Animal Testing: Why the Negatives Outweigh the Positives

Introduction: The Case for and Against Animal Testing

Many cures and treatments have been developed over the last three hundred years due to advances in medical technology. These developments are sometimes attributed partly to the fact that scientists and researchers have been able to use animals as test subjects for new medications or treatment methods before moving to human volunteers. There is strong evidence supporting this claim, though technology today allows scientists to bypass animal testing in many cases. Moreover, animal testing has led to many serious abuses and misleading results, due in part to the fact that animals' physiology does not match the complexity of the human body. Ultimately, when the benefits and harms of using animals for testing purposes are weighed, it becomes evident that animals should not be used for experiments. This paper presents both sides of the argument and then explains why animals should not be used in research and experimental testing.

Having admitted that "I have all my life been a strong advocate for humanity to animals," Charles Darwin once stated, "I know that physiology cannot possibly progress except by means of experiments on living animals, and I feel the deepest conviction that he who retards the progress of physiology commits a crime against mankind" (qtd. in Taylor 164). This is the crux of the argument made by those who justify the use of animals in testing and research. They argue that they do not want animals to suffer and that they would like to eliminate animal testing if possible. But in the absence of viable alternatives, and for the purpose of advancing medical science that helps scientists develop pain relievers and life-saving drugs, they consider animal testing a necessity. They argue that stopping animal testing will make it much harder for scientists to develop effective drugs that can reduce pain, alleviate illness, and save lives.

Arguments Supporting Animal Testing

Supporters of animal testing ground their justification in the belief that "humans are sufficiently superior to animals to the extent that the death of an animal from developing a new drug is justified by the benefit to human life or well-being" (Taylor 166). Drawing on the theories and studies of cultural anthropologists and psychologists, they argue that humans are inherently superior to animals because, unlike animals, humans can love, empathize, feel guilt or embarrassment, and understand sincerity and deception — characteristics that fundamentally distinguish them. Philosophers also argue that the human ability to understand abstract ideas and concepts makes humans markedly different from animals, and thus subject to a different moral framework that does not apply to animals.

From a religious perspective, humans are considered superior to animals in the Judeo-Christian tradition, which holds that humans were created in the image of God. The Book of Genesis clearly emphasizes the primacy of human dominion over animals, and many religious traditions outside Christianity subscribe to a similar view. Based on these perspectives, supporters argue that sacrificing the health and lives of animals is justified when those sacrifices can promote human well-being (Taylor 166–167).

The 3 Rs Principle and Standard Testing Procedures

Supporters also argue that researchers constantly look for ways to minimize animal suffering and use animal testing only as a last resort. They follow the principle of the "3 Rs," popularized by William Russell and Rex Burch in 1959 through their landmark publication The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. The 3 Rs stand for reduction, refinement, and replacement. Researchers are encouraged "to reduce the number of animals used in experiments to the minimum considered necessary, refine or limit the pain and distress to which animals are exposed, and replace the use of animals with non-animal alternatives when possible" (Ferdowsian and Beck 1).

At present, supporters claim that eliminating animals from testing and experimentation is not yet a realistic option. As one supporter states: "I'd love to hear a proposal for methods to realistically replace these animal models that 'eliminate the risk of species differences,' but currently none exist, and developing such methods is still well within the realm of science fiction. One can claim that medical discoveries can be made using exclusively non-animal methods, but unless one can suggest realistic replacements, these claims are hollow" (Pycroft and Marston 35). Researchers also try to minimize testing on animals most similar to humans. Non-human primates, for instance, which share superior cognitive functions with humans, have been nearly eliminated from testing in recent years. In the year 2000 in Britain, only 0.13% of testing was conducted on non-human primates, 0.3% on dogs, 1.5% on rabbits, 9% on fish, 20% on rats, and 59% on mice (Taylor 167).

