Sara M. Tamayo

11/19/20

Professor Bolster

Animal Testing: A Sign of Human Progress or Human Decadency?

Animal testing has been around for many years. It is a way of investigating and learning without the need to hurt any human being. In this type of procedure, animals are used to test new medicines or see the different risks that certain products can have on the human body. For example, today, many of these animals are used to check the effectiveness of vaccines. The animals most commonly used for this type of research are mice, rabbits, and monkeys. However, not everyone agrees with these experiments. Some many campaigns and organizations have been created to defend the lives of these animals. One of the most famous organizations is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which is constantly advocating for animal rights by posting different news and information about the apparent harm these animals receive in the laboratories. As a result of the information that this and many other organizations post against animal experimentation, a great debate has been created. People wonder if doing these experiments really contributes to science and if there are alternative and more effective methods that can be used instead.

Animals have always been used by humans for their own satisfaction, whether as a source of food or for learning purposes. However, the use of animals for the benefit of science, that is, for laboratory tests and research, dates back to the end of World War II. The horrible events that occurred during this war are no secret to anyone. In those times, many horrible experiments were done on human beings by Nazis. Due to these terrible acts, many of these scientists who experimented with humans were tried. In these trials, something called the Nuremberg Code was established. This was created as a way to avoid experimentation in human beings and for the fulfillment of human rights. But not only was this established. In an article published in the Journal BMC Medical Ethics, the author Ray Greek mentions that “The requirement that animals be used in research and testing to protect humans was formalized in the Nuremberg Code.” Therefore, the Nuremberg code not only served to punish those responsible for these disastrous acts but was also the first step to formalize the use of animals for the benefit of science and as a method of protection for human beings. 

Many scientists agree with animal testing. The benefit of using these animals seems to overpass the pain they may suffer. The article the animal-testing paradox published in the New Scientist magazine by the author Chelsea White discusses some pros and cons of animal testing. The author states that “testing drugs on animals may hurt them, but the medical benefits to people might be seen to outweigh that harm.” This means that the benefits of animal testing results may be enough reason to keep using them in laboratories. Another similar perspective is given by Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, who stated in an interview with the Washington Examiner that “there are things we can learn from animal studies that will help people with terrible diseases that we otherwise can’t quite learn” and that “animals are still crucial to our understanding of how biology works.” Therefore, scientists still see animal testing as a useful tool for research.

But not only these experiments benefit human beings. Many scientists favor animal testing for the benefits this has on the animal itself. In the New York Times article Protecting Apes Could Backfire by the ecologist Peter D. Walsh; it is mentioned how Ebola and many other infectious diseases are putting the lives of different apes at risk. The author also states that these species are even more in risk because of the restrictions that prohibits the use of chimpanzees for research “this action to protect the welfare of captive chimpanzees by classifying them as endangered could unintentionally deliver a serious blow to wild apes.” Therefore, avoiding the use of animals for research is sometimes counterproductive as it prevents experiments that improve the lifestyle of certain animals. In this case, the fact that chimpanzees cannot be used for research prevents a cure for diseases from being created, which is terrible news for this species.

A very interesting article titled Is animal testing necessary to advance medical research? was published by the New Internationalist magazine on July 2011. In this article Laurie Pycroft, the founder of Pro-Test, a British group that supports animal-testing and Helen Marston, the head of Human Research Australia, debate whether or not animal testing is necessary and should be use for research. In his argument Laurie explains how complex the human body is and that “Biomedical researchers need tools capable of mimicking this level of complexity.” These tools are indeed “living organisms” and without them scientist would struggle to make accurate research. However, Helen Marston thinks all the opposite. She states that “Humans differ from other animals anatomically, genetically and metabolically” and for her this difference is enough proof to show how inaccurate data obtained from animals can be. But no only Marston disagrees with the inaccuracy of the data. In an article from the journal BMC Medical Ethics. The authors Jarrod Bailey and Michael Balls discuss the lack of data provided to “validate the use of animals in preclinical drug testing.” Both authors agree that the data provided throughout the years is not enough to show why animals are necessary for research.

