GAC015 Assessment Event 4: Academic Research Essay

Experimentation on Animal

Student : Dascha Devara Berliana

Student ID : 1505180795

Teacher : Arum Widyastuti

Due Date : 4 June 2021

Word Count : 1019 Words

GAC 004 Assessment Event 2 Dascha Devara Berliana

Science has always improved rapidly and pretty much has always driven the world with its

invention and findings. This advancement in science is usually the product of researches,

which requires a huge number of trials and errors before actually discover something.

Scientific research, especially biomedical research, is often conducted on animals. Annually,

there is a millions number of animals are used in usually painful and distressing experiment

studies (Ghasemi and Dehpour 2009, p. 3). Animal experimentations are aimed to solve

human and veterinary matters through biomedical experimentation. Animal experimentation is

able to identify how each organ works in order to decrypt the structure and the mechanism

(Folescu, Miftode and Carmen 2013, p. 267). Despite the benefits, there are some contras

towards animal experimentations. Thus, animal experimentation may be performed as long as

the required ethics are fulfilled due to the possibility of a life-changing outcome.

Animal experimentation is an effective and the most possible method for conducting a

biomedical experiment. It is projected that by doing animal experimentation knowledge about

human biology will be furtherly comprehend therefore safety and efficacy of potential

treatments for diseases will be promoted. The reason why people support animal

experimentation is enormous and impactful advancement invented. Cure and treatment like

antidiabetic, hypocholesterolemic, and antihypertensive drugs are the product of research on

the animal with particular pathologies such as diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, and

hypertension. Other than that experimentation on an elder animal is going to give an

illustration of how it is on humans in their elderlies with co-morbid. Even it is argued that

conducting research on an animal is considered harmful and inappropriate, it is far more

unethical to test unproven products or chemicals on human. The closest and most possible

target for this kind of trial is animals like mice, rats, etc. Even though the drugs tested on the

animals not have always been effective, the failures enable researchers to explore more

findings and possibilities of the related drugs and initiate a betterment for the future test

(Garattini and Grignaschi 2017, pp. 32-34).

4/5/2021 1
GAC 004 Assessment Event 2 Dascha Devara Berliana

The supporters of animal experimentation believe that animals do not have to possess right as

how human do, as a result, animal only has none or minimum moral standing. On the other

side, there are groups of people who believe animal experimentation should be banned. It is

argued that animals have rights and human has a moral responsibility to defend it. They

declare that several animals are considered as persons since they have properties like human

therefore, they have to be morally protected (Beauchamp 1997, p. 113).

Published in 2008, a survey revealed that animal experimentation is not and should not be

required for conducting biomedical research. This survey also unconvinced by the animal

experimentation validity. There are three reasons why its validity is being doubted. First, the

research findings are more likely to be obscured due to the animal impacts on the laboratory

environments and other research components. These animals are involuntarily captivated and

placed in a new environment which sometimes is equipped with artificial lighting and noise.

The distressing atmosphere of the laboratory causes animals to behave uncommonly. The

alteration in laboratory surroundings may lead to changes in neurochemistry, genetic

expression, and nerve generation. Second, the incoherent diseases model of humans and

animals. Human disease is still too complicated for researchers to be properly induced in

animals. Despite the animal experimentation's success and legitimacy, the clinic translation of

the result is risky to be failed due to the animal experimentation model and human condition

disparities. And the last is the physiology and genetic differences of species. Each species has

different physiology, behavior, pharmacokinetics, and genetics despite the compatibility

between the animal model and its human disease correspondent. Thus, it will impede the

reliability of the study (Akhtar 2015, pp. 407-411).

The hesitation in conducting animal experimentation and the rapid development of technology

has brought some alternatives to replace animal experimentation which involves non-invasive

imaging techniques, computer models and simulations, cell-tissue cultures, statistical

modeling, large-scale epidemiology, or studies on human volunteers. Regardless of their

4/5/2021 2
GAC 004 Assessment Event 2 Dascha Devara Berliana

complexity, these methods utter consistent and worthy findings. Nevertheless, these methods

are hardly accepted due to their inactiveness and dependency on the conventional procedure

(Folescu, Miftode and Carmen 2013, pp. 269-270). Unfortunately, experimenting on cell-

tissue cultures will possibly gain different outcomes compare to experimenting on living being

due to the disparities of complexity between the objects (Garattini and Grignaschi 2017, p.33).

Aside from the alternatives mentioned above, it is mandatory to implement 3Rs principle

during animal based-testing. Folescu et al (2013, p. 270) defines 3Rs as “Replacement,

Reduction and Refinement represent a code of protocols serving to attenuate the impact of

animal based-research.” Replacement prioritizes the use of alternatives like tissue culture,

tissue slices, perfused organs, cellular/sub-cellular fractions instead of animal models.

Reduction is the principle to manage an adequate number of animals used in different

experiments. But still, in this case, the reliability of the scientific data is the main concern.

This step can be done by advancing the procedures of the experiment. And lastly is a

refinement that focuses on animal wellbeing. Researchers have moral duty to keep the

minimal amount of pain suffered by the animals and maintain their quality of life. However,

the animal's condition has a big role in how the findings will turn out. Pain reliever like

analgesics, anesthetics or tranquilizers may be used to reduce pain and every procedure which

is invasive (Folescu, Miftode and Carmen 2013, pp. 270-271).

In conclusion, conducting animal experiments brings plentiful benefits to biomedical

development which includes life-changing intentions. Despite its benefits, the downside of

animal based-testing like the possibility of the experiment being invalid and its impact on

animal wellbeing cannot be ignored. Thus, researchers should follow the ethical clearance

guidelines in order to reduce the harm and maximize the use of existed alternative options,

such as non-invasive imaging techniques, computer models and simulations, cell-tissue

cultures, statistical modeling, large-scale epidemiology, or studies on human volunteers. This

4/5/2021 3
GAC 004 Assessment Event 2 Dascha Devara Berliana

way, the validity of the experiment is more likely to be maintained and the harm received by

the animals is kept as minimal as possible or none.

4/5/2021 4
GAC 004 Assessment Event 2 Dascha Devara Berliana

Reference List

Akhtar, A. (2015), “The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation”, Cambridge

Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 407–419, October. Accessed via

ResearchGate [online]

Beauchamp, T. (1997), “Opposing Views on Animal Experimentation: Do Animals Have

Rights? “, Ethics & Behavior, vol. 7, no. 2 , pp. 113-21 . Accessed via Google
Scholar [online]

Folescu, R., Miftode, E., and Carmen, Z. (2013). “Animal Experimental Studies:

Controversies, Alternatives and Perspectives”, Review of Research and Social

Intervention, vol. 43. pp. 266-273, December. Accessed via ResearchGate [online]

Garattini, S. and Gringnaschi, G. (2017), “Animal testing is still the best way to find new

treatments for patients”, European Journal of Internal Medicine, vol. 39, pp. 32-35,

December. Accessed via Elsevier [online]

Ghasemi, M. & Dehpour, A. (2009), “Ethical considerations in animal studies”, Journal of

medical ethics and history of medicine, vol. 2, no.12, July. Accessed via Google

Scholar [online]

4/5/2021 5