Category: Animal Testing

Studies in the beauty industry have shown that the over 170,000 vulnerable rabbits have experienced pain in laboratories around the U.S. annually (Nava-Martinez 53). Animal testing in the cosmetic industry consists of chemicals intentionally being seeped in numerous places of an animal’s body to monitor any damage to the body that may occur (Doyle). An initial thought of animal testing in the cosmetic industry is that the companies are required to utilize animals as subjects in testing their products, but the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not demand cosmetic companies to have their products be tested on animals first (Seeker 01:40-01:46). Instead, the cosmetic company itself chooses the method they believe is the most beneficial that results in inaccurate information. The controversy of cosmetic animal testing continues to stand because sacrificing animal lives remains to be seen around the world even when other strategies are accessible. Understanding that there are technically sound and effective non-animal testing methods present today initiates a struggle in grasping the concept that cosmetic companies continue to utilize animal testing in assuring that their products are safe for human use. Specific alternatives like in-silico and in-vitro methods are considered to be the most widely validated and precise strategies when testing a cosmetic product’s efficiency. Effective in-vitro studies include the Bovine Corneal Opacity test and the reconstructed human epidermis (RhE). On the other hand, dependable in-silico alternatives include the Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) models and The read-across method. Thus, animal testing within the cosmetic industry in the United States should be diminished because there are effective alternative testing methods. To see a decrease in testing cosmetic products on animals, consumers need to become more consciously aware of what they buy.

When cosmetic products are tested, there are a lot of factors that need to be deliberated, yet in-silico and in-vitro methods are intricately developed to assess all of those necessary aspects of a cosmetic product more efficiently than the trusted animal testing methods. The two main factors that are assessed on a cosmetic product are the toxicity and the proper application route of the cosmetic product (Luco et al 452). The determination of a cosmetic product being toxic is significant when attempting to figure out the ‘application methods (ingestion, inhalation, or topical application to the skin or mucous membrane), amount and frequency of use of these cosmetics, and the amount of a particular ingredient used in the manufacture of different products’ (Luco et al 452). Non-animal testing alternatives that are considered to be in-vitro and in-silico are advanced in identifying the toxicity level of a substance, which is why the dependability of alternative methods has the potential to increase because toxicity is significant in assuring the successfulness of a cosmetic product. In-vitro testing methods use ‘whole cells, part of cells or reconstructed tissues’ (Luco et al 452) to perform the required tests that accurately assert the safety of a cosmetic product. On the other hand, in silico testing methods have the same goal of developing strategies that generate accurate results, but in-silico methods refer to models that are constructed to precisely analyze a chemical’s functions and potential severity the substance may cause (Gellatly and Sewell). Both of the most trustworthy alternatives that are in-silico and in-vitro methods contain techniques that generate the needed results for the assessment of a particular cosmetic product, which means that cosmetic animal testing will sooner than later no longer be in effect.

An example of an in-vitro method that has full potential in replacing an original eye irritancy test known as the Draize eye test is called the Bovine Corneal Opacity Test (BCOP). The Draize eye cosmetic animal testing method continues to raise moral concerns to people around the world due to the past studies that involved harm to rabbits, which were the most frequently used animal in an eye irritancy test (Luco et al 451). Determining a cosmetic product’s probability of irritating the eye “is essential for the safety of individuals in contact with an increasing number of cosmetics and cosmetic ingredients’ (Luco et al. 451). Therefore, the need for a technique that determines if the cosmetic product is harmful to the human eye is an essential method in the industry, but the alternatives like the BCOP that does not cause pain to living animals is an essential method that experts have the chance to incorporate within the laboratories. The BCOP alternative is known for using corneas of cattle to measure the toxicity of chemicals, opaqueness, and absorbency the eye may experience when applying a particular substance (OECD No. 437). To reflect how irritable the chemical has shown to be, the BCOP test provides an “In-Vitro Irritancy Score” (Luco et al. 451), which is a beneficial feature to have in the assessment of a product. The strategy has undergone validation that claims the strategy ‘..can correctly identify chemicals (both substances and mixtures) inducing serious eye damage..’ (OECD No. 437). If a damageable chemical can harm a human eye, then a non-animal testing method like the BCOP is essential in assessing the safeness of a cosmetic product. The BCOP is highly developed that the ‘validation database contained 113 substances and 100 mixtures in total’ (OECD No. 437). The assurance that statistics continue to show places the dependability of an alternative like the BCOP test on a new level, which could change the cosmetic industry’s future for the better. The Draize eye test has been claimed to show a possible reaction of a human from a cosmetic product that could damage a human eye, which is why the test continues to be exploited to this day. However, if past studies have shown that the subjects of the Draize eye irritancy test caused severe pain on the rabbit and there are developed non-animal testing methods that result in inaccuracy that could potentially be just as precise, then those alternatives like the BCOP can be the full replacement.

Numerous in-vitro skin models have been developed and approved. The most commonly used models are described as a ‘reconstructed human epidermis (RhE), a three-dimensional epidermal model cultured from human keratinocytes’ (Luco et al. 452). The artificial human skin is dependable because the in-vitro method has been evaluated on the efficiency and accuracy of the predictions the technique produces. In fact, “the emphasis on developing in vitro skin models to replace the in vivo equivalents has been increased further by the Seventh Amendment of the Cosmetic Directive” (Hewitt et al.). The remodeled human skin involves applying the chemical of a cosmetic product onto the epidermis to closely observe any sort of destruction the chemical may cause (Luco et al. 453). In the past, animal testing for skin irritation of a cosmetic product has said to produce exact results that reflect the human’s skin reaction of a harmful chemical. However, the ‘human skin models represent an opportunity to use more predictive and relevant (human-specific), as well as ethically acceptable, assays for human exposure and risk assessment”. (Hewitt et al.). An alternative that identically is constructed to mimic the human skin without involving the chance to continue pain on a live animal is the main asset to the reassembled human skin model. In fact, “the notorious Draize skin irritation test in rabbits can only predict human skin reactions 60% of the time. But using reconstituted human skin is up to 86% accurate” (“Alternatives to animal testing”). Even though that accuracy percentage is not at 100% yet, the comparison shows the firm believers in animal testing that those strategies should not be trusted as much as expected. A popular cosmetic company, L’Oréal, participates in reducing the usage of live animals that continue to be seen as subjects in the cosmetic industry, so the cosmetic company spends a lot of time and money on developing dependable RhE models. In past years, L’Oréal “invested more than $900 million in research and innovation” of reconstructed human skin tissue. (Woods). The numerous scientists that are a part of the L’Oréal team in evaluating substances “grows more than 100,000 human skin tissue samples annually” (Woods). The studies that L’Oréal continues to undergo without involving live animals is significant in understanding that the in-vitro RhE methods are strategies that can diminish the number of animals that experience pain in the effort of developing successful cosmetic products, which is possible since L’Oréal continues to be one of the most popular cosmetic brands worldwide.

