Why Animal Testing Should Be Banned

Should Animals Be Used in Scientific Testing for Medical Research or Commercial Products? The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. – Genesis 9:2 (c.

1450 BCE) Studies published in prestigious medical journals have shown time and again that animal experimentation wastes lives—both animal and human—and precious resources by trying to infect animals with diseases that they would never normally contract.

-- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (2019) As the epigraphs above clearly show that humankind’s views about using animals for their own purposes have changed significantly over the past several millennia, but despite increasing condemnation by animal rights advocates, animal testing for medical research or commercial products continues around the world today. Proponents on both sides of the arguments for and against animal testing have some valid points, however, that make this debate especially complex.

On the one hand, most people would likely agree that sacrificing a few lab rats is worth the modest cost if human lives can be saved in the process. On the other hand, though, there is a growing body of evidence that confirms that using animals for medical research or commercial products is ineffective and causes enormous undue suffering on the part of the animals that are involved.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a systematic and balanced review of the relevant literature concerning the arguments in support and against using animals for testing for medical research or commercial products to explain why this practice is ineffective and inhumane and why it should be banned by the international community altogether. A summary of the research and important findings concerning the foregoing issues are presented in the paper’s conclusion.

Arguments in support of using animals for scientific testing for medical and commercial product research Throughout history, a variety of animals have been used for medical research purposes. Indeed, as early as the 4th century BCE, Greek scientists including Erasistratus and Aristotle experimented with live animals (Hajar, 2011). Further, Galen (c. 2nd century CE), widely regarded as the father of Western medicine, used animals to gain a better understanding of physiology, pathology, anatomy and pharmacology (Hajar, 2011). Likewise, an Arab physician Ibn Zuhr (c.

13th century CE) innovated experimental methods for animal testing for surgical procedures prior to used them on human patients (Hajar, 2011). Supporters of animal testing maintain that these types of experiments are essential to develop improved medical and biological knowledge that can benefit humans. For instance, Claude Bernard, a French physiologist in the early 20th century who was widely referred to as “the father of physiology” claimed at the time that, “Experiments on animals are entirely conclusive for the toxicology and hygiene of man.

The effects of these substances are the same on man as on animals, save for differences in degree” (as cited in Hajar, 2011, p. 2). Moreover, Bernard went on to even include animal experimentation as an fundamental element of the modern scientific method (Hajar, 2011). Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that many scientists continue to support the use of animals for scientific testing and experimentation.

This support, however, exists along a continuum from wholesale approval of using animals for virtually any purpose that might benefit humankind, including ensuring the safety of commercial products for use by humans (Bishop & Manupello, 2012). For instance, Galanes (2010) reports that, “Commercial products are tested on animals to ensure product safety for consumers. [R]egulations and laws were created to allow for the testing of animals in laboratories in order to determine whether the benefits of a particular substance outweigh its potential harms” (p. 13).

Within the United States, manufacturers of commercial products are responsible for ensuring product safety for consumers which may necessitate the use of animals for testing purposes (Galanes, 2010). In other cases, though, support for animal testing in the scientific community is largely restricted to those instances where such experimentation can contribute to potential advances in medical science that can actually save human lives. In this regard, one scientist notes that he “supports a situation where animal use is a last resort.

If the testing gives a breakthrough in curing human diseases, then the testing should go ahead” (Yusuf, 2011, p. 37). This view is supported by claims that animal testing is in fact an effective strategy for ensuring the safety of medical products for humans. As Hajar (2011) points out, “The practice of using animals in biomedical research has led to significant advances in the treatment of various diseases” (p. 42).

Conversely, the main arguments against animal testing are generally far more cohesive in their views, with most critics charging that there is little or no scientific evidence that the practice achieves its intended outcomes, and these issues are discussed further below.

Argument against using animals for scientific testing for medical and commercial products research A number of prominent national and international animal protection and animal rights organizations have spoken out against animal testing for humane reasons and due to the lack of proven efficacy of this practice notwithstanding claims its proponents. For example, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the Doris Day Animal League, the American Anti-Vivisection Society, and the Medical Research Modernization Committee have all taken this anti-animal testing stance (Bishop & Manupello, 2012).

