Why Animal Testing Is No Longer a Viable Scientific Option

Introduction

Science, and the sub-discipline of chemistry, has produced significant advances in the health and welfare of society. Throughout this history, animal testing has been used as a component of chemical and scientific experiments, and there is much debate about both the ethics and the effectiveness of this practice. The purpose of this essay is to argue that animal testing is no longer a viable option in many areas of scientific experimentation and should be used sparingly, if at all. This argument incorporates differing perspectives on the complex nature of this problem and synthesizes these ideas with a view toward furthering our understanding of science and chemistry.

Before examining the ethical dimensions of the argument, it is important to determine whether animal testing is actually providing any net benefit to science or humanity. PETA has argued that animal testing is not worth the time or effort, stating: "Most animal experiments are not relevant to human health, they do not contribute meaningfully to medical advances, and many are undertaken simply out of curiosity and do not even pretend to hold promise for curing illnesses. The only reason people are under the misconception that animal experiments help humans is because the media, experimenters, universities, and lobbying groups exaggerate the potential of animal experiments to lead to new cures and the role they have played in past medical advances."

Animal Testing Is Not Viable

This is a strong argument, and while it may not reflect a fully comprehensive view, it is important to recognize that there is serious doubt about the actual effectiveness of the practice. Old habits are certainly hard to break, yet science is fundamentally about finding better ways of doing things and making the world a more understandable place. Ignoring this line of critique would suggest a lazy and incurious interpretation of scientific progress. As researchers increasingly explore alternative testing methods, the scientific community faces growing pressure to justify continued reliance on animal subjects.

Ethics are essentially an art, and it is important to apply reason and careful judgment when addressing the subject of animal testing. Ethical frameworks are flexible and fluid — never permanent — and their rightful application is central to human existence. Applying ethical concepts to problems such as animal rights and humane research pursuits is always worthwhile and provides a balanced approach to scientific discovery and development.

Ruiz-Meana et al. (2012) examined animal ethics and its application in cardiovascular research, writing: "In some instances, discrepant views between the public and scientists regarding what may be considered essential for the progress of knowledge has ended up in a complete lack of understanding between the two parties. In other cases, open and constructive debate has resulted in an improvement of animal welfare and the quality of science." Ultimately, this research found that animal testing cannot be completely phased out immediately, and that time and evolution will continue to shape the debate. What is needed is a more specific and guided framework for determining when using animals may yield genuine benefit — one that upholds human reason and dictates a proportionate, ethical response.

The Ethics of Animal Testing

Prudence and restraint should be applied in cases where animal testing appears mandatory. This approach is warranted not only for the ethical reasons laid out above, but also because such testing is frequently unlikely to produce reliable results. Finding new ways of demonstrating the fruits of science and chemistry should not require cruelty. Harmonizing with the environment and cultivating a symbiotic relationship with all animals should be the goal of scientific inquiry, as wanton waste and destruction of animal life reflects the lesser qualities of scientific practice and demonstrates a lack of discipline and forethought.

Dolan, Kevin. Ethics, Animals and Science. Blackwell Science Ltd., 2000.

Ruiz-Meana, Marisol, et al. "Animal Ethics in Cardiovascular Research." Cardiovascular Research 93.1 (2012): 1–3.

Conclusion

PETA.com (n.d.). Animal Testing is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint. Viewed 11 Jan 2014. Retrieved from http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-bad-science/