Abstract
This paper explores the age old scientific controversy of the use of animals in testing for biomedical research. Claims are given from those who oppose and support the continuation of animal testing and a stance is taken following the analysis of both sides of the argument.
Introduction
The controversy over the use of animals for medical testing is decades old but is still incredibly relevant today. Unlike the controversy involving the use of animal testing for the cosmetics industry, the use of animal testing for medical research is more ethically controversial because, on a surface level, it trades the well-being of animals for the well-being of humans. Additional controversy emerges from the fact that animal testing isn’t the only means of testing made available to scientists. The underlying question that drives this scientific controversy is why does animal testing persist if ethical alternatives exist? This paper will explore the controversy of animal testing in medical research, provide solutions and my opinion on the manner.
Before delving into this controversy it must be understood that the conditions of animals being tested on are not as extreme as popular movies and television shows would have you believe. The basis of this controversy involves how effective the results garnered from experimentation are and the implementation of alternatives methods.
The Opposition
The testing of animals in medical research has existed for a long time, however Institutions that support the humane treatment of animals haven’t existed for as long. The testing of animals to advance biomedical and scientific research has existed as long as the scientific method, whereas the animal rights movement only started in the 20th century. In the United States and around the world animal rights activism has existed, to some degree, for centuries, but the legislation altering animal rights movement responsible for this controversy only emerged from in the late 1900s. Unlike the older animal rights movements that set to improve the quality of animal life in society the animal rights movement seeks to remove the distinction legal distinction drawn between humans and animals. The argument for this side of the controversy has three parts; being that because we don’t test on humans we also shouldn’t test on animals, there are alternatives available to animal testing, and that medical testing on animals yields inadequate results.
The first part of the argument against animal testing is understandably an underlying belief of many animal rights activist. The animal rights movement shares many of its beliefs with the woman’s suffrage movement (1848-1928), civil rights movement (1954-1968) and the LGBTQ movement (1969-present). All of these movements are built around the premise that the target group deserves the same rights because they are equally human. The distinction between these movements and the animal rights movement is that animal rights activists argue that just because an animal isn’t a human doesn’t mean that we as humans have the right to mistreat them. This statement ranges in forms of extremity from believing that humans and animals should be considered completely equal in society to simply believing animal abuse is wrong. Various organizations have arisen to defend animals in society.
Contrary to popular belief, animal testing isn’t the only way that scientist can perform biomedical research. Three alternatives to animal testing are the use of cell cultures, volunteer studies and computational modeling. While these methods have the capability of achieving biomedical results they have their limitations. Cell cultures seem viable but, “Importantly, some pharmacokinetic parameters cannot be studied by cell cultures, and animal experiments remain required to achieve this purpose” (Pharm, J. Saudi,). The failure of this method lies in its inability to substitute animal testing completely. Volunteer studies are problematic in that they could hypothetically replace animal testing but a lot of the studies performed on animals cannot legally be done on humans and legal volunteer studies can still create ethical controversies. Volunteer studies are still commonly used in the later stages of research but they cannot be seen as a substitute for animal testing. Computational modeling seems extremely promising as a means to replacing animal testing but even it is limited by the same problems that effect computers. Overall the replacement of animal testing seems unrealistic because of how efficient animal testing seems to be.
Animal testing, though more efficient than other methods, is not as efficient as the last paragraph made it seem. Many who oppose animal testing use the FDAS (Food and Drug Administration’s) findings that state that, “…nine out of 10 drugs that are safe and effective in animals fail in human clinical trials…”(Goodman, R. Justin). Specific cases such as stroke and HIV are also often brought up when arguing that animal testing is inefficient. Andre Menache From animal aid expands upon the inefficiency of animal testing by stating that, “Whatever you discover, you will have to re-discover using people, so not only do the animals suffer using these experiments, the first few patients using these novel treatments will suffer, too” (Tatchell, Peter, The Long Fight Against Animal Testing). This makes animal testing seem even more efficient because the failures also transfer to human testing.
For Animal Testing
The media paints the facility’s that use animals in biomedical research as evil, but the conditions of animal testing are often exaggerated. Many believe that the persistence of animal testing is emblematic of an underlying scientific conservativism but in truth the reason for practices prescience is more complex. Testing on animals is an ancient practice whose ethicality and practicality have evolved over time. People who support (whether it average citizens or the biomedical research community) the continuation of this practice don’t see it as a breach in research ethics and believe that it is integral to the progression of the medical sciences.
