People have used animals for medical research since ancient times.
In order to understand human anatomy, physiology scientists conducted
different experiments on animals. And this knowledge was very useful.
For example, in the twelfth century an Arab physician Moorish Spain
introduced animal testing as an experimental method for testing surgical
procedures before applying them to human patients. But at that time
people didn’t think much about animals’ rights, so experiments could be
really cruel. Claude Bernard, known as the father of physiology, raised
dogs, tortured and left them dying for days without need. In recent
decades ethics of animal testing has raised, the power of animal rights
groups has increased, so nowdays people feel more kinship between
animals and humans. But can we refuse from animal testing at all?
Experiments on animals can avert using poisonous, harmful
products. There were a lot of tragical accidents in last century, which were
particularly caused by lack of testing: diethylene glycol (DEG) as a solvent
(1937, more than a hundred people died), thalidomide as a multifunctional
drug (more than 10,000 children were born with deformities or missing
limbs) and etc. This harm to humans didn’t disappear without a trace, now
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires testing on animals
before they could be marketed.
Furthermore animal testing has led to significant advances in the
treatment of various diseases. For example, animal models of Parkinson’s
disease, thanks to these specific mutant mice, we managed to understand
deeper the mechanisms of the disease, and uptodate cure can take a
patient back to a comfortable life (there are amazing videos about deep
brain stimulation on youtube).
On the other hand there are too many meaningless experiments on
animals that could be replaced by non-living models or cell culture. Even
just simple replanning of experiments can significantly reduce the amount
of animals. However, it’s still to early to refuse totally from animal testing,
because computer models and cells could be too approximate and results
are not achievable. As Dr. Josh Bloom, the Council's Senior Director of
Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences, with over three decades of
practical experience says, "On a computer, every disease has been cured
10,000 times."
So, I think we should find that balance between moral attitude to
animals and human safety, trying to minimize the first and maximize the
second.