When people hear ‘animal testing,’ some picture harmless scenarios like applying makeup to our furry friends, while others associate it with riskier tests, such as injecting chemicals into animals. However, the reality of animal testing goes beyond these initial impressions.
Animal experimentation is a procedure performed on living animals to test the safety of consumer goods and to study product development. Many people in the media think animal testing allows scientists to learn more about humans, ensure the safety of treatments for illnesses and products. Although this might sound like it is benefiting us, it is ultimately causing us more harm than good. As a practice often viewed as essential for product safety and medical progress, animal experimentation is commonly misunderstood.
Animals used in experiments can experience psychological distress, including anxiety, depression, and behavioral abnormalities. This is caused by the stress of being confined to small cages, the lack of social interaction, and the fear and uncertainty associated with being used in experiments. Animals used for experiments are merely seen as test subjects, and many are ultimately euthanized either because the experiment is over or because they have become too sick or injured to continue. According to PETA, “Animals in laboratories are treated like disposable laboratory equipment, rather than the thinking, feeling beings they are. Every year, more than 100 million animals are tormented and killed in U.S. laboratories for chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics testing; for medical training; for biology lessons; and for curiosity-driven research.” The emotional and physical pain experienced by laboratory animals, as described by PETA, points out the ethical problem that comes from their use.
It is clear that scientific research has often fallen short in terms of minimizing pain and suffering in animals. This is primarily because scientists are not legally obligated to do so. Animals subjected to experimentation continue to endure excruciating pain, as there is currently no comprehensive U.S. legislation explicitly prohibiting them from being used in experiments. Although there is the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), it has many flaws, and animal advocates believe it is not as effective as it should be. The AWA grants experimenters the authority to carry out procedures that involve burning, starvation, decapitation, and other forms of harm to animals.
So, can we get a good result from two different anatomies? Not at all. In one experiment, after receiving a drug injection, human volunteers all experienced a severe, fatal reaction that resulted in organ failure. However, mice, rabbits, and rats who received the same drug by injection showed no negative side effects. Such unreliable research and testing does not result in a human cure or treatment.
Humans and animals differ too much from one another for results to be consistent, reliable, and dependable. Animals absorb, metabolize, and eliminate substances differently than humans do; therefore, animals would react differently to drugs than humans do. Aspirin kills cats and causes birth defects in rats, mice, guinea pigs, dogs, and monkeys. But it simultaneously helps us relieve pain and reduce the risk of serious problems like heart attacks and strokes. This situation is also similar to our perception of chocolate. We see chocolate as a delightful treat, whereas for dogs, consuming chocolate can be life-threatening.
Reactions to the exposure of these products vary among species, making it difficult to extract data from animal tests and apply them to situations in which humans are exposed. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 92% of drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animals fail in human trials. To ensure safer and more successful medicines for humans in the future, alternative techniques should be required.
As many say, up to an extent, it is necessary to experiment on animals for humanity. A Bronx Science student (who wishes to stay anonymous) has stated, “Taking a scientific approach, it is absolutely necessary. For centuries, humans have used rats and various smaller animals to test out chemical, physiological, and psychological effects that can happen to humans. Sure it is unethical, but without animal testing, these ‘research’ and ‘tests’ will be done on humans instead, which is much more unethical.” The argument that animal testing is an unavoidable necessity for scientific research and expansion must be critically examined. While historically it has been used to assess chemical, physiological, and psychological effects to protect humans, it is essential to address the ethical concerns it raises. The assertion that it is unethical but necessary does not sufficiently resolve the moral dilemma at its core.
Moreover, the assumption that animal testing is the sole reliable method for assessing the effects of substances on humans is increasingly discredited. The suggestion that without animal testing, human experimentation would be the only option is invalid, as there are safer and more effective options. While it is widely acknowledged that conducting tests on humans is ethically problematic, it’s important to note some willingly volunteer for such testing. This approach offers significant advantages in terms of cost-efficiency, time, and accuracy, making it a promising avenue for scientific research and experimentation.
As we delve into the realm of animal welfare and the pursuit of alternatives to animal testing, it is essential to acknowledge the personal perspectives that drive our dedication to this cause. One such perspective is captured by an advocate in AAVS, Nicole Green. Nicole Green is committed to promoting awareness and humane education. She said, “As a person who cares about animals, I feel that animals deserve to live their lives as the unique individuals they are, free from pain and exploitation. This is why I dedicate my life to educating the public on this very important issue.” This heartfelt sentiment shows the profound commitment many individuals share in their tireless efforts to champion the rights and well-being of animals.
Alternatives to animal testing are increasingly being explored and adopted as more ethical, efficient, and scientifically robust methods to assess the safety and efficacy of products and substances. Yet bigger corporations do not want to use animals because there are no better options as animal experimentation is the “gold standard.”
One key approach is in vitro testing, which uses human cell cultures and tissue models to mimic biological processes, offering a more accurate representation of human responses. Advanced computer modeling and simulation techniques, known as in silico methods, enable the prediction of toxicological outcomes and drug interactions without actual animal experimentation. Microdosing, in which minimal amounts of a substance are administered to humans to study its effects, is gaining popularity for its potential to replace animal testing in pharmaceutical research. Organ-on-a-chip technology allows the creation of micro-scale systems that replicate the functions of entire organs, providing a platform for testing drug responses and toxicity.
Collectively, these alternatives not only reduce ethical concerns surrounding animal testing but also offer more precise and human-relevant results, ultimately improving the safety and effectiveness of products and medicines.
The practice of animal testing, often misunderstood and surrounded by ethical dilemmas, raises critical questions about its necessity and implications. In fact, it’s worth noting that current limited legal protections leave countless creatures vulnerable to unending pain, distress, and suffering. Animal testing laws contain such large loopholes that experimenters can get away with just about anything. As advocates for both human and animal welfare, shouldn’t we collectively seek a more compassionate and scientifically stronger path forward?
“As a person who cares about animals, I feel that animals deserve to live their lives as the unique individuals they are, free from pain and exploitation. This is why I dedicate my life to educating the public on this very important issue,” said Nicole Green, an advocate in AAVS.