The Quantitative Structure-Activity Relation (Q)SARs are technically efficient in-silico models that have been developed to prove that computer-based strategies are capable of foretelling the proficiency of a cosmetic product along with determining a product’s toxicity (Gellatly and Sewell). Initially, first thoughts about technology-based alternatives have predicted to be complex in experimentation. However, an alternative like the (Q)SAR models is simpler than expected, which is why this technological system is ‘the most frequently referred to in-silico approach in regulatory toxicology frameworks’ (Gellatly and Sewell). While considering the simplicity of (Q)SAR models, that does not mean that the results the studies produce are imprecise. The (Q)SAR techniques have been manufactured to generate distinct calculations in a substance that is evaluated through an advanced model (Gellatly and Sewell). For example, after the evaluation of a chemical, the results may describe that the substance is a mutagen, which means that the chemical could destruct the configuration of a human’s gene (Gellatly and Sewell). To have results that reflect information like this is beneficial in maintaining a stabilized health of a human when using a cosmetic product, but the identification of a mutagen is a result that animal testing methods do not show. The way (Q)SAR models generate results like this is from investigating the details of the target chemical’s structure (Gellatly and Sewell). Therefore, models like (Q)SARs do not require much data information to be established before the actual evaluation occurs (Gellatly and Sewell). Instead, the only information that needs to be known before the study is the proper makeup the chemical structure should possess (Gellatly and Sewell). In-silico alternatives like (Q)SAR methods have become essential in determining the toxicity of a product, so claims have been made that this model ‘should be applied, whenever possible, to derive estimates on toxicity before any experimental testing is considered’ (Gellatly and Sewell). Because the toxicity determination of the chemicals that make up a cosmetic product is the most essential aspect in the assessment of a cosmetic product’s safety, in-silico models like the (Q)SAR models would become a successful technique in the cosmetic industry, which demonstrates that the decline in cosmetic animal testing should take in effect.

Another example of an in-silico alternative is known as the “Read-across” method, which is a process that is significantly used in Europe when wanting to address the “needs for hazard and risk assessment” of cosmetic products (Patlewicz et al.). Because this is a popular non-animal testing method used in another country, realizing the popular alternatives around the world shows the United States that an in-silico alternative is an unfailing method in retrieving safety predictions on a cosmetic product, which is why in-silico methods (along with in-vitro) should be taken into major consideration in taking the responsibility of assuring the safeness of a cosmetic product. The ‘Read-across’ alternative is when the ‘toxicological effects for one chemical are predicted using toxicological data from another chemical that is considered similar in terms of chemical structure, physicochemical properties or bioactivity’ (Patlewicz et al.). This grouping of chemicals technique is not only beneficial in assessing the possible toxicity of a chemical, but the test requires that not all chemicals need to be evaluated (Schultz et al.). The pairing of the substances allows the study to identify the safeness of the unknown targeted chemical in a product only (Schultz et al.). After numerous studies that utilize comparisons of a product’s substance to similar chemicals, the data gets recorded into the database of the read-across tool. For example, the data within the tool “comprises over 86,000 analogues pre-indexed with publicly experimental data and links to data sources” (Patlewicz et al). Fragrances are a popular cosmetic product that has undergone the ‘read-across’ method that consisted of identifying the hazardous effects a chemical within the perfume may have. For example, ‘of the 24 published fragrance ingredients’ safety assessments, 20 of them (over 80%) used read-across to address/waive at least one endpoint’ (Ball et al.). The informational content of an advanced in-silico approach like the read-across model that is utilized in some parts of the cosmetic industry implies the advancements technology has overcome in our world, which gives reasons to why computer-based strategies are becoming more popular. As improvements continue to be made in technological studies like the read-across method, in-silico models are “increasingly gaining importance for the assessment of cosmetic substances” (Laroche et al.), which is enough reasoning to trust in-silico methods within the cosmetic industry.

Unfortunately, with practically new and developing alternatives that are considered to be in-silico or in-vitro comes uncertainty in the evaluations of cosmetic products not resulting in enough information to guarantee that a human’s health will remain stable after applying the desired product. For example, there is still not an available in-vitro testing method that can fully predict the human reaction after inhaling a cosmetic product (Seeker 02:20-02:25). That could be an understandable reason why some cosmetic companies do not fully trust the alternatives because that shows that the existing alternatives are not developed enough, which means that they are not fully trusted. Furthermore, the in-silico models have been identified as ‘not a magic wand and it is easy for inexperienced users to come up with inappropriate results’ (‘In-silico Testing’). Uncertainty in such alternatives is understandable, but consumers and cosmetic companies should be aware that alternatives require a lot of work to perfect, which is why continue improvements are aimed to be made daily. While the in-silico and in-vitro methods are not entirely developed and mastered, “they can technically be used to prioritize chemicals for further assessment” (Gellatly and Sewell). Therefore, the adjustments that continue to be made on alternatives are in need, but the positives that come along with non-animal testing methods could be used more often in cosmetic laboratories to develop products with the appropriate chemicals. Incorporating non-animal testing methods in the cosmetic industry as much as possible will limit the amount of harm done on animal subjects. Popular cosmetic brands like Lush Cosmetics is a successful company that provides high-quality products to their consumers while utilizing non-animal testing methods in examining their developed products. Moreover, ‘these alternatives are often more reliable than what many view as outdated animal tests, and are quicker, cheaper, and more practical’ (‘Animal Testing: What’s the Alternative?’). Even though certain enhancements need to be achieved, Lush has guaranteed that the alternatives are a lot more predictable than you think. The global director of Lush, Karl Bygrave, says that the existing alternatives ‘are so much better than animal testing’ (Bygrave and Chow 01:34-01:46). Reassurance mentioned from an expert that remains successful in the cosmetic industry could push other cosmetic companies to do the same because perfecting the non-animal testing alternatives will take time, but there are foretelling results proving that the utilization of non-animal testing alternatives should be taken into effect everywhere.

Due to successful companies standing by the alternatives and the validation of non-animal testing methods assuring a product’s efficiency, evidence continues to be gathered that builds the level of reliability of the existing alternatives. The in-vitro and in-silico alternatives are approaches that can prevent the inhumane animal testing methods from occurring all across the world. Although these alternatives have not been perfected and there is plenty of work to do that will make them efficient enough to completely assess the safety of a cosmetic product, consumers need to be aware of the brands that are cruelty-free and support them. Especially since the alternatives still need to be worked through, taking steps in avoiding cosmetic products that perform animal testing is important in diminishing animal testing within the cosmetic industry completely. To name some drugstore makeup brands that do not use animal testing methods to include ‘e.l.f. Cosmetics, Wet ‘n’ Wild, NYX Cosmetics, Burt’s Bees’ (Doyle). Other non-makeup brands that are identified as cruelty-free is “Covergirl”, which is a known brand to develop excellent body products (Doyle). Allowing the non-cruelty-free companies to realize that it is time to leave behind animal testing methods and turn to more consistent non-animal testing methods is essential at the beginning of a process that will keep innocent animals from being harmed in laboratories around the world.

Should animals still be used for research purposes?

University of California, Davis, a primate research laboratory is one of the largest in the US with around 4,200 primates the majority being rhesus macaques. The primates in the laboratory are used for researching diseases such as HIV/AIDS, zika virus, Alzheimer’s, respiratory disease, and reproductive health. Recently 8 young baby macaques have died after being exposed to toxic dyes. This was a result of them being exposed to dyes which was used to mark their mothers which later transferred to the babies and proved toxic and fatal. The seven baby macaques were a few weeks old and one was just a day old. Academic and former primate researcher John Gluck had this to say about the incident, “seven infant rhesus monkeys ranging in age from one to 19 days of age were forcibly removed from their mothers, had a physical exam, were tattooed, had blood drawn, were marked with a dye with irritant capacity, and then placed back on their anesthetized and unresponsive mothers”. This also wasn’t the first time that primates at the laboratory have died back in 2005 seven monkeys died from heat exposure and the university was fined $4,815 by the US Department of Agriculture (Milman, 2019).

