Right: surgeons have been using animals for research and training for as long as there have been surgeons. In both the 20th century's world wars, animals were deliberately shot to allow army surgeons to practice trauma surgery.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Background information
(The information given below has been abbreviated from a Wikipedia entry titled 'Animal testing'. The full entry can be accessed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing)
Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, and in vivo testing, is the use of non-human animals in experiments. Worldwide it is estimated that the number of vertebrate animals-from zebrafish to non-human primates-ranges from the tens of millions to more than 100 million used annually. Most animals are euthanised after being used in an experiment. Sources of laboratory animals vary between countries and species; most animals are purpose-bred, while others are caught in the wild or supplied by dealers who obtain them from auctions and pounds.
The research is conducted inside universities, medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, farms, defence establishments, and commercial facilities that provide animal-testing services to industry. It includes pure research such as genetics, developmental biology, behavioural studies, as well as applied research such as biomedical research, xenotransplantation, drug testing and toxicology tests, including cosmetics testing. Animals are also used for education, breeding, and defence research. The practice is regulated to various degrees in different countries.
Education
It is estimated that 20 million animals are used annually for educational purposes in the United States including, classroom observational exercises, dissections and live-animal surgeries. Frogs, fetal pigs, perch, cats, earthworms, grasshoppers, crayfish and starfish are commonly used in classroom dissections. Alternatives to the use of animals in classroom dissections are widely used, with many U.S. States and school districts mandating students be offered the choice to not dissect. Citing the wide availability of alternatives and the decimation of local frog species, India banned dissections in 2014.
Supporters of the use of animals in experiments and surgical training, such as the British Royal Society, argue that virtually every medical achievement in the 20th century relied on the use of animals in some way, with the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research of the United States National Academy of Sciences arguing that even sophisticated computers are unable to model interactions between molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, and the environment, making animal research necessary in many areas. It is similarly argued that no currently available mannequins or virtual devices adequately recreate all the features of operating on a living mammal.
Animal rights, and some animal welfare, organisations-such as PETA and BUAV-question the legitimacy of using animals for research and surgical skills training, arguing that it is cruel, poor scientific practice, poorly regulated, that medical progress is being held back by misleading animal models, that some of the tests are outdated, that it cannot reliably predict effects in humans, that the costs outweigh the benefits, or that animals have an intrinsic right not to be used for experimentation or surgical training.
Current developments in Australia regarding animal testing, research and surgical skills training
(This information has been taken from Humane Research Australia site. The information can be accessed at http://www.humaneresearch.org.au/campaigns/choosingcrueltyfree)
February 2016 - The Australian Labor Party introduced legislation to ban cosmetics animal testing in Australia and the import and manufacture of newly animal-tested cosmetic products and their ingredients.
January 2016 - Seven of Australia's leading animal protection organisations - Humane Society International, Humane Research Australia, Animals Australia, World Animal Protection, International Fund for Animal Welfare, Voiceless the animal protection institute, and Choose Cruelty Free - wrote an urgent open letter to the Minister for Rural Health, Senator Fiona Nash, urging the government to bring forward meaningful legislation to ban animal testing of cosmetics and the sale of cosmetics newly animal tested abroad. Read more here.
September 2015 - A motion in support of ending cruel animal testing for cosmetics was moved in the House of Representatives by Government MP Jason Wood. The cross-party motion was seconded by Liberal MP Steve Irons, with the support of Labor MPs Kelvin Thompson and Melissa Parke, and Greens MP Adam Bandt.
November 2014 - A cross-party Senate motion was passed in support of ending animal testing for cosmetics. The motion was co-sponsored by Liberal Senator Anne Ruston, Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon, Labor Senator Lisa Singh, Nationals Senator Barry O'Sullivan, Independent Senator Glenn Lazarus, Palmer United Party Senator Zhenya Wang, Independent Senator Nick Xenophon, and Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party Senator Ricky Muir. Read more here.
September 2014 - Be Cruelty-Free Australia made a detailed submission to the Australian Labor Party's Cosmetics and Animal Testing Policy Consultation, calling for a ban on the importation, manufacture, and sale of cosmetic products and ingredients tested on animals. The consultation received over 13,000 submissions, 92% of which supported a ban on cruel cosmetics. Labor is now in the process of developing policy options in response to this evidence of overwhelming support.
March 2014 - Be Cruelty-Free Australia worked with the Australian Greens Party to help launch the End Cruel Cosmetics Bill. The Bill 2014 was introduced into the Senate on March 18th 2014. This legislation would amend the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989 (the ICNA Act) to prohibit developing, manufacturing, selling, advertising or importing into Australia cosmetics, or ingredients for cosmetics, which have been tested on live animals after the commencement of Schedule 1 to the Bill.
This progress towards prohibiting cosmetics animal testing in Australia reflects both the global trend to end cosmetics animal testing and the will of the majority of Australians who oppose using animals for the development of cosmetics.