            Different articles published by PETA, where they explain with great details the suffering and supposed filthy conditions where animals live while in the laboratories, have led several organizations against animal abuse to take drastic measures such as committing vandalic acts. Bill Breen mentions this issue in his article Why we need animal testing? published on May 1993. Breen explains how members of an “animal terrorist group” used sulfuric acid to set a lab on fire. They destroyed “top research libraries on fur-bearing animals.” But this vandalic act had also negative consequences for the population of wild mink since the research could have helped to increase the number of this specie. But even if these organizations try to spread information, in an article published in the European Journal of Internal Medicine Dr. Silvio Garattini and Giuliano Grignaschi explain that it is essential for the public to understand the complexity of translating scientific concepts fully. They state, “Public opinion must be made aware that hypotheses in the biomedical field are just as likely to fail as in any other field of research. Only continuing trial-and-error to understand errors will show the best way to reach a goal.” They are trying to say that it is very complex to explain what they do in the laboratory with animals and that, like any other type of investigation, it must be done several times to obtain a reliable result. That is why it is very important for the public not to make hasty and meaningless decisions.

            Some famous public figures have also raised their voice against animal testing. This is the case of Paul McCartney who has partnered with PETA in several occasions to end animal-testing. In the official PETA website, it is stated how he “has collaborated with PETA on everything from exposing slaughterhouses to helping greyhounds at a blood bank, and animal testing is no exception.” He also made a protest song called “Looking for Changes” and he donated all the money from the song to PETA’s campaign to stop animal experimentation.

Due to the great controversy that has been created around this issue, different solutions and alternatives have been sought instead of animal testing. One of these solutions is called 3R-concept (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement). In an article published in the journal Laboratory Animal Research, the author Adrian J. Smith explains the meaning of each R, “Replacement where possible with non-animal methods. Reduction of the number of animals to the minimum which achieves a valid result, and Refinement of the care and use of those animals which must be used, to maximise animal welfare and data quality.” The three Rs are now the new method that is being used in all laboratories in order to provide a better quality of life for the animals that are used and also to reduce costs. Also, an alternative for animal testing is provided in an article of the Journal of Medical Ethics & History of Medicine. The authors, Stefane Kabene and Said Baadel state that “Sophisticated tests on human cells or tissues, computer-modelling techniques, and experiments on people who volunteer are some measures that can limit acts of animal cruelty by cosmetics companies.” This shows that different alternatives can be sought instead of experimenting with animals.

Despite the different alternatives and solutions provided by different scientists and specialists. The debate about animal testing does not seem to end. Animals are still very much needed for investigation, and activists do not seem to want to give up just yet.

References

Bailey, J., Balls, M. Recent efforts to elucidate the scientific validity of animal-based drug tests by the pharmaceutical industry, pro-testing lobby groups, and animal welfare organisations. BMC Med Ethics 20, 16 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0352-3

Breen B. Why we need animal testing. Garbage. 1993;5(2):38. Accessed November 5, 2020. https://search-ebscohost-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9601230991&site=ehost-live

Celebrities Who Are Against Animal Testing. (2020, October 27). Retrieved November 19, 2020, from https://www.peta.org/features/celebrities-against-animal-testing/

Greek, R., Pippus, A. & Hansen, L.A. The Nuremberg Code subverts human health and safety by requiring animal modeling. BMC Med Ethics 13, 16 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-13-16

Kabene S, Baadel S. Bioethics: a look at animal testing in medicine and cosmetics in the UK. Journal of Medical Ethics & History of Medicine. 2019;12(1):1-11. Accessed November 5, 2020. https://search-ebscohost-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=145249939&site=ehost-live

Leonard, K. (2017, July 17). Donald Trump. Retrieved November 10, 2020, from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tag/donald-trump?source=%2Fnih-director-francis-collins-virtually-everything-would-be-affected-by-trumps-budget-cuts%2Farticle%2F2627890

Pycroff L, Marston H. Is animal testing necessary to advance medical research? New Internationalist. Accessed November 5, 2020. https://search-ebscohost-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=62091081&site=ehost-live

Shanks, N., Greek, R. & Greek, J. Are animal models predictive for humans? Philos Ethics Humanit Med4, 2 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-5341-4-2

Smith, A.J. Guidelines for planning and conducting high-quality research and testing on animals. Lab Anim Res 36, 21 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42826-020-00054-0

Walsh, P. D. (2015, September 26). ­Protecting Apes Could Backfire. Retrieved November 10Pete, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/opinion/sunday/protecting-apes-could-backfire.html

Whyte, C. The animal-testing paradox. New Scientist, https://search-ebscohost-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=139035675&site=ehost-live.