Background

The infant macaques were found with dyes around their tongues, lips, fur, and skin which suggests that the dye triggered an allergic reaction that led to their deaths. Two of the infants were suffering from respiratory weakness and severe edema including the larynx and tongue before dying. UC Davis was also previously investigated for mistreatment of primates in their research labs in March 2016 two primates were involved in accidents after escaping resulting in one of the primates suffering from two fractured legs. As a result of this and the previously mentioned primate deaths from heat exposure, UC Davis has been a focal point of animal activist groups. Recently one such group has sued the university to force the university to release footage of the primates they are using for research (Asimov, 2019). According to PETA, infant monkeys were separated from their mothers, isolated, and then placed under stressful conditions (Asimov, 2019). The US government has since 2015 cut funding for biomedical research on chimpanzees but statistics in 2016 show that 71,188 non-human primates were still being used for research in the US and the total number of animals being used was 820,812 which was a rise of 7% from 2015 (Speaking of Research, 2018).

Laws surrounding animal research

The Animal Welfare Act of 1966 in America regulates the treatment of animals in research and exhibition. If any animal dealer were to violate this law they could face imprisonment, a $1,000 fine, and have their license suspended. However, this law is flawed in a huge way as it does not cover all animals. The list of animals it does cover are “live or dead cat, dog, hamster, rabbit, nonhuman primate, guinea pig and any other warm-blooded animal determined by the Secretary of Agriculture for research, pet use or exhibition.” (Wikipedia Contributors, 2019a). This means that rats and mice are some of the few animals excluded but estimates show that rats and mice make up 90% of the animals used in research (Rollin, 2006). Rollin (2006) states that the animals covered by this law are the ones that “aesthetically appeal” to people and that a USDA inspector told him that it is much easier to bring charges against a dead dog abuser than a researcher who is abusing mice. Ethically there is no justice here. Mice and rats are being excluded from the law because most people have cats and dogs that they find cute.

The UK has Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, 1986 (ASPA). This act regulates experiments on all vertebrates that could cause them pain and suffering. It is agreed that the UK has the strictest animal testing laws in the world and is the only country that requires cost/benefit assessment before animals can be used (Wikipedia Contributors, 2019b). This is ethical as cost refers to the cost on the animal such as will this animal suffer? Will the results gained from this research be worth the mental and physical suffering of this animal?

Who will be affected?

Anti-Vivisection organizations that campaign against animal testing in any capacity such as The New England Anti-Vivisection Society are calling for UC Davis to be fined $70,000 by the USDA as stated in the article (Milman, 2019). An argument could be made that this fine is negligible for UC Davis as it had an endowment of $1.4 billion in 2018 and a 2017-18 budget of $4.9 billion (Wikipedia Contributors, 2019).

Statistics from 2014 show that in just the EU alone there were 12,808,506 procedures involving 11,481,521 animals and 8,898 of those animals were non-human primates. Should animal testing in any capacity be banned, all those millions of animals in just the EU would have to be relocated. This would create huge pressure on sanctuaries as they wouldn’t be able to cope with the influx of animals that need taking care of.

As mentioned one of the disease UC Davis use primates to research is Alzheimer’s. This is a disease that causes progressive neurodegeneration and cumulates to global brain deterioration. It is also the most common neurodegenerative disease in the world and affects 5% of the population over the age of 65 (Capitanio and Emborg, 2008). Primates are good models for researching Alzheimer’s because they also have a very developed cerebral cortex which is where higher cognitive functions take place which means their cognitive abilities are lower but similar to humans (Hill and Walsh, 2005). The millions of people around the world suffering from these types of diseases would be negatively impacted as years of research and progress would be halted. For example, mouse models are very useful in researching neurodegenerative diseases because mutated genes in the human brain can be modeled on genetically modified mice (Jucker, 2010).

Researchers at universities would also be negatively impacted if animal testing was declared illegal especially if they have dedicated their whole careers to working with animals. Any ongoing projects involved would have to be stopped resulting in time and money that was spent on it being wasted which could also make receiving funding in the future more difficult.

Ethical considerations

Ethical principles are as follows; is it right or wrong, what are the consequences if an action is carried out, ethical egoism is the theory that moral agents should do what benefits themselves the most, utilitarianism is the opposite and is doing what benefits society itself. Biomedical ethical principles are; non-maleficence which means avoiding causing harm, beneficence which means acting in the best interest of others, autonomy which means allowing someone to make their own decisions and justice which involves treating and acting fairly and equally in all cases, and not passing judgment on others which could result in unfair treatment. Badyal and Desai (2014) underlined three questions you need to consider before using animals for testing. “Is the animal the best experimental system for the hypothesis to be tested?”, “Is the problem under review worth solving?” and Can pain and discomfort be minimized for the animal?”.

In the context of this article, the consequences were not considered as it states that UC Davis marks primates with dyes to identify them and that as a result of the deaths of the babies they have changed the procedure so that they don’t mark any monkeys younger than six months old with dye (Milman, 2019). This means that before the incident they hadn’t considered if the dyes would be toxic to infants instead assumed they would react normally to it like the adults. Non-maleficence was broken as seven infant macaques were poisoned and later died. An argument for utilitarianism and beneficence could be made as the monkeys in the lab were being used for research on diseases that are deadly for humans and the results gathered would be beneficial for society at large, but the deaths of the infants did not result from direct experimentation, instead, it was from the transfer of dyes that were used to mark their mothers. This means that these deaths would have been avoidable had they used an alternative method of marking monkeys such as microchips for example instead of toxic dyes. However, as aforementioned the infants weren’t treated ethically and were physically abused by being tattooed and having their blood drawn, and mentally as they were removed from their mothers by force and then reunited with them while they were under medication and unresponsive. Infants being removed by force from their mothers revokes their autonomy.

An argument for animal testing would be a religious one as some believe that god has made man superior to animals so they can do as they please. This is an example of deontological ethics. They base their actions on a series of rules instead of possible consequences of those actions for example divine command. Non-religious individuals could also make this argument as they could believe animals aren’t as intelligent as humans or as developed. But how do we define how intelligent someone or something is? Is intelligence based on whether you can solve a math equation or if you can speak 10 different languages? For example, it was found that rhesus macaques can process information about probability to predict likely future events (De Petrillo and Rosati, 2019). Chimpanzees in the wild have also been observed using tools to gather food from termite nests and bee hives (SANZ and MORGAN, 2007). Sanz and Morgan (2007) state that they observed twenty-two different types of tools and that half were habitually used. This shows that they have the intelligence to find a tool for a specific purpose and reuse it.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I think animals should be used for research but there needs to be stricter laws and regulations to keep animal suffering to a minimum. I think animals such as the great apes should not be tested as they are just too similar to humans. Lots of research can be carried out using genetically modified rats and mice. There are a lot of benefits to be gained from animal testing in the future and potential diseases which are death sentences now could one day be cured on a mouse or monkey in a lab. However just like the UK law states I believe cost/benefits assessments should be carried out globally before any animal is used for research purposes. I am totally against using animals for researching cosmetics.

