The Office of Technology Assessment estimated research animal use, for all species of animals, to be 17 to 22 million animals annually during the mid-1980s (Uncaged). Testing on animals has been in debate from a long time. There is a big problem in the United States with animal testing: before researchers test pharmaceuticals in human clinical trials, they test them in animals to determine toxicity, dosing, and efficacy. It is hard to decide what rights animals have, and this is the reason for debate. Who are we to decide what is best (or worst) for the animal? Some believe that the test results are unreliable and obsolete; others believe animal testing is necessary to further medical research. I believe that animal testing is wrong because animals have certain rights as living creatures. I also believe there are practical and theoretical reasons why animal testing should not be done. Some possible solutions to this problem are alternative methods and refinement of current methods.
One of the main reasons I am against animal testing is because animals have no voice; an animal cannot tell you to stop hurting them or that they object to what you are doing. Many companies that test on animals are not humane. A lot of tests are hurtful to the animals. This arises a good question: do animals have rights? Animals are defenseless, therefore they look to us for support. Some believe animals should not have rights because they lack our intelligence and cannot become serving members of society. The fact that animals do not have our mental capabilities should mean that we take more care of them, like babies. They cannot fend for themselves therefore we need to fend for them. What makes us human anyway, our feelings? Animals are capable of feelings, as are humans. I just don’t think it is fair to test on someone that has no say.
About 5 percent of all animal deaths by human beings result from animal testing, however, the number killed which is around 500 million is not inconsiderable (Regan 197). Whether or not you agree with animal testing you must agree that 500 million animal deaths a year from animal testing is ridiculous. With all the alternative methods there is no reason why so many animals should die each year. Many believe that it is for a good cause because some of the tests benefit human beings. I disagree; a lot of the tests, which are done on animals, can be done on computers or on lower organisms such as bacteria.
It is a fact that certain results that come from animal testing are obsolete or are done and redone with the same results. There are many other possibilities that conduct these tests with the same results. Animals do not need to be tested on in order to get accurate results. There are many physiologic and anatomical differences between chimpanzees and humans. These differences make them a poor “model” for humans. Data obtained on chimpanzees cannot be extrapolated safely to the human situation. Experimenters have even injected human HIV-infected brain tissue directly into chimpanzee brains, but to no avail (Thatcher). One of our most life-threatening diseases doesn’t even affect our animal testing counter part. That is evidence to me that testing is meaningless. Also, do to the fact that there are no universal databases for the tests, tests are done over and over with the same results.
Moreover, there are physical and physiological differences between animals and humans therefore experiments are unreliable- not to mention damaging to animals. Differences between the infinitely complex biological systems of different species of animals mean that data gained from experiments on nonhumans are an unreliable and dangerous guide to the human condition (Uncaged). A horrible outcome could arise if false results are obtained. If a drug is approved because it wasn’t harmful to a chimpanzee for example, it could still be harmful to humans. Chimpanzees, our most closely related test subject, are considered a threatened species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Overtime, if chimps become endangered it will be partly our fault.
Thankfully there are many solutions to animal testing. There are in-vitro methods, which are in an artificial environment outside the living organism. Computer simulation of experiments is also a reliable source. Another alternative to animal testing is building databases of tests to avoid duplication. Alternative methods are becoming more and more prevalent. Alternative methods are more cost effective, better predictors of human injury, produce far quicker results, and do not involve animal cruelty. The three R’s are also good solutions to the problem. The three R’s are defined as follows: “Replacement means the substitution for conscious living higher animals of insentient material. Reduction means reduction in the numbers of animals used to obtain information of given amount and precision. Refinement means any decrease in the incidence or severity of inhumane procedures applied to those animals which still have to be used” (Burch 108). Although replacement is the only animal free method, I believe that refinement and reduction are steps in the right direction.
Some believe that testing on animals is the only way to get concrete results. Many in-vitro methods use cloned human tissue or plant tissue. Many have been proven to have the same results as animal tests. For example, Skintex is an in-vitro method used to assess skin irritancy that uses pumpkin rind to mimic the reaction of a substance on human skin (Uncaged). Another belief is that certain labs breed animals specifically for the product tests. I agree that it happens, however I don’t believe it is right. Whether or not their whole lives are spent in a cage, or a test tube, doesn’t make the value of their lives any less. Another reason why people seem to agree with animal research is because a majority of the tests are done on rats and mice. It is true that a large percentage of animal testing is done on rats and mice, however they are still animals. Their purpose in this world isn’t to be tested on; it is to be a member of the food chain and to breed. I don’t think it is fair to judge one animals level on the food chain as an acceptance to be tested on.
“They [animals] are in no sense the moral equals of humans, therefore we are under no moral obligation to refrain from so using them” (Fox 6). We are under moral obligation to treat animals well because we have brought animals to moral equality with humans by making them pets and giving them names. Just because animals are lower on the food chain, and we are more intelligent then they are, is no reason to test products on them. It sickens me to hear someone say that just because he feels he is more important, other animals deserve to die for him. With all of the alternative methods available I don’t see why there is even a case for animal testing. “Though it is perhaps an unfortunate truth, valuable information has frequently come out of experiments that strike the layperson, who usually gives them passing attention, as the most odious” (Fox 113). I agree that much advancement was made with animal research early on. But now that we have so many alternative methods I don’t see how one can justify their research. The alternative methods have the same result and no animals are harmed. I don’t see a need to continue on with animal testing if there are so many other possibilities. Many successful companies do not test their products on animals. Some of the major corporations include: Revlon, Abercrombie & Fitch, Avon, Clinique Incorporated, and Safeway, Inc. That is an indication to me that animal testing is outdated.
Will there ever be an end to all animal testing? It’s hard to say. I believe that the three R’s are a step in the right direction. By replacing the current animals being tested with computer simulation or in-vitro methods we save many animals lives. By refining the current methods we can reduce pain and distress for the animal as well as improve current procedures. The reduction alternative will decrease the amount of tests. Progress toward the use of alternatives to animal testing will continue to gain strength as awareness of the alternative methods is made known. We can make a difference in the lives of innocent animals by only purchasing products that are cruelty-free.
Burch,
R.L, and W.M.S. Russell, eds. The Principles of Humane Experimental
Technique. 1959.
London, UFAW, Special edition, reprinted 1992.
Fox,
Michael Allen. The Case for Animal Experimentation. Berkeley, CA:
University of
California Press, 1986.
Regan,
Tom and Peter Singer. Animal Rights and Human Obligations. Englewood
Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1989.
Thatcher,
Wendy. Chimpanzees: Test Results That Don’t Apply to Humans 2 September
1999. 19 March 2002
<http://www.pcrm.org/issues/Animal_Experimentation_Issues/chimps.html>.