Research is an activity that results in different publications in the modern society. Even though the world is digital paving the way for more result, ascertaining the credibility of specific publications remains a challenge. Given that scientists will use the books to make an informed decision, it is imperative to have a proper understanding of the source information before making any conclusion. Currently, studies bank on animals’ reviews as well as studies focusing on current and former user of a given drug in informing knowledge about neurological aspects. Unfortunately, these studies present a lot of bias, prompting a deeper understanding of all factors around them.
Most researchers bank on the biomedical animal research in informing human research as well as practice. The central assumption in the instance being the fact that animals emerge as analogical models regarding human physiology as well as any drug-related response. Ideally, PB is prevalent in AR, an aspect that denotes the number of problems due to some factors (Conradi and Joffe 2017: 30). In the first instance, most of the evidence emanating from published AR is merely a biased representation depicting critical features of pre-clinical knowledge. Hence, using such information in informing human medicine is not only misleading but also dangerous and should be thwarted using the stronger terms and forces possible.
Another aspect being the moral permissibility of AR. The ability of the human benefits to outweigh the claim made by scientist becomes unacceptably weakened. It is worth noting that any animal harmed into consideration existing in various unpublished AR should not be closer in the contribution for biomedical knowledge. That is an instance that makes harming such animals unnecessary.
It is reasonable to make a justification on the biasness of animal studies due to three key aspects. First, there is the instance of generalizability (Conradi and Joffe 2017: 30). Human beings and animals significantly differ, and the assumption that their system is same ignores various significant differences. Another significant factor to consider is the ethical issues. Have you seen any animal agreeing to take part in any research? Withdrawing from any research? Or understanding their involvement in any procedure? That denotes merely the level of unfairness expressed while using animals for such particular research. Ultimately, there is lack of ecological validity since study takes place in the laboratory. Taking these animals out of the natural environments interferes with so many aspects thus affecting the reliability as well as the validity of the results.
Current or former users are not the best for an experiment since people depict different immune system. Specific systems can sustain a given amount of drugs making them vulnerable to addiction (Huang et al. 2011:80). Scientists still have a lot to do in promoting the validity as well as the reliability of their results. The disparities call thorough research with various test controls in effect. The conclusion should be based on a wide variety of findings and formulate a correlation.
It holds that with animals researchers can undertake many tests without suffering from withdrawals. Such is just a bulk of activities with limited information. The most important thing remains the authenticity of any given process. Using a specimen for research without the consent is wrong. Continued exploration is necessary using a better sample. The use of heavy drinkers, for instance, is not the best solution as well due to the varied immunity. The question that emerges at this point is the best way to conduct this research. Ideally, it is imperative to treat every element uniquely.
References
Conradi, U. and Joffe, A.R., 2017. Publication bias in animal research presented at the 2008 Society of Critical Care Medicine Conference. BMC research notes, 10(1), p.1- 262. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5501347/
Huang, R., Southall, N., Wang, Y., Yasgar, A., Shinn, P., Jadhav, A., Nguyen, D.T. and Austin, C.P., 2011. The NCGC pharmaceutical collection: a comprehensive resource of clinically approved drugs enabling repurposing and chemical genomics. Science translational medicine, 3(80), pp.80ps16-80ps16. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3098042/