Reference list

1. Asimov, N. (2019). Animal rights group sues UC Davis, demanding videos of alleged abuse of monkeys. [online] SFChronicle.com. Available at: https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Animal-rights-group-sues-UC-Davis-demanding-13559986.php [Accessed 5 Dec. 2019].
2. Badyal, D. and Desai, C. (2014). Animal use in pharmacology education and research: The changing scenario. Indian Journal of Pharmacology, [online] 46(3), p.257. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4071700/.
3. Capitanio, J.P. and Emborg, M.E. (2008). Contributions of non-human primates to neuroscience research. The Lancet, 371(9618), pp.1126–1135.
4. De Petrillo, F. and Rosati, A.G. (2019). Rhesus macaques use probabilities to predict future events. Evolution and Human Behavior, 40(5), pp.436–446.
5. Hill, R.S. and Walsh, C.A. (2005). Molecular insights into human brain evolution. Nature, 437(7055), pp.64–67.
6. Jucker, M. (2010). The benefits and limitations of animal models for translational research in neurodegenerative diseases. Nature Medicine, 16(11), pp.1210–1214.
7. Milman, O. (2019). Seven baby monkeys died from poisoning at a US research center. [online] The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jun/16/baby-monkeys-poisoned-us-research-center-university-of-california [Accessed 3 Dec. 2019].
8. Rollin, B.E. (2006). The Regulation of Animal Research and the Emergence of Animal Ethics: A Conceptual History. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 27(4), pp.285–304.
9. SANZ, C. and MORGAN, D. (2007). Chimpanzee tool technology in the Goualougo Triangle, Republic of Congo. Journal of Human Evolution, 52(4), pp.420–433.
10. Speaking of Research. (2017). Animal Research Regulations in the UK. [online] Available at: https://speakingofresearch.com/facts/animal-research-regulations-in-the-uk/.
11. Speaking of Research. (2018). US Statistics. [online] Available at: https://speakingofresearch.com/facts/statistics/.
12. Taylor, K. (2016). EU statistics on animal experiments for 2014. ALTEX, [online] 33(4), pp.465–468. Available at: https://www.altex.org/index.php/altex/article/view/145 [Accessed 4 Dec. 2019].
13. Understanding Animal Research. (2019). Numbers of animals | Understanding Animal Research | Understanding Animal Research. [online] Available at: http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/animals/numbers-animals/.
14. Wikipedia Contributors (2019a). Animal Welfare Act of 1966. [online] Wikipedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Welfare_Act_of_1966.
15. Wikipedia Contributors (2019b). Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [online] Wikipedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animals_(Scientific_Procedures)_Act_1986 [Accessed 6 Dec. 2019].
16. Wikipedia Contributors (2019c). University of California, Davis. [online] Wikipedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Davis [Accessed 4 Dec. 2019].

I am going to start off by asking you guys to answer a quick poll, and I want you to lift your hand up for the statement with which you most agree. I am for animal testing. (pause) I am against animal testing. (pause) Thank you. Now that I know how you feel about this quite controversial topic I understand that not all of you will agree with me when I say we need animal testing. But before you get your panties in a bunch, let me clarify. Animal testing for selfish purposes such as the development of cosmetic products is cruel and inhumane, but animal testing for medical purposes is a necessary evil. Without it, some of us might not have been here today.

Animal testing has led to the discovery of many essential medical procedures and pharmaceutical drugs that are considered commonplace these days. Like every single type of anesthesia. Have any of you ever been to the dentist to get a filling or maybe even get a tooth pulled? Now imagine what it would feel like to get your wisdom teeth removed while completely lucid and extra sensitive. Without animal testing that would be our terrifying reality. Another example of a revolutionary medical process whose discovery involved animal testing is heart transplantation, a surgical procedure in which a damaged or non-functional heart is replaced by a healthy one from a human donor. This surgery involves connecting blood vessels to the heart, a method developed using experimentation on dogs.

This might make you sad but the statistics are even sadder. According to the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, in 2016 coronary heart disease was already the second leading cause of death in Canada, and its only remedy is heart transplantation. The amount of dogs that might have suffered along the way is greatly trumped by the amount of lives saved by this procedure. Thanks to animal testing we’ve been able to make so many medical advancements – vaccines, treatment for Parkinson’s, treatment for diabetes, the cure for rabies, treatments for multiple types of cancer, blood transfusions. You get the point. The California Biomedical Research Association said it best: ‘For more than 100 years, potentially every important medical advancement in human and animal health is a direct result of animal research. The use of animals in research is essential to the development of new and more effective methods to diagnose and treat diseases that affect both humans and animals. ‘

Now, I know some of you dislike animal testing because you believe it to be animal cruelty. But shocker, animal testing is not synonymous with animal cruelty. A fact you might not know is that the animals used are protected by several standards to ensure the ethical use of animals in science. The experimental centers in which they are held are clean and well maintained and possess ethics committees, including veterinarians, and members who are not affiliated to the organization and therefore are without bias. To top it all off, laboratories may be subject to unannounced inspections to ensure that the requirements previously have been met. In Canada, the CCAC (Canadian Council on Animal Care) ensures that laboratories use animals only when necessary and that the animals in question receive the highest quality of life possible, in accordance with rigorous standards and based on scientific data. The CCAC follows the Three Rs concept: replacement, reduction, and refinement. Replacement as in avoiding or replacing the use of animals, reduction as in decreasing in the number of animals used, and refinement as in modifications made to experimental procedures to reduce pain and distress in animals.

Is it okay to test cures on animals?

Have you ever stopped to inspect how the products you are using are made? It is possible that in the process of their development live animals, such as guinea pigs, rabbits, dogs, and mice, were tested. While animal experimentation has been a key element in biomedical research, it has also been used in numerous other cases. According to Moxley, many companies conduct animal testing on cosmetics, personal care, and household products to satisfy safety requirements (26). The practice is the topic of heated debates across the centuries as it brings up the issues of morality and necessity. The question of whether or not animal testing is ethical remains unanswered.

To fully understand the practice of animal testing one must know its background. It began in ancient Greece, where scientists, such as Aristotle, (384 – 322 BC) performed vivisections to advance the understanding of anatomy, as dissection of humans was a taboo and animals were thought to be a lesser form of life. Across the years animal rights movements became widely acknowledged and animal testing started to be frowned upon. Since antiquity, humanity evolved and alternatives to this practice are being developed. Until then, certain laws have been passed to humanize experimenting on animals. But is it enough?

The most common argument in favor of animal testing is that throughout the years it has helped scientists and researchers to find new drugs and treatments. Some say it is the only way to ensure drugs and cosmetics are safe for human use. The contributions of animal research to medical science and human health are undeniable (Ringach 312), as proved by the Foundation for Biomedical Research – animal testing is behind most of today’s prescription drugs for asthma, high blood pressure, diabetes, or even schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (“Animals Behind Top Drugs”). We cannot overlook the great impact it has on biomedical research, but nowadays scientists point to the subtle differences between animals and humans, which cause changes in xenobiotics. These discrepancies translate to the differences in the effects of drugs between spices. For instance, paracetamol, a popular analgesic and antipyretic, harms cats, just like morphine – causing anxiety instead of total calming.

