Animal Experimentation: Ethics, Failures, and Alternatives

Introduction: The Legacy of Animal Experimentation

Nineteenth-century physiologist Claude Bernard first began practicing experimental medicine on animals. Bernard believed it was immoral to conduct laboratory experiments on humans if those tests had not first been proven safe on animals (LaFollette and Shanks, 1994). As the most intelligent species in the animal kingdom, humans are constantly discovering new and innovative ideas to improve their lifestyle and quality of life. Evidence of this advancement is visible in the average increase in human life expectancy — from 45 years at the turn of the 19th century to 73 years in the 21st century. Although a number of medical breakthroughs in recent history have resulted from intensive research using animals as test subjects in initial clinical trials, the number of experiments that have ended in failure — and consequently cost the lives of animals — far exceeds the number of successful ones.

Experimentation on animals is not morally right; it is cruel. What happens to these animals after the experiments have ended? In the article "An Embarrassment of Chimpanzees," Joseph D'Agnese examined some of the shortcomings of using animals in experimentation (Discover, 2002). When laboratories close, chimpanzees are either sent to another laboratory or to sanctuaries. Many of them, as a result of experiments, carry transmittable diseases such as AIDS and HIV, which make them difficult to handle and care for. They require special care, and their diseases prevent them from being released into the wild, where they might interact with and infect other animals. Scientists who work with chimpanzees claim that valuable data is collected from biopsies, inoculations, and knockouts — a precursor to clinical trials with human subjects. Animal rights activists insist, however, that animal-free science has come of age and that animal sacrifice is wholly unnecessary.

There are numerous experiments being conducted by research centers across America, sponsored by grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to discover solutions for virtually every human ailment. It is becoming increasingly apparent, however, that the results of animal trials are not always applicable to humans. In the article "A Critical Look at Animal Experimentation," the authors argue that there are better and more effective ways of arriving at valid conclusions (Cohen et al., 1998). Supporters of vivisection — tests, experiments, and educational exercises involving harm to animals — have claimed that these experiments play an important role in all medical advances. While there have been benefits in the past from using lab rats and rhesus monkeys to demonstrate new techniques in medicine, and from using animals in medical school laboratories to master dissection skills, the landscape has fundamentally changed.

Modern technology has transformed the research and medical arenas. New and continuously improving simulation models are available to researchers who wish to use them. Medical skills can now be honed without dissecting and killing animals. If simulators can teach pilots to fly planes in different weather conditions, they can equally be used to train young doctors in the medical skills needed for their work.