Animal Testing: Is Animal Testing Ethically Incorrect

In American culture a lot of groups and organizations are discussing whether or not animal testing should be disqualified. A number of people consider that there are reasons why animal testing should be done. Others have an opinion that animal testing is ethically incorrect. Several experts also believe that there are supplementary options existing. At one momentary look animal testing is necessary to manufacture latest medicines but this violates the animal rights. The research establishes that why the animal testing should not be banned and why it should be forbidden.

Animal testing

The use of animals as test subject in scientific research has provided spectacular improvements in our understanding of the humans. Regardless of the controversies that encircle this issue, without this process of animal testing it is definite that much of what is acknowledged today towards the excellence and capacity of life would remain closed off to us. Scientists have achieved the capability to resolve medical tribulations, treat and cure diseases, and create vaccines all with the use of animals throughout scientific investigation. To consider that the use of animals is only cruel and morally wrong is only the refutation of the overall benefits that result from research related to living organisms. Animals used in scientific research have led to considerable advances that are vital to society’s security and should be considered moral and necessary.

Animal testing have some medical benefits that are a good starting point for this public controversy about the use of animals in testing and research. The animal testing can pioneer effects that are advantageous to the health of individuals. By means of animals in biomedical investigation and research, scientists have been able to resolve medical troubles that humans have been fighting for a while. According to Dr. Michael E. DeBakey, chairman of the foundation for Biomedical Research (1981), “Not one advancement in the care of patients' advancements that you use and take for granted every day – has been realized without the use of animal research.” It is irrefutable that every human during some stage in his or her life has benefited immensely from the use of animal testing. Insulin, Antibiotics to blood transfusions are negligible treatments that animal testing played a critical and crucial role in developing. Now, animal research is most important to dramatic progress against cancer, AIDS, and Alzheimer’s disease.

Animal testing can increase the understanding concerning the animal being experimented on. What people don’t understand today is that by testing animals researchers are able to help animals survive as well as human beings. When medical researchers learn about a new kind of Virus, the tests against this virus are used on animals; Mice are the most common lab animal for experiments. The researcher, by observing the reaction of the animal can then understand the growth of each species, and the possible effects that can rise in the future. The U.S. Foundation for Biomedical Research (1981) says that “Animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century - for both human and animal health." The same case follows for a scientist that has a jobsite in a place infected by diseases. Animals can assist and be the pioneers that help the scientists save valuable live and continue there discoveries.

Millions of people were killed by incurable diseases, such as smallpox, rabies, et cetera before the 18th century due to lack of knowledge in developing medicines and vaccine at that time. People caught by the diseases were hopeless because they knew that no one could help them. In the mid 1800s, animal testing was introduced to medicine industry by Edward Jenner (Trueman, 2002). His brilliant discovery in developing smallpox vaccine by using animals helped a lot of people and gave hope to the medical field that incurable diseases were not incurable anymore. Although he was not the first man to use animal in experiments, his success made animal testing become commonly used in medicine industry. Since then, animal testing has been playing an important role in producing medicines. It is used in developing new medicines and approving the safety of medicines. Hence, millions of unhealthy people have been helped indirectly by animal testing. However, animal testing is beneficial for human only and not for the animals used. Most of the animals which give great contribution to the health of world’s dwellers are cruelly slaughtered during experiments and not well treated in medicine-development laboratories. Animals, like human, also have rights to be freed from suffering and treated well. We, as human beings, must understand that animals are also living beings which feelings should be considered as well. So, is animal testing still appropriate to be used in medicine industry? I do not think so. It is inappropriate because most of the testing implemented hurts the animals both physically and mentally, it generates a lot of social problem, and its results are often inaccurate. Also, there is no need to use animal testing in medicine industry because alternative methods that could replace it have been developed.