Many diseases, including AIDS, Alzheimer’s, and certain types of cancer are considered characteristic only for our species. Their equivalents in rodents and other animals, which are tested upon, are a simplified model that does not take into account all environmental factors. There have been cases of approved drugs, which caused unexpected health problems after being released to the public. Up to nine out of ten experimental drugs that work on animals were discovered to be harmful to humans during clinical studies. Other studies have revealed differences in genetic response to diseases. As famous science researchers, MacLennan and Amos said, “There is no doubt that the best test species for humans are humans. It is not possible to extrapolate animal data directly to humans due to interspecies variation in anatomy, physiology and biochemistry”. (“Animals in Science / Alternatives”)

Secondly, it is argued that alternative methods for animal testing do not even resemble human reactions as closely. Animals are thought to be the closest to humans, despite their differences and limitations. Not only that, but by conducting the practice scientists can estimate how it will act on a living specimen, as the only other alternatives are in vitro studies on human cell lines or computer simulations. However, in reality many important medical discoveries, such as aspirin, were made without the use of animals. Given that, it is difficult to estimate how many effective drugs might have been discarded. A good example is Lipitor, a cholesterol-lowering pharmaceutical that did not give satisfactory results during experiments conducted on mice, but after being tried on healthy human volunteers proved to be efficient. The polio vaccine can act as another example as it was not effective in chimpanzee experiments, but tests on human cells have proved differently. Apart from possible loss of effective medication, scientists also lose valuable time and billions of money. According to a founder of the Safer Medicines Trust, “a shift to advanced techniques based on human biology would accelerate biomedical research, and deliver safer and better medicines at lower costs: a win–win situation that should be supported by everyone.’ (Archibald)

Overall, due to the wide usage of animal testing, it is a subject of heated debates among scientists and animal rights activists. Although humanity developed greatly since ancient times, to this day for instance the only federal law in the U.S. that covers animals in research is The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) (7 U.S.C. § 2131), and its ethical and moral rightness is questioned. Supporters of animal testing claim that human life is above animals and that experiments help and expand biomedical research. After viewing the problem from a broader perspective it seems unnecessary and unethical to keep experimenting on animals when alternatives could and should be developed. ”[S]urely we can all agree that replacement of animals in testing and research is morally, ethically and scientifically the only way forward.’ (Marshall)

References:

1. Moxley, Angela (2009) ‘The End of Animal Testing?’ ALL ANIMALS: Vol. 11: Iss. 5, Article 5. Pp. 20-26 Available at: https://animalstudiesrepository.org/allanimals/vol11/iss5/5
2. Dario Ringach, ‘The Use of Nonhuman Animals in Biomedical Research,’ American Journal of the Medical Sciences, Volume 342, Number 4, October 2011 305-313
3. “Animals Behind Top Drugs.” Foundation for Biomedical Research, fbresearch.org/medical-advances/animal-testing-research-achievements/animal-research-behind-top-drugs/.
4. Seok, J., Warren, H.S., Cuenca, A.G., Mindrinos, M.N., Baker, H.V., Xu, W., Richards, D.R., McDonald-Smith, G.P., Gao, H., Hennessy, L., Finnerty, C.C., Lopez, C.M., Honari, S., Moore, E.E., Minei, J.P., Cuschieri, J., Bankey, P.E., Johnson, J.L., Sperry, J., Nathens, A.B., Billiar, T.R., West, M.A., Jeschke, M.G., Klein, M.B., Gamelli, R.L., Gibran, N.S., Brownstein, B.H., Miller-Graziano, C., Calvano, S.E., Mason, P.H., Cobb, J.P., Rahme, L.G., Lowry, S.F., Maier, R.V., Moldawer, L.L., Herndon, D.N., Davis, R.W., Xiao, W. and Tompkins, R.G. (2013) Genomic Responses in Mouse Models Poorly Mimic Human Inflammatory Diseases. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 3507-3512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1222878110
5. “Animals in Science / Alternatives.” Harm and Suffering, www.neavs.org/alternatives/in-testing.
6. Archibald, Kathy. “Of Mice, but Not Men.” What Doctors Don’t Tell You, Aug. 2016, www.wddty.com/magazine/2016/august/of-mice-but-not-men.html.
7. Marshall, Lindsay. “Science In Transit; The Move Away From Animals In Research.” HuffPost UK, HuffPost UK, 17 Dec. 2017, www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/lindsay-marshall/science-in-transit-the-mo_b_13645840.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer_us=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_cs=8IkJMdenjYW09I6MKKwEPg.

Mom, please do not leave me says 5-year-old Cathy Lucky she and over one million other kids still have their mom since 1989 present day more than half a million women have successfully been treated for breast cancer in the United States alone according (DePolo, J 2019) the medical journal of Cairo university (Yurtoğlu, N 2018) also estimates about 1.7 million new breast cancer patient every year thanks to god and the animal testing we are ready to treat them as we advance in medical research we find the faulty gens and bad treatment so that we do not need to test it on humans as shattering families for testing is both cruel and unethical. Discovering new medicine thus extending human life span, in addition to helping animals themselves are the sweet fruits of animal testing. however sadly, some activists want to stop it saying it’s cruel in parallel with being pointless as humans and animals are different on the cellular level.

Despite all the horrific danger we put ourselves in if we stopped animal testing as it takes credit for discovering cures and new medicine as well as extending the human lifespan, still some activists believe that animal testing should be stopped justifying that by how cruel it is. Certainly, we cannot say animal testing is not cruel however it is the price we are willing to pay to save a loved one whether it is a father, mother, or son never the less scientists are not cruelty-motivated in fact every day they are looking for alternatives Ben Lewis, founder of (The One Health Company, 2015) got a nicer idea instead of injecting animals with diseases he searches for already sick ones and test on them. Scientist also ensures that animal testing is our last option organizations like the United Kingdom’s cancer research facility is continuously making rules and regulations to ensure that animal tests is conducted for extremely promising medicines (Scott, D 2011).

as animals might not be exactly just like us still Chimpanzees have 99% of our DNA as published by (Britten, 2002) and it makes them as close as they could be to giving matching results which make our lives at much lower risk, unfortunately, the closest living being to us that have the same organs and living cycle that can be tested on other than animals is us, humans, and testing on animals saves us from that unethical decision that has been taken before by Nazis (Weindling, P., von Villiez, A., Loewenau, A., & Farron, N., 2016) that was cruel and heart-shattering these experiments went from mustard gas testing and poison to blood clotting experiments by shooting them alive in the nick or the shoulder without anesthesia or even cutting their limps and if they were lucky enough to survive one test they would go the other or sometimes if they were a faulty test subject they would burn them alive to control contamination.

cancer, HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer’s, hepatitis, and malaria, and the list goes on these dangerous diseases have been cured or a cure for it was invented thanks to animal testing a full list is present on the official website of (testing, 2016) some of these diseases are not only bad for their carrier but also for every single living being human or animal we must fear the worst as before catastrophic events have happened like the plague “the black death” (Nils Chr Stenseth,* Bakyt B Atshabar, Mike Begon, Steven R Belmain, Eric Bertherat, Elisabeth Carniel, Kenneth L Gage, Herwig Leirs, and Lila Rahalison, 2008) that not only killed it carrier but also everyone around him spreading so far that it wiped half of the population of half a continent the black death, unfortunately, took almost 50 million human lives and even more lives from live stocks and animals(Benedictow. O, 2005). And who does not appreciate every single moment he spends with a loved one who is able to live much longer as the human average life expectancy thanks to animal testing increased by as much as 25 years ((US), 1988) that means fathers and mothers can live to the day they see their little child getting married even better they also can hold the sons of their sons who do not appreciate the fact that he is able to see their grandfathers and mothers.

The foundation for biomedical research animal testing (testing, 2016) is not only concerned with humans but also veterinary medicine being produced beside human medicine to ensure a good life for both living beings. Animals are not only important for us as test subjects but also as living stock as most of our sustaining food on earth comes from them in addition to taking them as pets as it has been proven by science how much pets improve mental health (Brooks, H. L., Rushton, K., Lovell, K., Bee, P., Walker, L., Grant, L., & Rogers, A. (2018)) not only that but also maintaining the balance of nature Endangered Species are being saved every day thanks to animal research (Lewis, B., Dr. (2015)) as losing animal species might cause major life-changing event as nature has to be balanced as much there has to predators there have to be preys.

in the end, we cannot ignore how much animal testing is cruel and against our beliefs and humanity or how much animals might be different from us even if it’s only 5% but we also cannot give our back to millions even billions of families and their kids and abandon our medical breakthroughs and ignore the fact we are also helping animals themselves billions of people are living happily today with their families and their loved ones because of a pill or a syrup that costs less than the price of a loaf of a bread that was discovered as a result of a test on an animal so as long as we do not have any other living cycle that is typical to our animals

In Korea, 41.4 million animals have reportedly been mobilized and victimized in animal experiments in 2019 according to the Animal and Plant Quarantine Agency. Animal experimentation has been a controversy for decades. While Korean public awareness of animal rights has heightened so far compared to the past, still under the circumstances, it needs to be reconsidered if animal experimentation is banned and how far the relevant law can be improved and changed.

