Total: 1509 votes | |
| Yes | 62% | 930 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThree animals lined up to be injected with a new drug to test whether or not it shriveled their testicles . Some drug company was diversifying into the underwear business and thought they could save on cloth when making mens' underpants. Equally exciting was the sister research teams' endeavors to test another drug that would not only restore testicles to their former size once underpants were removed but also in some cases actually increase the size of the penis as well.Oddly enough the later research team was mainly comprised of women. The former team was mainly comprised of men morbidly concerned with shriveling testicles.
The first animal to be tested was a mouse. As you can imagine a mouse's testicles are rather small anyway and mice do not wear underpants so, to me , the whole exercise seemed pointless. However the men in the team had to get some idea of the effects of the drug. Needless to say that the drug was so effective that not only did the poor mouse's testicles shrivel but they also turned a very nasty black and actually fell off. The results were quickly passed on to the sister research team who were equally disappointed at not having a subject to test their drug on. It seems they weren't even interested in seeing if the drug did in fact increase the size of the mouse's penis if he didn't have the testicles as well. They were of the opinion that although mice breed like rabbits ,they weren't interested in birth control research for the moment.
The second animal to be tested was a dog. Again the underpants issue was of no great drama. Some pet owners ,but only a few, make clothes for their dogs but really the demand for dogs' pants doesn't justify the expense and effort of trying to establish a market . This time when the drug was injected only one of the dog's testicles turned an ugly black color before dropping off. The other testicle also turned black but stayed attached. Unfortunately it shriveled up so much that when the sister team had a look they said they didn't have anywhere near enough of their drug to restore the dog's testicle to its former size. Again they dismissed the idea of trying out their drug to see if it would increase the size of the dog's penis. They reasoned that no self respecting bitch would be interested in any dog with only one black shriveled testicle no matter what size his penis was.
The third animal to be tested was a fifty year old man who needed money to support his drug habit and volunteered when he heard that each research team was paying fifty thousand dollars to test their drug on humans. The teams were surprised at finding someone that age who wasn't already dead from drug abuse. On further questioning the man they discovered that his wife died six months ago and he was unable to find anyone to remarry. Because of that he experimented with same sex and now had aids.This last bit of information finally convinced both teams that he was the right man for the job. They reasoned he couldn't care less if he lost his testicles and if he could possibly end up with a larger penis then that was a bonus for him. If by chance things went horribly wrong he would be dead from aids long before the public knew about their research and they had a perfect cover .
They were even considering insisting that the drug company supply him with a dozen pairs of underpants ,a larger size if necessary than he already wore if the sister research team's drug proved successful assuming that the other team were first successful in shriveling both his testicles to the size of his penis. The sister team had high hopes of having his testicles resume their normal size with the possibility of a much larger penis.
Well things didn't go to plan as expected . The first team stuffed around with the formula so much that they only made enough for one injection and completely lost the method of duplicating the precise amount of the various ingredients. They wanted the drug to be just right but to their astonishment it did absolutely nothing . When they performed a blood test on the test subject they could find no trace of aids in him . They were left wondering if they had accidentally discovered a cure for aids or if the subject really had aids in the first place.
Now the sister team were really put out . If they couldn't experiment with his testicles then they wanted to see if they could make his penis grow. When the poor man was told that he was free of aids he lost any enthusiasm . He couldn't wait to get out when they told him about the experiments on the mouse and dog. "If I want a large penis,I'll take viagra," he informed them. With his research money the man went on to eventually remarry and live a very healthy life.
So to my way of thinking it is morally wrong to use mice and dogs in medical research even if the research is just to cater for the financial gain of the big drug companies involved in medical research. A dog is man's best friend and a best friend should not have go to any lengths to maintain that friendship. Why not use a man with some preexisting condition rather than a healthy mouse or dog ? The question of morals in using mice or dogs for research wouldn't then be a concern.
Learn more about this author, Barry Williams.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
It is estimated that 50 to 100 million animals worldwide, from fruit flies and mice to primates are used for medical research. The research is carried out inside universities, medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, farms, defense-research establishments, and commercial facilities that provide animal-testing services to industry. Most laboratory animals are bred for research purposes, while a smaller number are caught in the wild or supplied by pounds.
Animals suffer a great amount of pain and death during these experiments. One such example I would like to share is that of a PETA investigation. PETA filmed staff inside a British laboratory owned by Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), Europe's largest animal-testing facility, hitting Beagle puppies (Beagles are the most widely used dogs, due to their friendly nature), shouting at them, and simulating sex acts while taking blood samples. They also have footage shot in the U.S. which appeared to show technicians dissecting a live monkey! In February 2005, the University of Cambridge's primate-testing labs showed that monkeys had the tops of their heads sawn off to induce a stroke, and were then left alone after the procedure for 15 hours overnight, with no veterinary care, because staff only worked from nine to five. The experiments involved the use of hundreds of macaque monkeys, who were deliberately brain damaged for the purpose of research into strokes and Parkinson's disease. The macaques were first trained to perform behavioral and cognitive tasks, then researchers caused brain damage either by removing parts of the macaque's brains or by injecting toxins. The monkeys were then re-tested to determine how the damage had affected their skills, being deprived of food and water to encourage them to perform the tasks, with water being withheld for 22 out of every 24 hours.
In another incident, an assistant professor of neurosurgery, E. Sander Connolly from Columbia University, was performing experiments on baboons by removing their left eyeballs and using the empty eye sockets to reach a critical blood vessel to their brains. A clamp was placed on this blood vessel until the stroke was induced, after which Connolly would attempt to treat the condition with an experimental drug. PETA described one such experiment: "On September 19, 2001, baboon B777's left eye was removed, and a stroke was induced. The next morning, it was noted that the animal could not sit up, that he was leaning over, and that he could not eat. That evening, the baboon was still slouched over and was offered food but couldn't chew. On September 21, 2001, the record shows that the baboon was 'awake, but no movement, can't eat (chew), vomited in the a.m.' 'At 1:30 p.m. the animal died in his cage.'"
Finally, in one of the most notorious acts of cruelty to an animal for the sake of research is that of Britches, a macaque monkey born in 1985 into a breeding colony at the University of California, Riverside. Britches was removed from his mother at birth, and left alone and tethered, with his eyelids sewn shut, as part of a sight-deprivation experiment. When rescued at five weeks, Britches was shaking and crying.
With todays advancements on technology there is no excuse to use animals for the sake of science and/or medicine. The technology field is vast and upscale, giving any who request such developments, the use of computerized anatomy's that are so mathematically accurate it would be close to perfect. Animals feel pain, they feel horror, they get scared, and they cry. They need us to stand up for their rights as living creatures, as they cannot speak for themselves.
Sources:
1 . www.PETA.org
2. Wikipedia, article on animal testing
Learn more about this author, Pamela Starling.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Animal Rights & Issues
- Is spaying/neutering animals a crucial part of controlling the country’s animal over-population problem?
- Should fish pedicures be allowed in the United States?
- Should Eight Belles' Jockey be suspended pending a legal investigation?
- Should Sea Shepherd Conservation Society take more drastic measures to stop whalers?
- If the cow disappeared, would people start eating horse?
