Animal experimentation in the context of medical science

The main arguments of those opposed to animal testing (especially in regards to medical science) are: 1) Humans and animals are too different for results from animal tests to be extrapolated to humans. 2) Animal testing is morally bankrupt. It is not justifiable under any circumstances. 3) There is inadequate government regulation of animal testing. 4) Animals are exposed to unnecessary suffering. 5) There are alternatives to animal testing.[/spoiler] Arguments for: I, on the other hand, happen to support animal testing (in medical science) for these reasons: 1) "Humans and animals are too different for results from animal tests to be extrapolated to humans." While it is true that every species is unique, all mammals share commonalities (mammals are the most highly represented group of animals in medical science). This is because all mammals are descended from a group of common ancestors. In general, all mammalian bodies operate in the same basic way (eg. circulatory, vascular, digestive, endocrine and immune systems are all quite similar in mammals). Obviously, however, there are differences between species, but these tend to be at the level of the cell, rather than at the level of the various sytems. This is important because it is reasonable to then say, "Well, drug x poisons this animal. Therefore, it is unlikely to be safe in humans, however further tests should be done to prove this." Several examples of discoveries which were directly reliant on animal testing include genetic therapy for cystic fibrosis, immunosuppresant drugs for organ transplants, and electronic implants for deafness and immobility. 2) "Animal testing is morally bankrupt. It is not justifiable under any circumstances." True. Ethically, animal testing is largerly indefensible, except on the grounds of providing life-saving medical advances to human patients, which, to me, seems like a fairly good argument 'for'. 3) "There is inadequate government regulation of animal testing." While some activists claim that there is no regulation and that researchers are able to do as they please, this is simply not true. The Home Office in the UK, for example, administers extremely stringent laws regarding the use of animals in research. Other countries have similar guidlines. 4) "Animals are exposed to unnecessary suffering." Activists tend to quote slogans such as "STOP ANIMAL SUFFERING" "COMPANY X BRUTALLY TORTURES ANIMALS", while showing a picture of a badly treated kitty from 50 years ago. Obviously, there are areas of research which require the animal to experience some degree of pain, but this is minimised as much as possible. In most cases, animals are anaesthetised when undergoing painful procedures, and receive post-operative anaelgesia. Others will say that anaesthetics are not used because they are "expensive." Just as a point of interest, anaesthetics are actually rather cheap. Again, the Home Office (and other agencies in other countries) strictly controls the conditions animals are housed in, as well as conditions relating to scientific procedures. These conditions do need to be improved in certain less developed countries. 5) "There are alternatives to animal testing." There are alternatives to animal testing, and a lot of money has been invested in the area. However, it is ludicrous for activists to claim that all animal testing should stop because we have alternatives. Certain things can only be tested in a live model. Activists claim that we have computer models, cell cultures, and tissue cultures in which to do any and all testing. Research is done using these methods, in fact, most medical research does not involve animals at all. But, for example, measuring an immune response, or levels of inflammation following administration of a particular drug or procedure are only possible in a live model. It seems silly to point it out, but animals are not a beaker of cells, or a petri dish of tissue. Animals are a complex interaction of many systems composed of many different types of cells. it is impossible for any environment in a test tube or dish to mimick a living body. Indeed, even computers are not able to virtually duplicate a living body. To summarise, animal testing is not perfect, however it is necessary and, at the moment, is the best alternative we have to testing on humans.