Supporters of animal testing insist that avoiding it would put humans at greater risk, because using animals in drug development is currently a required step in standard procedure. Animals, like humans, have a capacity to feel pain and express it through behavior, and they similarly have a capacity to predict analgesic efficacy in humans, making their use necessary in pain research models (Mogil, Davis, and Derbyshire). The standard procedure typically begins with mathematical and computer modeling based on existing data and research. This is sometimes followed by procedures on tissue cultures — for example, using material from liver transplants. Testing is then conducted on animals, followed by human volunteers. The two main purposes of animal testing are to ensure that relevant information is "as complete as possible" and that "the medicine under investigation can safely be tested on humans" (Taylor 169). Without this standard procedure, supporters claim, scientists would either have failed to advance medicine or would have placed humans at greater risk in developing treatments for illnesses such as leukemia, blindness, malaria, Alzheimer's disease, heart failure, infertility, and many others.

Conclusion: Speciesism and the Case for a Ban

This is not to say that no experiment can ever be conducted on animals. Tests and experiments are sometimes conducted directly on humans as well. However, testing on animals must be guided by the same principles that govern human experiments — that is, "without treating the interests of animals as less weighty than those of humans," and only if the evidence shows that "the benefits of an experiment on an animal would outweigh the costs to the animal" (Singer). It is fundamentally inconsistent for scientists to reject the biblical story of creation and embrace Darwinian evolutionary theory when it suits them, yet — when it comes to the principles guiding animal testing — to reverse course and treat human interests as inherently superior to those of animals.

What scientific, objective, and verifiable evidence exists to show that human interests weigh greater than those of animals? Scientists know very well that there is no such evidence — other than the fact that humans are susceptible to what Peter Singer calls "speciesism": "a prejudice against beings that are not members of our own species, and similar in many respects to racist and sexist prejudices against beings who are not members of a dominant race or sex" (Singer). Absent this speciesist prejudice, there is no doubt that the negatives of animal testing outweigh its benefits, and that the practice should therefore be prohibited or, at minimum, governed by the same ethical standards applied to experimentation on human beings.

Works Cited

Dolgin, Elie. "Animal Testing Alternatives Come Alive In U.S." Nature Medicine 16.12 (2010): 1348. MEDLINE. Web. 7 May 2012.

Dove, Alan. "The Search For Animal Alternatives. (Cover Story)." Drug Discovery & Development 13.4 (2010): 10–13. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 May 2012.

Ferdowsian, Hope. "Why We Need Alternatives." Chronicle of Higher Education 57.12 (2010): B9–B10. Professional Development Collection. Web. 7 May 2012.

Ferdowsian, Hope R., and Nancy Beck. "Ethical And Scientific Considerations Regarding Animal Testing And Research." PLOS ONE 6.9 (2011): e24059. MEDLINE. Web. 7 May 2012.

Garber, Ken. "Realistic Rodents? Debate Grows Over New Mouse Models Of Cancer." Journal of the National Cancer Institute 98.17 (2006): 1176–1178. MEDLINE. Web. 7 May 2012.

Liebsch, Manfred, et al. "Alternatives To Animal Testing: Current Status And Future Perspectives." Archives of Toxicology 85.8 (2011): 841–858. MEDLINE. Web. 7 May 2012.

Mogil, Jeffrey S., Karen D. Davis, and Stuart W. Derbyshire. "The Necessity Of Animal Models In Pain Research." Pain 151.1 (2010): 12–17. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 May 2012.

Pycroft, Laurie, and Helen Marston. "Is Animal Testing Necessary To Advance Medical Research?" New Internationalist 444 (2011): 34. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 7 May 2012.

Roberts, Ian, et al. "Where Is The Evidence That Animal Research Benefits Humans?" BMJ: British Medical Journal 328.7438 (2004): 514–517. CINAHL. Web. 7 May 2012.

Singer, Peter. "Humans Are Sentient Too." The Guardian. 30 July 2004. Web. 7 May 2012.

Taylor, Robert. "Testing Drugs On Animals: A Test Case For Socially Responsible Investment." Business Ethics: A European Review 14.2 (2005): 164–175. Business Source Premier. Web. 7 May 2012.