This group’s belief that animal testing isn’t a breach of ethics, primarily resonates with the evolution of the practices ethicality and morality. “Federal law, the Animal Welfare Act, includes specific mandatory requirements for housing, feed, air ventilation and alleviation and elimination of pain, as well as exercise of dogs and the psychological well-being of primates.”(Foundation for biomedical research). This quote is emblematic of the belief that animal testing has evolved in ethicality and regulation. It combats the generally negative connotation that animal testing hold by claiming that animals are treated fairly in these experiments. This argument holds up when looking at the progression of animal rights legislation from 1966 to now.
The real reason Animal testing persists is because of how effective it has been in progressing medical knowledge. Almost every medical breakthrough in knowledge is attributed, in some respect, to animal research. This combined with the fact that most alternative methods of research don’t effectively replace animal research are the primary reasons for the continuation of animal research. Most scientists acknowledge that animals suffer to some extent in animal testing. Many scientists also support the development of alternative methods of research. Currently animal testing is the best method of research and millions of people rely on it to survive.
Analysis
A couple of conclusions can be drawn from the arguments surrounding this controversy. The first regards the underlying forces driving the controversy. On one hand people want to see animals treated just as fairly as humans in most aspects of society while on the other scientists trade the well-being of animals for the well-being of the people relying on them. Wetter this trade is just or not is a complex controversy in and of itself and will not be analyzed in this paper. The arguments that accompany these two major arguments are the regulation of the practice. People for animal testing claim that the practice is heavily regulated while those against it say that it isn’t. Both sides have strong points here as that animals included in the animal welfare act are regulated while animals excluded are not. The interesting part of this controversy is that both sides agree that animal testing should be replaced with a more effective and ethical alternative. The difference between the groups mainly lies in one side believing that animal testing saves lives while the other believes the lives of animals must be saved. Surface level interpretations of this controversy often ignore the other side of the controversy and simply frame it as either conservative scientist unwilling to change or unintelligible reformists who ignore the well-being of the ill (or those who will be ill in the future).
Animal testing is important for the progression of medical knowledge but it is also ethically controversial. Common ground cannot be achieved amongst the subjects of how regulated it is and how humane it is. The alternatives to animal testing are either unable to completely replace it or are not developed enough to replace it right now. With this information a general conclusion can be drawn. Animal testing should continue today as it is an integral part of the progression of biomedical research but the ethicality of the practice is questionable. More focus should be placed to the development of alternative methods of acquiring medical knowledge so that one day animal testing can be eradicated.
Bibliography
Peter Tatchell. (2009, July). The Long Fight Against Animal Testing. The Guardian.
Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/jul/23/animal-research-rate-rising
Foundation for Biomedical Research. Retrieved from
Henry Cohen. (2006). The Animal Welfare Act. Michigan State University: Animal Legal and Historical Center. Retrieved from
https://www.animallaw.info/article/animal-welfare-act
Goodman J. R., Borch C. A., Cherry C. (Spring 2012). Contexts Vol. 11, No. 2, From Sweatshops to Surrogacy: Mounting opposition to vivisection (pp. 68-69). Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41960817
Speaking of Research. Us Statistics. Retrieved from
Christopher Wanjek. (2008, Feb). Why Lab Animals Are Still Used. Live Science. Retrieved from
https://www.livescience.com/2294-lab-animals.html
Janet M. Davis. The History of Animal Protection in the United States. The American Historian. Retrieved from
https://tah.oah.org/november-2015/the-history-of-animal-protection-in-the-united-states/
Alternatives to Animal Testing. Cruelty Free International. Retrieved from.
https://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/why-we-do-it/alternatives-animal-testing
Pharm, S. (2015 sep). Cell Cultures in Drug Development: Applications, Challenges and Limitations. NCBI. 453-454. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4834691/
(Updated September 2016). Computational modeling. U.S, Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from
https://www.nibib.nih.gov/science-education/science-topics/computational-modeling
An G., MD and Vodovotz Y., PhD. (2014 Nov). If Biomedical Research is a Sick Patient, is Computational Modeling the Prescription?. Elsevier. Retrieved from
(1988(. Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Retrieved from
