Animal Testing: Pros, Cons, and the Case for Reform

Introduction

Animal testing, also called animal experimentation, is considered by some to be a necessary evil. Others believe it should cease as society evolves past the need to experiment on living creatures. The topic remains a hotly contested issue.

It resonates especially with those who adopt a vegan lifestyle and believe animals should have the same rights as people in terms of the value of life. Although animal testing has ceased in some cosmetic companies — which now label their goods as not animal-tested — most companies, especially pharmaceutical companies, rely on animals to test drugs and vaccines. This allows medicine to advance while refraining from putting human lives at immediate risk. This essay presents both the pro and con sides of animal testing and animal experimentation. Does it remain unavoidable, or can society move past animal testing and find new ways to test products and medicines?

Background and Literature Overview

The current literature shows clear pros and cons to animal testing and helps illustrate both the need for and the aversion to it. For example, proponents argue that animal testing helps avoid the loss of human life by enabling the discovery of vaccines and medicines that could cure or alleviate disease and injury in humans. Opponents may argue that animal experimentation promotes a negative, brutality-oriented culture. The practice became so reviled — thanks in part to campaigns showing the conditions of tested animals — that some companies have gone so far as to publicly declare that they do not test on animals. The literature presented below offers both perspectives and helps lead toward a conclusion on the topic.

The Case Against Animal Testing

In 2012, Michael Balls wrote an article discussing new ways in which pharmaceutical companies could test drugs on human cells without hurting humans, thereby eliminating the need for animal testing entirely. Essentially, people could donate cells to a clinic that retains, replicates, and provides them to pharmaceutical companies and researchers to test their theories and products.

"Cells will be provided to academic researchers, private–public partnerships, biotechs and pharma for research, early drug discovery and safety assessment. The aim of the iPS cell centre is, therefore, to respond to the current and rapidly increasing demand for efficacy and toxicity testing using iPS cells from disease-relevant populations." (Balls 191)

This innovation comes on the heels of a growing vegan movement championing the elimination of all animal-derived or animal-tested products from the market. Not only would pharmaceutical and other organizations gain the ability to test their products effectively, but they could do so without harming living creatures.

This represents an important step toward the complete elimination of animal testing, and it may create a ripple effect among pharmaceutical companies and research studies much as it did in the cosmetics industry. Human cells can show what drugs may do to cellular health and may actually provide better results than animal testing. Currently, most animal testing is conducted on rodents, whose physiology differs significantly from that of humans. Testing on human cells allows for higher accuracy and faster turnaround in trials.

Another article, by Pal, discusses the kinds of animals used for testing: "An entire scientific discipline, known as gnotobiology, is devoted to establishing and controlling the microbial status of laboratory animals." (Pal 9) These animals are typically delivered by cesarean section and kept pathogen-free to allow for optimal experimental conditions. Although the types of animals used are governed by government regulations, the author explains that researchers and experimenters are often unfamiliar with proper animal euthanasia procedures and general maintenance. Veterinarians, for example, could be brought in to give recommendations on effective euthanasia and animal care. However, most drug companies do not retain veterinarians as consultants and thus operate without full awareness of the animals' suffering.

This research provides insight into the kinds of animals used for experimentation as well as the scientific interest in maintaining specific laboratory conditions. Those conditions are maintained not out of concern for the animals' well-being, but to ensure adequate sampling and experimental consistency — illustrating the disparity between attention to experimental status and attention to animal welfare.

Conclusion

In conclusion, animal testing and animal experimentation remain necessary in society. Although human testing methods such as clinical trials offer better alternatives for some types of product testing, certain medicines and products remain too dangerous to test on humans first and must therefore go through animal testing. As recent studies confirm, most animals tested in recent times are far less intelligent than humans. Prior to increased public awareness, apes, rabbits, dogs, and cats all suffered through largely unregulated animal testing.

Now, most animal testing involves rodents. Even though animal testing is a painful process, so are many things humans themselves undergo — clinical trials, for instance, can have painful side effects, yet humans still sign up each year to participate. The most controversial area of animal testing — cosmetics — has seen a significant decline, with some companies actively promoting cruelty-free branding. For now, at least, animal testing remains an essential component of protecting the health and well-being of people.

Thanks to evolving standards and practices, companies have reduced which animals they use and some have eliminated animal testing altogether. Overall, animal testing today helps scientists and businesses produce goods that promote consumer health or enable medical advances. Therefore, regardless of the moral objections it raises, animal testing remains a necessary evil in modern society.

References

Balls, Michael. "The Conflict Over Animal Experimentation: Is the Field of Battle Changing?" ATLA 40 (2012): 189–191. Print.

Latham, Stephen R. "U.S. Law and Animal Experimentation: A Critical Primer." Hastings Center Report 42.s1 (2012): S35–S39. Web.

Pal, TK. "Animal Experimentations: Part I: General Considerations." J Int Clin Dent Res Organ 7.1 (2015): 7. Web.

Saraf, ShyamK, and Vinay Kumaraswamy. "Basic Research: Issues with Animal Experimentations." Indian Journal of Orthopaedics 47.1 (2013): 6. Web.

Webster, John. "Ethical and Animal Welfare Considerations in Relation to Species Selection for Animal Experimentation." Animals 4.4 (2014): 729–741. Web.