This anti-testing stance is more readily understandable when the fact that some testing regimens may consume millions of animals without achieving any discernible results with applicability for humans is taken into account (Bishop & Manupello, 2012). While animals have been used for medical experimentation since antiquity, the debate over the ethics of the practice dates back to at least the 18th century (Hajar, 2011). During the 18th century, there were growing suspicions that the basic foundation for using animals for experiments was severely flawed.

As noted above, arguments in support of animal testing for medical research and even commercial products exist along a continuum between two extremes in which the practice is allowed for virtually any purpose that holds even a slim promise of benefiting humankind in some fashion to using animals only as a “last resort.” By very sharp contrast, opponents of the practice generally agree on several points that collectively form the foundation for the opposition’s arguments.

In this regard, Hajar (2011) reports that, “Those against [animal testing] contend that the benefit to humans does not justify the harm to animals. Many people also believe that animals are inferior to humans and very different from them, hence results from animals cannot be applied to humans” (p. 3). Even the most ardent critics of animal testing might be moved to accept some level of the practice if it has some proven merit in saving human lives, but this has not been the case.

Moreover, while some critics of animal testing may grudgingly accept the need for the practice as a “last resort” when it is used for seeking advances in medical science with direct implications for humanity, this acceptance evaporates when it comes to animal testing for commercial products. For example, according to Goldsmith and Clark (2009), “Because ethical and moral implications are raised by this practice, some individuals are polarized in their attitudes about the justification for animal testing.

This is particularly true when animal testing is used for consumer products” (p. 956). This observation underscores the fact that while many people are willing to accept the need for animal testing under certain limited circumstances, they draw the line when it comes to a mere profit motive. In response to increasing criticisms of using animals for testing for commercial products only, the U.S. government and other members of the international community have enacted laws that strictly regulate the practice (Hajar, 2011).

Likewise, there has also been a so-called “3Rs campaign” that seeks to minimize the use of animals for testing purposes for commercial products. The three Rs of this campaign are as follows: (1) the replacement of animals with non-living models; (2) the reduction in the use of animals; and (3) the refinement of animal use practices (Hagar, 2011, p. 43).

Notwithstanding these types of initiatives to reduce the practice of using animals for medical research and commercial product research, though, it is clear that the suffering of millions of animals is too high a price for many people to accept in a modern society. For example, the European Union has outlawed the practice of using animal testing for any types of cosmetic ingredients (Berggren & Amcoff, 2015).

In addition, India, Norway and Israel have also implemented similar laws that ban using animals for testing for commercial products outright (Countries around the world work to ban cosmetics testing on animals, 2019). Likewise, New Zealand, South Korea, Afghanistan, Canada and Taiwan have also introduced legislation in recent months to outlaw animal testing for commercial products (Countries around the world, 2019), bringing the total to more than 30 countries worldwide that have implemented similar measures (Bedard, 2015).

Similarly, animal testing for commercial products has been against the law in Sao Paulo state, Brazil’s largest state, since 2014 and the national legislature is working to enact a nationwide ban. The United States has also taken positive steps towards eliminating the use of animals for commercial product research with the proposed Humane Cosmetics Act (Countries around the world, 2019). The proposed U.S.

Humane Cosmetics Act will phase out the use of animal testing for cosmetic products as well as the sale of any cosmetics that have used animal testing (Bedard, 2015). Discussion Given the fact that proponents of animal testing cite a growing body of evidence that confirms the efficacy of the practice in contributing to advances in medical science while critics of animal testing counter that there are no such studies, average people may have problems formulating an informed opinion concerning animal testing.

As noted above, most people would likely approve of some limited applications of animal testing that sacrificed a few lab rats to develop miraculous cures of humans, but the harsh reality of animal testing is that is also includes other types of animals, including primates. For instance, the Humane Society International reports that, “Many different species are used.