Does animal testing lead to safety in relation to emerging diseases?

This assignment discusses the question of whether animal testing leads to safety in relation to emerging diseases. It will start with a definition of the term ‘emerging disease’, and go on to explore the different ways in which animal testing can be used in relation to emerging diseases. It will then critically evaluate the claim that animal testing leads to safety in relation to emerging diseases, before concluding with a discussion of the implications of this for public health policy.

Emerging diseases are defined as those which are newly identified or are rapidly increasing in incidence or geographic range (World Health Organization, 2014). Animal testing can play a role in the identification of new pathogens, as well as in the development of vaccines and treatment options for emerging diseases. In some cases, animals may be deliberately infected with a pathogen in order to study its effects; this is known as ‘challenge studies’. Animal models can also be used to test the efficacy of potential treatments for emerging diseases.

There are some advantages to using animal models in research on emerging diseases. Animals can be infected with pathogens under controlled conditions, which allows for more reliable data to be collected than would be possible in human studies. Additionally, animals can be studied over a longer period of time than would be ethical with human subjects. However, there are also some significant limitations to using animal models in this context. Animals do not always respond to infection in the same way as humans, and so may not provide an accurate representation of how a disease affects humans. Additionally, the results of animal studies may not be generalizable to the human population.

The claim that animal testing leads to safety in relation to emerging diseases is a controversial one. Some argue that animal research is essential in order to develop effective treatments for emerging diseases. Others assert that animal research is unreliable and can actually lead to false-positive results, which could potentially lead to harmful treatments being developed for humans. There is no definitive answer to this question, and it is likely that the truth lies somewhere in between these two extremes. However, what is clear is that animal testing should only be used as part of a broader research strategy that includes other methods, such as in vitro models and computer simulations.

The implications of this debate for public health policy are significant. If animal testing is shown to be an unreliable method for researching emerging diseases, then this could lead to a reduction in the amount of money that is allocated to this area of research. This could in turn lead to delays in the development of effective treatments for these diseases, and could potentially put lives at risk. Conversely, if animal testing is shown to be a valuable tool for researching emerging diseases, then this could lead to an increase in funding for this area of research, which would ultimately benefit public health.