Controversial Topics

Animal Experiment

  People has been hoping to know what they are and cure themselves, and studied ourselves for a long time, sometimes, with animals. For more than 2000 years, before Aristotle was born, it is said that animal experiments had started and it means that history of anti-animal experiments had started simultaneously.
  About 350 B.C, some philosopher seemed to be allowed to dissect mankind by kings. Of course, some people opposed to, but point of argument was whether dissection was able to gain appropriate results or not.
  More than 100 years later, the moral, finally, came to be discussed. However, people couldn't find the answer. One king allowed to dissect daed bodies. Some kings never permitted hurting lives, others admitted, to some extent, animals only. In ancient Roma, dissecting dogs was one of the amusement. In a family, the father was scientist and dissected, but his wife and his daughter established animal welfare organization. They probably couldn't endure to see suffering animals. Animal welfare always has been insisted where scientists use animals.

  However closely I learn about the issue, I cannot get an answer which opinion is right, so I introduce each claim.
  First, about right of animals. Anti-animal experiments say that killing animals is equal to kill people. If they did't die, they must be suffered by strict experiments. Almost all of animals that were rescued Orangutan have from enclosed cage  were frightened to contact people. Then, those who are killed are robbed their last lives by people. Every animal are entitled to enjoy each lives like us. However, scientists insist that they protect animal right as possible as they can. They say that killing animals to study needs to mankind. Thanks to such experiments, many medicines were made and many people who suffer from uninvestigated diseases. Not to make animals suffered, they use anesthesia and select euthanasia if animals come to suffering. Then, not to rob animals lives, scientists breed dedicated subjects like rats without fur.
  Second, about merit of animal experiments. People who oppose to the experiments think mankinds and the other animals are different, so it cannot gain enough date. For example, HIV virus investigation had held with apes. But, It was discovered that mankinds and apes has another reaction to the virus.And no matter how hard they use animals, they finally need clinical experiments. Many clinical experiments have been held without any confidence not to die or suffer subjects by the experiment. Thus, what make anti-animal experiments offrnd is to make cosmetics. Rats' skin had used to examine effects to use cosmetics. In this point, Japanese government banned already. About clinical experiments , they need to reduce any risks. So, they insist that to avoid exposing people to danger, it is important to use animals which is similar to mankinds. Orangutan's DNA has same more than 99.9% with mankinds. Experiments  with orangutans and another apes helped to improve chemotherapy for cancers.
  Third, about rules. Scientists are accused that they are allowed to kill animals freely. And government overlooks their outrageous deads. In addition, such experiments are thought unplanned and trusting to chance. Their claims are partly correct. Actually, scientists are allowed to kill some animals but  they had already investigated what will be expucted in the experiments in the view of many scientific points. After the strict investigation, they offre to the government and schemes are checked again. Then, they finally be able to start the experiments, but scientists still conscious to  animals. Then, new slogan"3R" is now used. First "R" is Replacement to animals that are far from mankinds. The second one is Reduction numbers of subjects. The last one is Refinement to reduce pain of subjects and improve the environment of experiments center.

  As I said, each opinion has valid ground and seems to be correct each other. Maybe we cannot find the answer forever, but I think animal experiments are valid now. Through the study, I thought that killing or hurting animals in experiments is needed to save people like we eat fish and pigs to survive. If you say that breeding dedicated subjects is illegal, how about livestock? Life to bear eggs is immoral? Scientists seem to protect rights of animals as possible as they can. I felt that anti-animal experiments have to judge the issue more calm. Assault the HIV experiments factory is clearly beyond moral and rules of people. Actually, killing animals is not good, but if I were anti-animal experiments, I won't assault the laboratory. I would seek the way to do experiments without animals. I think ghis is one of the resistance and I strongly hope it comes true.