To begin with, animal experimentation is cruel. Animals also have the rights to be treated against cruelty because all living existences should be respected based on the ethics of respect for life. American biologist and former professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, Marc Bekoff, who has pursued his research in animal behavior and behavioral ecology, argued that human beings should treat animals with care and respect because non-human animals exhibit thought processes similar to humans as well as emotions that could be compared to human emotions such as grief, fear, love, and compassion. Bekoff claimed, ‘ non-human animals are extremely smart and demonstrate emotional and moral intelligence.’ As he has proved in his research, animals can feel the same emotions humans do, so animal experimentation can cause terrifying pain that animals can feel as much as humans. This means animal experiments can be cruel to animals, and they are completely against animal rights as well as the ethics of respect for life.

Furthermore, animal experiments are not accurate at an optimum level any longer when researchers and scientists in Korea use the results of the study and apply them to human cases. It is undeniable that human beings and animals have anatomical and biological similarities in their bodies, so the fact has lied at the root of justifying animal experimentation in history. However, the situation in science and medicine in Korea has changed over the past decades due to the rapid advancements in those areas. Scientific and medical technologies have become far more sophisticated than in the past, so the slight physical differences between humans and animals can affect the results more critically in experimentation.

Some scholars with opposing views claim that there are several reasons why animal experiments continuously should be carried out despite their detrimental effects. They argue that animal testing has proven itself to be effective and reliable in scientific experiments so far, also, animal experiments have generated tremendous life-saving medical advancements. In history, numerous infectious diseases, e.g., typhoid, diphtheria, measles, smallpox, etc., have been treated by vaccinations. Those vaccines would not be possible to be invented without animal experimentation because inventing new medications such as vaccines requires a great number of experimental living organisms. For that reason, among non-human existences, there is no other effective experimental subject except for animals. In this regard, the researchers on the opposite side assert that animal experimentation should be allowed in specific cases directly related to human health issues under strict conditions.

Granted, it may seem reasonable that animal testing may be allowed to a certain degree because of no adequate alternative to animals as experimental subjects. However, the argument cannot be accepted because several experimental alternatives have been developed. Owing to advancements in scientific technologies, non-animal testing methods have been invented. For example, researchers can use isolated human cells and tissues instead of living animals and they can also replace animals with computers and mathematics to model biological processes and expect the effects of chemicals and drugs. In addition, experts can conduct experiments on human volunteers and they can explore new advanced technologies such as robotics, molecular techniques, tissue engineering, and ‘organs-on-microchips.’ Some of the aforementioned methods have gained high credibility and excellent accuracy for common use. Therefore, animal experiments should be banned.

In summation, animal experimentation should be banned and the pending legislative bills on it should not be dismissed.

References

1. https:www.peta.orgissuesanimals-used-for-experimentation animals-used-experimentation-factsheets anima

All medical products and drugs require preliminary testing to prove their effectiveness and safety for public use. This testing is conducted primarily on animals to prove their safety, then transferred to human subjects. Animal testing is not only safer than using human subjects, however, it is also more cost-effective. Businesses forced to undertake this animal testing by the FDA gravitate towards the most cost-effective option, making animal testing a multi-billion dollar market, to which it amassed almost $607 billion in 2009 alone globally (Bottini & Hartung, 2009). Despite its production of a global market, animal testing is being banned across Europe for the ethical problems that it poses to animals. This, in turn, prompts alternative techniques that test products to determine the safety and effectiveness to not only be introduced but also required by legislation. An alternative technique frequently used by medical testers is a vitro method. This technique uses human tissue or cells that can be harvested without harm and provides a real test on how a drug or medicine performs in the human body. This is not only a safer option for animals but also eliminates them from the testing by going straight to testing on the human body. Computer testing, or silicon testing, is another form of an alternative technique in which the product is matched with genes and an outcome of the product is calculated taking into account the human and environment (Meigs et al., 2018). They are not only more conscious of animal welfare but are also more cost-effective (Martin, Knudsen, Judson, Kavlock, & Dix).

This information begs the question as to whether animal testing should be permitted in the United States for newly released medical drugs or medicines prior to its public release. Animal testing should not be permitted, however, due to their cost-effectiveness and safety to animals, businesses should be pushed towards vitro techniques and computer testing to test their products prior to release.

Although animal testing is a multi-billion dollar industry within its respective business, the public and governments across the world are pushing for the testing to become more ethical and less dependent on animals for its use. Since testing the product is necessary to bring it to market, providing a solution that is not only safer but also more cost-effective gives companies an advantage over others in that the public is more likely to endorse it (Ellis et al., 2010). These alternative solutions, which include testing on human tissues/cells, or vitro techniques, and computer-based testing, are proven to be more cost-effective than utilizing animals for tests. Forexample, a test used to determine the cancer risk of a certain product on an animal would exceed a cost of $700,000, while performing that same test on human tissues or cells only costs around $22,000 (Humane Society International, 2012). A report done by the Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal (2012) focuses on the alternative solutions to animal testing that allows for better treatment and welfare of animals being tested on. Doke and Dhawale not only evaluate the cost of the animal testing itself, but also the expensive nature of storing, breeding, and taking care of these animals. Despite their market relevance, they believe that businesses should focus on regulating their animal testing and switching to alternative methods that are more cost-effective.

Their report introduces that businesses should evaluate alternative testing techniques, but also that the benefits associated with them are driving businesses to use them (Doke & Dhawale, 2015). The usability and benefits of the vitro methods provide a way to not only lower the costs of product testing but also do so without harming animals. Scientists Bottini and Hartung of the Altex journal agree with this perspective in that the cost of animal testing drives businesses to alternative methods. However, they also introduce the argument that governmental legislation involved in restricting businesses drives companies to not only use alternative techniques but also to outsource their animal testing to other countries where their legislation regarding product testing is loose. Since animal testing is restricted, many businesses are expanding the testing of their products to other countries that are not as tight on regulations. This is, in turn, detrimental to a countries economy because it is taking away jobs and money from circulating within that nation and giving them to another nation. The REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals) effort has been imposed in the European Union and represents legislation enacted to restrict emissions, animal testing, and other aspects related to chemicals. A certain amendment of this effort, however, has been enacted which not only bans the use of animal testing altogether but also prevents the outsourcing of animal testing to other countries (Bottini & Hartung, 2009). However, in doing so the amendment is not very clear. The enforcement of the legislation is not clear as to who actually will enforce it. Not only this, but the prosecution of companies and persons that indulge in such techniques utilizing animals has not been very efficient as some are able to bring their product to market using animal testing techniques (Bottini & Hartung, 2009). Despite these setbacks, proper enforcement and guidance would not allow companies to hurt the economy by outsourcing their work, and it would also require alternative techniques to be used–which are more cost-effective and would create a market for these techniques to take over the commerce for traditional animal testing techniques.