How would you react when someone sting your finger harshly with a needle? Normally, you would express your pain by drawing your finger immediately and rub your finger gently, then show your displeasure to draw the person who stings you back. Animals’ reactions are the same with that of human when they are pinpricked severely in medicine laboratories. They can also feel physical pain. Many people do not understand this and think that animals do not have any feelings at all. Take Descartes, a French philosopher, mathematician and scientist, for example. He stated that animals do not have minds. Animals are only machines created by God in order to please human beings (Singer, 1980). He also said that animals’ movements and sounds are the same with those of a clock, but of course more complicated since clock is a machine made by human and animals are God’s creation (Singer, 1980). This philosophy is very inaccurate. All animals, especially mammals, have the same basic nervous system as humans’, although human nervous system is more complicated due to evolution (Singer, 1980). Therefore, animals also have a part of brain which detects pain, same with human. Physical pain is suffered by animals during many medicine testing. For example, because of being injected carelessly with medicines, exposed to excessive amount of poisonous substances, and hit or kicked when they show a sign of rejection. Furthermore, they are enduring continual physical pain due to not being well kept. For instance, their cages are not cleaned regularly; they are fed with insufficient amount of food; their wounds and illnesses are not cured; et cetera. An example of animal physical abuse case in medicine industry is the Huntingdon Life Science Ltd. (HLS) case which involved dog abuse in 1997. The dogs used were hit roughly when they wriggled during blood test. Moreover, sometimes the scientists did not find the vein of the dogs, so they just injected the medicines on any spot randomly, which cause unstoppable bleeding. They did not take care of the wounds they had caused; instead they just left the dog bleeding sometimes until the dogs were dead. Intolerable physical pain is suffered by the animals which have significant dedications to medicine development because of animal testing. Thus, animal testing in medicine industry must be stopped.

In addition to physical pain suffered by animals during medicine testing, the animals also experience mental pain. According to Singer, three separate British government committees have agreed that animals are not only capable of feeling physical pain, but also mental pain, such as fear, anxiety, stress, et cetera (Singer, 1980). Animals kept in cages in medicine laboratories are undergoing anxiety of being abused again every single day. Moreover, they endure stress and fear while the tests are being conducted. Sue Farinato in her article, Animal Protection Groups, Scientists Call for End to Non-Human Primates in Research and Testing, revealed,

“Primates in laboratories can be forced to live alone in small metal cages, be subjected to handling by humans, and endure various procedures, such as multiple surgeries, food and water deprivation, and infection with deadly pathogens. As a result, many live in a constant state of anxiety, remembering what has happened to them or their companions and anticipating what may happen next. Aberrant behaviors can result from these stressors, including self-mutilation, stereotypical movement, and hair-pulling”. (Farinato, 2005)

This condition completely violates point number one in article six of universal declaration of animal rights, which says, “Experiments on animals entailing physical or psychological suffering violate the rights of animals” (FARL, 2005). Some may rebuke by saying that they do not know that the animals suffer from mental pain because animals cannot talk. Verbal language is not the only means of communication. We can notice a person’s emotions without him saying anything because of non-verbal language or body language he expressed. If we can examine body language in human, then we are also able to observe non-verbal language of animals. In accordance to Charles Darwin in his book, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, many of the non-verbal reactions of human in expressing emotions are identical with those of animals (Darwin, 1873). Thus, there is no reason that one, especially a scientist who has conducted a lot of experiments with animals, does not know whether an animal is suffering from mental pain or not. As psychological pains caused by animal testing offends the tested animals’ welfare, alternative methods must be used to replace animal testing.

Animal testing not only afflicts animals being used, but also our society. A lot of harsh protests and terrorism have been done against animal testing. Those actions have caused many public losses. Plenty of innocent people have died; many unrelated private companies have been accidentally involved in the damaging acts, and numerous public facilitations have been ruined in those actions which are usually conducted by animal-lovers organizations. Animal Liberation Front (ALF) is one of the most extreme animal-rights-advocate organizations. According to FBI, ALF has been causing 1,200 vicious acts since 1900 and millions of dollar of damage (Smallwood, 2005). A bombing act occurred in Cambridge is one example of their criminal attacks. On September 27, 2005, ALF activists placed a fuel-containing device in front of the house of Paul Blackburn, the corporate controller of British biggest medicine company – GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) (Murray-West, 2005). The reason of the attack is the relation between GSK and Huntingdon Life Science Ltd., a commercial laboratory which implements animal testing. Although the bomb only caused a little damage, the action evoked public unrest. Our society has become more insecure because of animal testing. Hence, even though it has important role in medicine industry, it should be eliminated.

