Animal Testing in Neuroscience

In the modern world, millions of mice, rats, dogs, rabbits, monkeys, cats, and other
animals are trapped inside cold and grilled cages in laboratories for research purposes. As a
result, these animals are subjected to loneliness and deprived of their rights that include roaming,
mating, and feeding freely at any time of the day or night. More so, the animals are languishing
in pain and ache when the researchers test their theories on them prior to application on human
beings. According to Harrison & Hester (6), some of the methods researchers are using to trap
the animals are cruel. For instance, they shoot them with a tranquilizer, or feed them with
poisonous substances, or trap them in cages where confusion and fear prevails. As a result, critics
of the experimentations argue that the pain animals undergo may alter the outcome of the
experiments or make it unreliable. For these and other reasons discussed below, it is advisable to
eliminate animal experimentation.
Firstly, animal experimentations violate the rights of the animals whenever they are used
in any research. According to animal rights activists, animals are entitled to a fundamental moral
right in terms of respectful treatment from the human race. As such, Orlans (26) proposes that
humans tend to ignore the inherent value of their animal subjects by reducing them to mere tools
for studies. In this case, we may view animals and human beings as being alike in many ways
such as feeling, thinking, behaving, as well as experiencing pain. Hence, it is important to treat
the animals in the same regard as we tend to treat our fellow men. However, all this is ignored
because the animals are denied a free choice on whether to take part or not in the underlying
study. Thus, all researchers taking part in animal experimentation in neuroscience are acting as
agents of transferring risk from humans to the test animals.

Secondly, the suffering and pain experienced by the animals in the cages and on the
research table is not really worth any potential advantages to the human beneficiaries. The
studies are often painful, or they may cause irreparable damage to their bodies. According to
Orlans (129), animal pain denotes a hostile emotional and sensory experience that arises from a
certain body organ and is associated with likely or actual tissue damage. The animals and
humans tend to feel pain in a similar fashion as evidenced by the screams during the LD50 tests
or even the deadly Draize test. In the case of the Draize test, rabbits are usually used to test the
damage caused by its cornea. It has been condemned for being unreliable because it causes
blindness, scarring, and ultimately death thus serving as a complete waste of animal life. Animals
undergoing a test in Neuroscience suffer from vomiting, paralysis, internal bleeding, diarrhea,
convulsion, and eventually death (Balls 31).
Lastly, the behavior of a given drug in the human body is fundamentally dependent on the
chemical properties of that drug including its chemical compounds, solubility, and also its size.
The results of tests such as vitro experiments on the human cells are relevant for the
determination of various unexpected outcomes perceived in animal studies. However, it is crucial
to note that a large percentage of tests are associated with unpredictable effects in animals.
Consequently, Harrison and Hester (20) postulate that it is impossible to determine whether such
effects are hazardous until researchers run trials on the human species. It is for this reason that
the process of drug testing starts with Phase I to determine its therapeutic efficacy or toxicity on
man immediately after animal testing is through. Additionally, not all drugs react similarly in
humans owing to genetic and physiological differences. In this case, we must remember that
these differences may or may not correlate with the animal tests.

Primarily, most foundations responsible for supporting human safety are now recognizing
the changing conditions in the wake of advanced technological advancement. As a result, Silcock
(32) posits that they are unanimously calling for surplus investments in substitutes to animal
testing. In this case, technological applications such as computer simulations are gaining support
in recent times. Experts in this field are continually expounding on the benefits that computer
simulations stand to pose. For instance, they will reduce, refine, or replace the act of animal
testing. Principally, technological simulations that incorporate computer modeling enable the
researchers to reduce the number of animals involved in their studies significantly. Here,
techniques such as sensing and imaging have enabled researchers to follow a single animal for a
long duration without having to kill it. Therefore, it is essential to note that there are viable
alternatives to animal testing in the field of neuroscience.
Besides, assertions that animals are creatures of a lower species than man are not
justifiable on the basis of associating them with possessing no rights. The proponents of animal
experimentations in neuroscience claim that the animals do not have any rights because they
have no capacity to comprehend or exercise them knowingly. However, the exploitation of the
animals is not justifiable by claiming that they have a lower pedigree in the evolutionary chart
because we are alike to animals in more than one ways. For instance, higher mammalian species
tend to have identical internal organs and systems that function in a similar way to those of a
man. Besides animals also have goals, feelings, desires, thoughts, and needs that resemble human
capacities and functions. Thus, we must desist from being selfish because we are all subjects of
life (Silcock 34). The situation is worsened by the realization that people are killing animals in
favor of furthering their experimental or medical techniques.

Conclusively, recent years have experienced increasing support calling for the
elimination of animals in neuroscience research owing to the violation of animal rights. Balls
(33) argues that acts of arbitrarily torturing thousands of animals to test products or carry out
laboratory experiments cannot be justified as improving human lives. Animals, just like human
beings, should be treated with dignity and respect rather than be abused for the self-interest of
few humans. In this case, the suffering and pain experienced by animals in cages and on the
research table is not worth any potential advantages to the human beneficiaries. Besides, in the
modern world alternative methods of testing the effectiveness and reactions of scientists
products are now available. For instance, the use of technology such as computer simulations has
proven to be efficient, effective, timely, and reliable. For these reasons, it is innocuous to say that
the use of animals for experiments should be prohibited, and instead technology be embraced.

Works Cited
Balls, Michael. "Time to Reform Toxic Tests." New Scientist 134 (1992): 31-33.
Harrison, R. M. and R. E. Hester. Alternatives to Animal Testing. Cambridge: Royal Society of
Chemistry, 2006.
Orlans, F. Barbara. In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation. New
York: Oxford UP, 1993.
Silcock, Sheila. "Is Your Experiment Really Necessary?" New Scientist 134 (1992): 32-34.