Due to the economic advantage and improvement of animal welfare presented with alternative techniques, animal testing should be banned in the United States. Alternative solutions to animal testing are much cheaper and safer than testing on animals or humans and provide an advantage to companies that are forced to test their products without the use of animals. Their low cost proves them to be economically beneficial choices and they introduce a new market to which businesses can profit. A solution to the animal testing dilemma in the United States would be to follow after Europe and ban animal testing altogether, however with some changes. By banning animal testing altogether, it allows for alternative techniques to be released widespread, as well as prevents businesses from outsourcing their product testing to other countries, taking away jobs and money from the US. However, to further dissuade companies from outsourcing and hurting the American economy, legislation in neighboring countries regarding animal testing could be heightened as well. By doing this, there is essentially nowhere to outsource, and businesses are forced to engage in alternative techniques–fueling the economy as well as proving beneficial to the companies by costing less than traditional techniques.

References

1. Bottini, A. A., & Hartung, T. (2009). Food for thought… on the economics of animal testing. Altex , 26 (1), 3-16.
2. Doke, S. K., & Dhawale, S. C. (2015). Alternatives to animal testing: A review. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal , 23 (3), 223-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsps.2013.11.002
3. Ellis, J., Hall, M., Ong, P., Wege, L., Paterson, N., & Smith, C. (2010, January). Animal testing at Dalhousie University: A brief insight into social, economic, and environmental effects of nonhuman animal testing . Retrieved from https://cdn.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/science/environmental-science-program/ENVS%203502%20projects/2010/AnimalTesting.pdf
4. Humane Society International. (2012, October 23). Costs of animal and non-animal testing. Retrieved January 8, 2020, from Humane Society International website: https://www.hsi.org/news-media/time_and_cost/
5. Martin, M., Knudsen, T., Judson, R., Kavlock, R., & Dix, D. (2012). Economic benefits of using adaptive predictive models of reproductive toxicity in the context of a tiered testing program. Systems Biology in Reproductive Medicine , 58 (1), 3-9. https://doi.org/10.3109/19396368.2011.652288
6. Meigs, L., Smirnova, L., Rovida, C., Leist, M. and Hartung, T. (2018) ‘Animal testing and its alternatives – the most important omics is economics’, ALTEX – Alternatives to animal experimentation , 35(3), pp. 275-305. doi: 10.14573/altex.1807041.

Animal Testing

Imagine that you are an animal housed in a laboratory, and from the day you were born, you have been stamped with a number and used as a research subject. Could you fathom having your body tested for the next cure of cancer? Could you envision having your body slaughtered? Throughout history animals have been used in scientific labs: to test for the next cures for certain diseases. We’ve come up with several new ways to find cures, safer implants, and better methods for testing in the cosmetic industry, in the last decade. Most people with a heart will look to an animal as a companion, while some don’t. Profits and recognition for the next breakthrough in the scientific industry may be wrong, but some experiments have been beneficial to saving lives.

Alternatives to Animal Methods

Animals have been used over the years throughout our history as experiments. There are some beneficial gains to this subject as well. Primates have cured diseases such as polio. Scott-Reid (2018) stated that “They’ve also made advancements in treatments and research for cancer, diabetes, schizophrenia and Alzheimer’s, and now the Ebola and Zika viruses, are all associated with testing on monkeys” (Scott-Reid, 2018, para. 5). Research labs are now using electronic petri dishes, computational models, and stem cells to form non-conscience bodies. As a society, yes, we may be benefiting from some successful experiments, but when will we start thinking about the welfare of these animals. We will have to question ourselves at some point. Even after the experiment is over, usually the only thing that is inevitable for these animals is death.

Stop Wasting Lives

These animals do not have any rights under the Animal Welfare Act. I sympathize with them. They can’t speak or tell you when there’s something wrong. Over the years, scientists have been known for not holding any accountable information on safe practices for these experiments. When these articles are released, as usual, they’re used to amplifying the situation and not telling the entire truth. They post prior information from the past, some of which are untrue and irrelevant. Some would claim that the experiments aren’t harmful and doesn’t affect the animal long term. These animals are in cages throughout most of their lives. Their cage is mostly used as a haven. They fear anybody who walks pass or stops at their cages. It is displayed throughout their mannerisms.

Animal Research Advancement

“The average human life expectancy has increased dramatically over the past 100 years. In 1900, most did not live past 50. Now, most will live to see their 75th birthday. This increase is largely due to advances in medicine that would not have been possible without animal research. It’s true that animal research has surpassed our expectations” (Keller, 2015, para. 2). There were people in the 1900s to die from small infections such as the common cold, chicken pox, and pneumonia. If you’re still stating that these experiments have not been effective, then maybe you’ve been living under a rock. Scientists have gone on record to say that they do not treat the animals inhumane. They’ve cracked down on the numbers of animals that they’ve used over the years. They perform alternative methods. They use other models and methods that they can perform these test on besides animals.

Conclusion

Believe it or not, scientists have some of the toughest jobs. They’re making sacrifices daily, to save people. You have to ask yourself, if your child was dying of one of those diseases and there wasn’t a cure, then would it be okay? Would you choose an animal over a loved one to undergo an experiment to find a cure? It takes dedication and sacrifice to do this job. There are many black and white areas in life, and some things in life come with a price. If you think otherwise, then you’ve truly been misinformed.

References

1. Scott-Reid, J. (2018, November 20). Lab monkeys deserve retirement – not death. Globe & Mail. Retrieved from http://libproxy.ecpi.edu:2084/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=FeaturedContent&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&searchType=TopicSearchForm¤tPosition=1&docId=GALE%7CA562765013&docType=Article&sort=Relevance&contentSegment=ZXAY-MOD1&prodId=OVIC&contentSet=GALE%7CA562765013&topicId=00000000LVV7&searchId=&userGroupName=lirn55593&inPS=true#
2. Keller, R. R. (2015, November 25). Scientific Research on Animals Is Vital to Advance in Medicine. In S. Engdahl (Ed.), Opposing Viewpoints. Scientific Research. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press. (Reprinted from How Does Animal Research Advance Medicine?, lions-talk-science.org, 2013, November 25) Retrieved from http://libproxy.ecpi.edu:2374/apps/doc/EJ3010948222/OVIC?u=lirn55593&sid=OVIC&xid=263cc1ff

Animals are used in scientific research, help us to gain significant knowledge about human physiology and pathological mechanism because of their similarities to human in many ways and are being tested as human models since 500 BC. They contribute a lot to the invention and development of newer types of drugs, vaccines, diagnostic investigations, antigen and antibody production also in agricultural and biotechnological fields. In a study, it is shown that 40% animals are used in basic or applied research while 26% in drug development, 20% in safety testing and rest 14% are used in other scientific purposes. (Shamoo et al., 2009). Although there have been many success in the past using animals in research, there is still considerable controversy over its ethical implement. Some people justify the importance of using animals in research field while others debate about animal rights and their sufferings during the procedures.

