Animal Testing

Anya Verma

Grade 9

Hillsborough High School Reviewed by Jessica Hwang

Dissecting Bioethics

Written on February 3, 2024

Animal Testing

photo credit to unoL from Shutterstock

This article covers the several viewpoints of both proponents and opponents of

animal testing. 

Animal testing involves testing chemicals, medications, and more on living animals to analyze its effect on other organisms. It is often used as a precursor to human testing; passing animal testing provides the preliminary confirmation that a possible development can be made in a field of interest. 

Current debates on animal testing regard both the scientific advantages that it has, as well as the ethical implications and morality. It has been used widely since the beginnings of medicine, and has met its fair share of proponents and opponents. While breakthroughs such as the development of the vaccines, such as those for COVID-19, smallpox, and polio, are a direct result of animal testing, hundreds of millions of animals also die as a direct result. 

Ideas of animal testing proponents

Animal testing proponents tend to argue that this kind of research has played a pivotal role in some of the world’s most devastating diseases. The smallpox disease, for example, was eradicated through deliberate global efforts of vaccination. Prior to being released to the public, the smallpox vaccine had been tested on mice and rabbits. Once it had passed testing, it was utilized massively and helped save the lives of millions across the globe. Had it not been for animal testing, such an advancement may not have been made. This point of view is supported by researchers such as J. David Jentsch, a neuroscientist studying addiction. 

Proponents also argue the striking genetic similarity between humans and tested animals; in fact, the California Biomedical Research Association stresses that around 99% of DNA is shared between chimpanzees and humans, while 98% of DNA is shared between mice and humans. This offers a large avenue for researchers to research and discover accurate results for their purposes. 

The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) has been protecting the maltreatment of animals since 1996. It has prescribed a set of minimum standards any animal testing facility must have for the circumvention of animal abuse. Researchers tend to avoid the mistreatment of animals for the sake of the accuracy of their research results as well. To avoid the unnecessary use of animals for research, all proposals for animal research must be approved and humane practices are regulated by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC). 

Ideas of animal testing opponents

The most obvious argument against animal testing is the inhumane and cruel treatment of animals during the process. Animals can be forced to become addicted to drugs, subject to torture, and dead from mistreatment. A January 2020 report from the United States Department of Agriculture claimed that over 300,000 animals alone had been involved in research studying pain over the course of a year in the US; 115 million animals are used for research worldwide. 

Incorrect reporting of animal testing research also suggests that the amounts estimated by the USDA are most likely to be a major underestimate. 

Opponents also argue that only 5% of animals are protected under the AWA. Animals such as mice, birds, fish, and rats are used widely by researchers, but do not fall under the protection of the AWA. Therefore, animal safety is not necessarily ensured and they may still be in danger. 

Moreover, clinical trials that pass animal testing are not always effective. For example, more than 85 HIV treatments that passed animal testing of primates failed when tested on humans. Additionally, drugs appearing to be safe during animal testing can prove to be very dangerous; this is proven by 10,000 newborns suffering severe deformities when exposed to the drug thalidomide, which had passed preliminary animal testing. In contrast, research on drugs that do not pass through animal testing may be halted despite potentially having benefits for humans. 

There are many alternatives to animal testing. This can include the use of stem cells, tissue cultures (such as organs-on-chip), and testing on human volunteers. Animal testing opponents argue that animals are not given a choice whether to participate in a trial or not; humans are given a choice. Therefore, the use of human volunteers is more ethical and accurate. The usage of tissue cultures and stem cells derived from human DNA can provide a non-living, accurate representation of drugs in the human body without the usage of animals. 

Conclusion

Currently, 45 countries have prohibited the use of animal testing for cosmetics, including nations in the European Union, Canada, India, and more. Several countries such as the USA still participate in animal testing. 

Animal rights activists are often seen protesting against the use of animals for research. Neuroscientist J. David Jentsch is one of the many scientists who have suffered through hate crimes such as arson and death threats because of his work with research with animals. 

While animal testing remains to be a controversial subject, it is important to understand that it has many important applications in the field of medicine; however, it can be replaced by novel methods.