Traditionally, animals have been used to ensure the safety of our consumer

products and drugs. Yet around the world, scientists, regulators and animal

protectionists work together to develop alternatives to their use. The use of

animals in the life sciences dates back to ancient Greece and the earliest

medical experiments. To learn about swallowing, physicians cut open into the

throat of a living pig. To study the beating heart, they cut open into its chest.

For centuries physicians and researchers used animals to enhance their

knowledge about how the various organs and systems of the body

functioned, as well as to hone their surgical skills. As long as animals have

been used in experiments, people have expressed concerns about such

research. Questions about the morality, necessity, and scientific validity of

animal experiments have arisen since those ancient physicians first began to

study bodily functions. Alternatives are methods, which refine existing tests by

minimizing animal distress, reduce the number of animals necessary for an

experiment or replace whole animal use with vitro or other tests. While

vivisection has received more attention and funding, clinical and

epidemiological (studying the natural course of disease within human

population) studies have had a much more profound impact on human health.

In fact, clinical and epidemiological evidence linking smoking to lung cancer

was established long before warnings of the dangers of smoking were

released to the general public. Because animal experimentation failed to each

the same conclusion, warning labels on cigarettes were delayed for years!

During this time hundreds of people died from lung cancer because the results

of animal experimentation were considered more valid than studies of human

patients. Animal based research is the science of the past. There are a

number of alternatives available to modern researchers, which are less

expensive, more reliable, and ethically sound. They provide results rapidly,

experimental parameters are easily controlled, and their focus on the cellular

and molecular levels of the life process provides more useful information

about chemicals and drugs. High Productive Volume Tests, test a minimal

amount of a product on an abundant amount of animals. Two - hundred baby

rats, just three weeks old are placed in wire - bottomed stainless - steel

cages. Twice daily Monday thru Friday, laboratory workers pull the small

mammals from their cages, force steel clamps into their mouths to hold their

jaws apart and swab their teeth with an anti - cavity dental chemical. After

three weeks, the workers kill the baby rats by cutting off their teeth. The

procedures are called "Biological Tests for Tests Flouride Dentifrices" and

:Determination of Animal Carries Reduction" - puzzling terms to most of us.

But the meaning is deadly to animals. The officials who order this test work

for the U. S. government 's FDA has made exceptions for manufacturers,

including Tom's of Maine, that wanted to market new toothpastes without

any tests on animals. If some companies can manufacture safe, effective anti -

cavity toothpastes without using any animals, why can't all dental product

companies stop killing animals? Philosopher Jeremy Bentham sounded the

rallying cry for animals everywhere: "The question is not, can they reason, nor

can they talk, but can they suffer?" The Animal Welfare Act sets standards

for the housing, handling, feeding, and transportation of experimental animals,

but places no limitations whatsoever on the actual experimental conditions

and procedures continue to challenge, whether human beings have the right to

"use" animals for any purpose. The HPV Program sounds so important,

right? Wrong! Because no resulting action will be taken against the chemicals

involved in this program. Instead of protecting the public from hazardous

chemicals, the EPA will inform us of how quickly mice and rabbits died when

force - fed a chemical, or how many mouse pups were stillborn after their

mother was force - fed massive quantities of already known toxic chemicals.

Every medical advancement has not been a result of animal testing. Results

derived from animal experiments have had a very minimal effect on the

dramatic rise of life expectancy can be attributed mainly to changes in

lifestyles, environmental factors, and improvements in sanitation. Many

medical school's in the U. S. do not use animals in the training of medical

students. They include: NYU, University of Michigan, and SUNY

Stonybrook. Actually, most of the medical schools which do use animals

allow students the option of foregoing the animal labs. This is because they

clearly acknowledge that such labs are not necessary for the training of

doctors. When a newly released drug hits the market, regardless of how

many animal tests have been done, those individuals who first use it are

"human guinea pigs." Animal tests are not good indicators of what will occur

in humans. It has been due, in large part , to the tension between researchers

who view laboratory animals as essential to their work and individuals who

oppose animal tests that the modern alternatives movement has evolved. The

movement began quietly, in 1959, with the publication of The Principles of

Humane Experimental Technique by British researchers W. Russell and R.

Burch. Russell and Burch advocated the "three R's" of replacement,

reduction, and refinement. In the 1980's and 1990's, their philosophy has

enabled researchers and animal welfare advocates to come together with a

common goal: to find scientifically valid alternatives to animal tests. In

conclusion, as proven by the Tom's of Maine Co., and with the approval of

the FDA, products can be marketed without the immoral practices of animal

cruelty. As a form of life, animals acquire natural rights, one being the right to

live, not to be exploited and exposed to pain. As best said by animal activist

Jon Evans: "To inflict cruelties on defenseless creatures, or condone such

acts, is to abuse one of the cardinal tenets of a civilized society - reverence

for life."

Word Count: 972