This paper examines the multifaceted debate surrounding the use of animals in biomedical and product testing. It defines animal experimentation across its major categories, then presents ethical arguments both against and in favor of the practice. Opposition voices—including PETA and medical researchers—highlight animal suffering and drug-safety failures such as Vioxx. Proponents, including the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science and the Society of Toxicology, argue that animal research has driven nearly every major medical advance of the past century. The paper also surveys the legal and professional accountability structures in Canada as a model for responsible oversight. The conclusion advocates for stronger international regulation as a middle-ground approach.
There are individuals and organizations that argue that using animals in test laboratories for biomedical research or product research is unethical, regardless of purpose. Others contend that using animals is vitally important for research that could potentially resolve human health issues. Both sides raise valid points, and this paper explores the issue using positions from several perspectives on animal testing.
Roman Kolar of the Animal Welfare Academy in Neubiberg, Germany, explains that any experimental procedure carried out "on an organism from the zoological (taxonomic) category Animalia" constitutes an animal experiment (Kolar, 2006, p. 113). That said, in Germany and other nations there are restrictions on the use of vertebrate animals for "historic reasons," Kolar explains. It was previously believed that vertebrate animals were the only animals capable of feeling pain and suffering, so vertebrates were placed off-limits for that reason. At the time this restriction was enacted, Kolar notes, there was no "scientifically accepted rationale" for that assumption; however, in recent years "overwhelming scientific evidence" has shown that many non-vertebrate species also possess nervous systems and are therefore capable of suffering "in a way that we would assume for most vertebrates" (p. 113).
Kolar identifies the specific areas of animal experimentation, including: (a) basic biomedical research — anything done to animals to investigate "biological phenomena" and "medical or veterinary implications"; (b) applied biomedical research — specific "pathological symptoms" are artificially induced by administering "toxic substances" or burning the animal's skin; (c) regulatory testing of drugs, compounds, and products — animals are used to determine whether there are "adverse effects" when certain substances are force-fed or applied to the skin or eyes; (d) regulatory (routine) testing of biological substances and products — vaccines and other biologicals are tested on "a huge number of animals" before human use, described as "extremely severe procedures"; and (e) educational purposes — animals are killed and used for education, including frogs, rabbits, and other species (Kolar, 2006, p. 114).
"Millions of animals are used every year in oftentimes extremely painful and distressing scientific procedures," Kolar reports. Notwithstanding the potentially positive outcomes from using animals in biomedical experiments — "a valuable gain of knowledge" — from an ethical perspective, "it seems unacceptable that we, as humans, put sentient beings into states of suffering that we would never accept for ourselves," Kolar writes in the peer-reviewed journal Science and Engineering Ethics (2006, p. 112). The author notes that in 2003 alone, approximately 10 million vertebrate animals were used in testing in the European Union, and "it must be assumed that the real number is considerably higher" due to "shortcomings" in the reporting format (Kolar, 2006, p. 112).
Kolar also reaches into philosophical history, quoting Immanuel Kant, who wrote in his 1797 Metaphysics of Morals that "painful, physical experiments for the purpose of speculation, if the aim can be reached without them, are to be abhorred" (as cited in Kolar, 2006, p. 115). Regarding 21st-century attitudes toward animal research, Kolar believes several conditions must be met before inflicting pain on animals can be justified: (a) the experiments must be "indispensable for specific purposes"; (b) there must be an ethical justification for inflicting "pain, suffering or distress"; and (c) the "3Rs" must be applied — replacement of methods using living vertebrates, reduction of the number of animals used, and refinement meaning a decrease in the severity of inhumane procedures (Kolar, 2006, p. 116).
The most visible organization opposing laboratory animal testing is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). PETA does not limit itself to press releases and public service announcements; it sends picket protesters to companies it believes are being cruel to animals and deploys undercover investigators into laboratories and factory farms where animals are kept in severely crowded conditions.
According to PETA, millions of rats, rabbits, cats, dogs, primates, and mice are locked inside "cold, barren cages in laboratories," waiting for the next "terrifying and painful procedures" to be performed on them. PETA claims that "more than 100 million animals every year suffer and die in cruel chemical, drug, food and cosmetic tests, biology lessons, medical training exercises, and curiosity-driven medical experiments."
These animals are not necessarily used for biomedical purposes such as finding cures for diseases, PETA explains; they are often used to test cosmetics, household cleaners, and other consumer products. Dogs are "force-fed pesticides," rabbits have "corrosive chemicals rubbed onto their skin and eyes," and mice and rats are "forced to inhale toxic fumes." Corporations are not the only parties conducting such procedures, PETA notes; the organization also accuses the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture, and the National Toxicology Program of conducting animal testing projects.
PETA's undercover investigation team has also released video footage of a U.S. Coast Guard training course in Virginia showing a company called "Tier 1 Group" — reportedly hired by the U.S. military — "breaking and cutting off the limbs of live goats with tree trimmers, stabbing the animals and pulling out their internal organs" (PETA, 2011, p. 1). The stated purpose of these exercises was to prepare soldiers to aid wounded comrades on the battlefield; however, PETA argues that these training exercises "bear no resemblance to real battlefield conditions."
Kathy Archibald, director of Europeans for Medical Progress, asserts that "nobody benefits from animal testing when they take medicines" because drugs "originate not from such tests but from clinical observation, serendipity and rational drug design" (Archibald, 2005, p. 1). Archibald points to the drug Vioxx, which passed animal laboratory tests but, after being approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, caused an estimated 88,000 to 139,000 Americans to suffer heart attacks or strokes. Approximately 55,000 of those individuals died. Had human-based tests been conducted rather than animal tests, Archibald argues, these deaths might have been avoided (Archibald, 2005, p. 2).
"AALAS and SOT defend research necessity"
"Canadian regulatory model for animal research"
There have clearly been many benefits for humans because animals are used in laboratory tests, but on the other hand there are verified instances where animals are brutally mistreated for purposes that are not at all obvious. Regulating the use of animals — as is done in Canada — is the best approach, short of finding viable alternatives to the use of animals in important research.
You’re 60% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.