Evidence that proves animal testing is not appropriate anymore is the inaccuracy of animal testing. Results of animal testing are relied by medicine manufacturers in producing their products. If there is a single problem exists in the results, the whole medicines being produced based on the results will be very dangerous to be consumed. Because animal testing do not always give dependable and accurate results, many medicines actually could have opposite impacts on the human consumers. Instead of curing, they could be damaging. The Thalidomide tragedy in 1960 is one of the cases caused by animal testing inaccuracy. Thalidomide is a medicine that is designed as a sleeping aid and an antiemetic to help pregnant women overcome morning sickness. However, it was found causing malformations during fetal development although it had passed the safety tests implemented on animals. Approximately 15,000 fetuses were damaged by Thalidomide, about 12,000 of whom were born with birth imperfection, and only 8,000 of them survived their first year of life. Another example of tragedies caused by failure in animal testing is the Vioxx tragedy. Vioxx was created as a COX-2 inhibitor. It was believed to have heart-protective effect because that was the result obtained by “dependable” animal testing. Nonetheless, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) consultant, John J. Pippin, recently revealed that Vioxx had a heart-damage effect on human (PCRM, 2005). The Vioxx and Thalidomide tragedies are not the only cases caused by inaccuracy of animal testing. There are many more of them, such as Rezulin and Baycol tragedies. By looking at these cases, we can conclude that animal testing is not as perfect and accurate as most people think. Its result could bring disasters and damage to human health. Hence, it is inappropriate to be used in medicine manufacturing which affects the life of many people.

Alternative methods have been developed as solutions to problems caused by animal testing. There are three major methods which have been successfully used in experiments. They are computer simulation method, cell culture technique, and microfluidic system. Briefly, computer simulation method is the using of several specific computer programs to study metabolism by giving kinetic data and equations that can be observed; cell culture technique is the using of cells, such as hepatocytes, instead of living animals in testing medicines; and microfluidic system is the using of cell cultures developed in interconnected chambers to mimic human organs (Wikipedia, 2005). These methods provide more accurate results than animal testing does. Also, these methods do not need animals in their implementation. As a result, there is no animal abuse and cold-blood killing of animals involved. Both humans and animals are benefited by using these alternative methods, so a win-win situation can be obtained. Medicine manufacturers can get more credible results in producing their products and help more unhealthy people, while animals can be freed from physical and mental pain caused by animal abuse during medicine testing. Anti-animal testing scientists believe that these three alternative methods have a good prospect and will give much greater contribution than animal testing does to medicine industry.

Animal testing has brought both advantages and disadvantages to our society. For almost two hundred years of implementation in medicine industry, it has helped countless people regain their health back indirectly by ensuring the safety and function of medicines they use. On the other hand, innumerous animals have been sacrificed and suffering from animal abuse during medicine testing. This situation is very unfair. While humans are cured, animals are slaughtered. We must acknowledge that animals are not only properties which are made by God to serve human. They are similar to human; they also have feelings, consciousness, and rights which are needed to be protected. Moreover, animal testing has generated terrorisms and severe protests conducted by animal-rights advocates. Those acts result in public anxiety and a lot of damages on public and private properties. Also, plentiful tragedies have happened due to the inaccuracy of animal testing results. Many people have died and suffered from malfunctions because of that. We can see that the disadvantages of animal testing outweigh the advantages.

Furthermore, alternative methods which provide more credible results and do not involve animal abuse have been developed. Therefore, animal testing in medicine industry is not appropriate to be used anymore. It should be eliminated and replaced by alternative methods which provide better results and better future.

References:

Beckoff, M. & Meaney, C. A, (1998), "Encyclopedia of animal rights and animal welfare", Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.

Darwin, C, (1873), "The Expression of The Emotions in Man and Animals"

Ehrlich, A, (1993), "Medical Terminology for Health Professions" Albany, N.Y.: Delmar Publishers.

Farinato, S, (2005), "Animal Protection Groups, Scientists Call for End to Non-Human Primates in Research and Testing"

French Animal Right League (FARL) contributors. Universal Declaration of animal rights, (2005).

Murray-West, R, (2005), "Animal Rights Activists in New Wave of Attacks"

PCRM Online, (2005), "Vioxx Tragedy Spotlights Failure of Animal Research"

Singer, P, (1980), "Animals and The Value of Life: Matters of Life and Death"

Smallwood, S, (2005), "Speaking for The Animals, or The Terrorists?", The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Trueman, (2002), "Edward Jenner"

Zimmerman, P. A, (1959), "Darwin, evolution, and creation. Saint Louis: Concordia Pub. House"

Zurlo, J, (1994), "Animals and Alternatives in Testing: History, Science, and Ethics".