Arguments in favour of using animals in research:

Animals are considered appropriate model for research as they are similar to human beings in many ways. As most of the mammals, including humans, are descended from common ancestors they share biological similarities like same vital organs, and function in the same way with help of central nervous system. The similarities can be observed in the genes of primates. Studies have shown that, Chimpanzee and rat respectively share 99% and 98% corresponding human DNA and they are suspectiable to same kind of diseases like cancer, hypertension ,diabetes etc. Also, the life cycle of animals is short, so it is easier for researchers to observe the reactions of medicine over the whole life cycle which is more complicated to do in human. For example, the life span of rat or mice is only two to three years, so researchers can study the effects of treatments or genetic mutation over a whole lifespan, or across several generations, so they are often used for long term research like cancers, which would be infeasible using human subjects. Animal testing helps to develop some drugs which clinical trial were not possible to do in human such as rabies,cancers. (Banerjee, 2011)

Open heart surgery is a great example of success of using laboratory animals.The principle of heart lung machine was based on the animal experiments of Gibbon. The machine was moderated by De Bakey where animals’ bood circulation was bypassed through a machine which allowed to add oxygen in animals blood, as a result it was possible to surgically treat 80% neonatal heart defects. Replacement of heart vulves and surgical treatment of coronary arteries were experimented on animals first and after successful outcome they were implemented on patients. Transplantation of vital organs can not be possible without the proper knowledge of immunology which was acquired through experiment on animals. Kedney transplantation in non identical twin could not be successful untill a study in dog proved that adminstration of drug 6-mercaptopurine after transplantion can reduce the immunological response and prevent failure. Immunosuppressive drugs like cyclosporin was tested in mice,rats and other animals before it’s successful application on human. (Council, 1988)

Not only human, animals are also being benefitted from animal testing in research. Newer medical methods have been discovered like elimination of parasitism, antibiotics, anaesthesia, surgical procedures save milions of animals’ life. If animals were not vaccinated many animals would have been died of various infectious diseases like hepatitis, rabies, anthrax and canine carvo virus. Animal research plays a vital role for the prevention of extinction of endangered species. Artificial insemination and embryo transfer help many endangered species to survive against adverse condition. Research on sexual behaviour is promoting to develop new hybrid species that will be able to introduce the extinct animals back to wild. Pets, livestock and zoo animals lead a improved quality of life due to animal research. (Council, 2004)

Arguments against using animal in research:

Human diseases are artificially created in animal bodies but there are lots of anatomic, physiologic and metabolic differences between animals and humans. The incompatibility of human beings and animals is a major obstacle for translational research, as a result research may be sometimes misleading and ignore the probable diagnosis and treatment. Even the environment of the laboratory can alter the biochemistry, genetic expression, nerve stimulation of the animals. One study shows that the mice which are genetically develop for aortic defects, the effects of the disease are completely eradicated if they are kept on large cages. Such an event can have a profound effect on the effectiveness of medicine in every situation. (Akhtar, 2015) Depending on the sample of animals, the results of the study can be horrific if applied to the human body. In1950 Thalidomide was introduced that caused deformities more than 10000 neonates which was positively tested on mice before commercial use. (Greek et al., 2011)

In 2006 A drug was proven competent on animals, for clinical trial a CD28 super agonist TGN1412 was introduced among 6 volunteers. The dosage was 500 times smaller that was found safe in animals but all volunteers faced a life threating condition and was taken to ICU .(Attarwala, 2010)

There are also debates on effectiveness of in vivo biological research. Moreover it is more expensive and labour consuming than in vitro technique. Only 5% success in cancer resaerch which is based on in vivo. It is not appropriate to use animal models in extremely complex human cancer studies. Alternative techniques have been discovered that can easily establish linkage between in vitro and clinical trials such as human organs on a chip, human cell based assays, in silico chips and an increased emphasis on epidemiological studies. (Mak et al., 2014)

Medications that have a good results in animals but fail in the human body. Vaccines that worked well on non human primates but low efficacy rate on clinical trials. It is blamed that over dependency of pharmaceutical industry on in vivo is the main reason behind this situation .Due to less return on invesment, governments are lossing interest to fund in basic medical research on animals than clinical trial. Biotechnological and pharmaceutical reduce their expenditure on animal research caused by translational failure to minimize their big losses. (Pound and Bracken, 2014) . It is not found any evidence that animal research is mandatory for medical progres ,many non animal based dicoveries were later proven by animal experiment. If sufficient fund and resources are invested it will be possible to get alternative procedures. (Tatchell, 2004)

Animal experimentation is the use of non-human animals in experiments that seek to control the variables which affect the behaviour or biological system through vigorous study. In 2018, 3.52 million procedures which involved living animals were carried out in the United Kingdom(1). 1.8 million of them were for experimental purposes. These procedures included using non-human animals in scientific studies for purposes such as basic research and the development of treatments, safety testing of pharmaceuticals and other substances. The rest were for creating and breeding of GA animals(1).

Proponents of animal testing say that development of medicine since 20th century was made due to animal research. Verification of new substances found or synthesised would be necessary for checking medical values or side effects. However, it is highly unpredictable what the outcome of these new substances would be in theory. Hence, it is necessary to perform experimentation using animals which have similar genes to humans. For example, most anaesthetics and insulin, which is common treatment for diabetes were previously developed through experimentation on animals.

Secondly, the welfare and rights of model animals are carefully considered beforehand to ensure no harm comes to the animals. Communal animals usually get traumatised when there is no social stimulus. This in turn leads to abnormal behaviours. The 3Rs principle was introduced to provide a framework for not exploiting animals without consideration(7). The 3Rs stand for Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement. Reduction refers to methods which can minimise the number of animals used per experiment or study in order to be consistent with the firm scientific aims. Refinement alludes to methods that minimise or avoid the pain, suffering, lasting harm and distress can be raised to enhance the welfare of said animals. Using the appropriate anaesthesia and analgesia to reduce pain is an example of refinement. Finally, replacement refers to methods which directly replace or avoid the use of animals in experiments.

People who disagree with animal testing claim it is unreliable. TGN1412 was successfully confirmed as safe and efficacious in preclinical studies both in vitro and in vivo. However, when it is administered to six healthy human volunteers with a dose 500 times smaller than known safe in animal trials, all six of the human volunteers suffered from life-threatening conditions, such as multiorgan failure(6). Nonetheless, practolol was introduced for treatment for heart diseases after it was deemed safe for human, approximately 2,450 adverse reaction in patients including 40 casualties, and 200 life-threatening conditions were reported after administration(5).

Vice versa, Penicillin, which is safe for human has fatal reaction on the most of rodents. This shows that even some non-human animals have a lot of similarities in their gene expression, but it cannot be said that animal experiments are perfectly safe. Moreover, only 1.16 percent of diseases are shared both in human and non-human animals.

Alternatively, non-animal methods can substitute for animal testing. Many studies are being performed to help develop and utilise methods to replace animals in testing of new products and the investigation of diseases. In vitro methods, and in silico models suggested(1), (9).

In terms of in vitro testing, organ-on-chips are invented by Harvard’s Wyss Institute(9). In this technology, human organ cells are extracted and cultivated into chips. These allow a simulation of the structure and function of human organs and its organ systems. Instead of crude animal experiments, the chips can be used in drug testing and toxicity testing(4). Several precedents prove that they can replicate human physiology, diseases and drug responses. In addition, they give more reliable and accurate results than animal experiments. For instance, Eye-chips, one of the products from Harvard’s Wyss Institute, closely replicates the physiology and responses of human eyes(4).

Regarding in silico modelling, quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs) is one of the methods used. It is a computer-based technique which can predict the biological effect of chemical compounds based on mass data; similarities to existing substances, knowledge of human biology, mathematical and statistical relations(8).

In conclusion, some think animal testing is acceptable, since it is essential to make successful progress on medical research without animal testing. Moreover, the welfare of experimental animals are fairly considered. On the other side, animal experimentation is disagreed as there are the alternatives and previous examples of failure on applying results from animal experimentation to testing on human. In my opinion, alternatives are reasonably ethical and efficient.