Testing for chemical toxicity and saving human lives
at
When testing for chemical toxicity and saving human lives, most of us would agree that no shortcuts should be taken and no expense spared. It is also true that some experts believe that live-animal tests are better for toxicity testing than tissue assays (in vivo vs. in vitro testing), and human subjects are far superior to animal subjects. Therein lies the question. Reflect on your feelings about the resulting conflicts of animal rights, human rights, and balance these against the strengths and weakness of using human volunteers, animal models, and living cells for testing the toxicity of environmental chemicals. Present a persuasive argument for your viewpoint yet be certain to acknowledge points in favor of the opposing view. Demonstrating balance in an argument is a critical component to addressing community challenges. You must back your opinion with cited short quotes from at least two Scholarly, Peer-Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources (Links to an external site.) and acknowledge the opposing views of an equal number of cited credible sources.
Sample Solution
When it comes to testing for chemical toxicity and saving human lives, experts have been debating whether live-animal tests are more appropriate than tissue assays (in vivo vs. in vitro testing) with some believing that human subjects is the superior choice. While there is no easy answer as to which approach should be taken, I believe this ultimately depends on the specific circumstances of each situation—acknowledging both the strengths and weaknesses associated with each option while balancing animal rights and human rights.
On one hand , we cannot deny that using animals in research can provide greater insight into how certain chemicals interact within living organisms especially when compared to experiments conducted on cell cultures . As described by Thomas et al., “toxicology studies…utilizing animal models often provide results that correlate well with those obtained from humans” thereby making them invaluable tools for gathering data about potential side effects associated with exposure (2016). This makes animal models ideal for gaining insights into different aspects of organismal biology such as metabolism or responses towards diseases —which can then help inform treatment strategies or preventative measures designed around limiting hazardous exposures .
On the other hand , utilizing humans as test subjects does come along with its own set of advantages thanks largely due to their ability replicate real life conditions much better than animals can. For example, unlike rodents which process certain substances differently compared to humans , individuals possess unique genetic profiles so they may respond differently towards external influences like environmental pollutants or radiation exposure (Kumar & Mishra, 2017). Furthermore, many argue that replacing animal tests with alternative methods would not only be more humane but could also save resources while still providing reliable outcomes —something supported by a recent study indicating “in vitro approaches offer greater reliability than existing methods involving animals” (Buckley et al., 2018).
In conclusion then, despite disagreements over which approach has its merits , I believe it is essential for us all remain mindful about implications associated with any decision made regarding toxicity testing. Ultimately though, given our current state of technology along with ever increasing pressures placed upon practitioners in terms of obtaining accurate results at minimal costs balance between animal rights/human rights must become key factor when determining how best move forward whilst staying true fundamental principles guiding toxicology research today.