Animal Testing

Ethical Practices

It was in my first college level English class that I wrote this paper. We had a choice between three topics, one being animal experimentation. I did learn a lot from writing this paper. Before researching for the paper topic, I knew animal experimentation was not good, but what I didn’t know were the facts. So I figured I would share what I learned, because why not!


There are Boundaries for Animals Rights

Animal Experimentation has without a doubt gotten us to where we are today, but at what cost? We experiment on animals for our hair products, makeup, medicine, skin care products, and so much more. Nobody wants to think about what happens to the animals that are testing the products in our homes. There are pros and cons to animal experimentation and whether we should continue, but like everything else, we must see which out ways the other. 

Animal experimentation can be a big debate between people. There is a large majority that could argue over it being wrong and causing many lives to suffer and/or die in the end. There is also the other side that says how we need animals to be tested for humans well being. Out of of the people who feel strongly about the need of animal experimentation they also feel that there are two main conditions, one being that the tests that are done “must have real potential to deliver findings that enable us to address problems involving human health, animal health, or the environment”(Franco), the second is that “animal welfare needs must be looked after in the best way possible” (Franco).

Testing animals has been shown to be a bad science. At what cost have we made these animals suffer, and how much have we really gained from it? No matter how many animals are tested there is still going to be “the first human” to be tested. “The Food and Drug Administration has noted that 92 percent of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials because they do not work or are dangerous”(“Animal Testing”). Testing products on a rabbit will not always ensure the same effects as it would for humans. This causes unnecessary wasted lives for possibly both animals and humans, especially when animals are put in the living conditions that are nowhere near what they would be if they lived in their natural environment. So however many animals are tested humans are still at risk (“Animal Testing”).

Humans are able to feel bad for the animals in labs but are then able to without any other thought eat them for dinner. What is the difference between live animal experimentation and animal farming? There are animals suffering in both. But with animal experimentation there is the possibility to save lives. It can be a good thing even though it is gross. Animal experimentation has gotten to where we are today (Hanlon). 

We would not be anywhere near were we are today without the experiments we have conducted on animals. Before we really knew anything we did need to test different things on other animals, but we now have technology to stop using animals. We can move away from animal experimentation and now have the resources to work towards new technology that could eliminate the need to experiment on animals. There is technology to make artificial skin and bone marrow or we can use human brain cells to develop a model “microbrain” (“Animal Testing”). The US National Academy of Science announced in 2007 that it could be possible to have a future without animal experimentation. The Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institutions of Health, the National Toxicology Program, and the US Food and Drug Administration have all agreed to help develop this new technology (Rowan).

The National Academy of Science found that instead of testing what drugs, food additives, pesticides, and other chemicals do to animals they could be tested on cultured human cells. This change could not only work towards expunging animal testing but make the experiments more effective. Because it would be testing human cells, without harming any humans, it makes the results more accurate (Rowan). 

There have definitely been changes and alternatives to animal testing throughout the years. Changes that either limit the amount of animals tested or have made the animals more comfortable. Some examples are, using diseased animals instead of living ones, another example would be to have better living conditions of the animals. Animal rights members and advocates have been trying to push for alternatives to animal experimentation. These kinds of changes could not only make animal testing better for us all but work towards eliminating it in the future. (“Animal Experimentation”).

“In 1959 by British zoologists W. M. S. Russell and R. L. Burch in The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Russell and Burch framed their proposal around three Rs. They suggested that experimentation should replace animal subjects with something else, such as non-sentient material or less sentient animals; reduce the number of animal subjects used experimentally while increasing the amount of data obtained; and refine living conditions and experimental procedures for animal subjects to reduce pain and discomfort” (“Animal Experimentation”). The 3Rs address that there should not be any animal experimentation unless necessary (Franco). This change has made a large impact on reducing the amount of animal experimentation sense the late 1950s (Franco). 

Experimenting on the least amount of animals can end up improving the quality of the experiments, because of the need to really analysis the test more which leads to less room for error. But there is also the possibility to make the results less reliable, because of how few animals are experimented on might not give the conclusive results that are needed. There is tension in animal experimentation because of how it is encouraged to use the least amount of animals possible. Because this could leading to not using a sufficient number of animals which can throw off the calculations and have even more animal suffering in the end (Franco).

For one to have access to experiment on animals you need a formal license to carry out research with animals, along with an educational training. The training is needed to show people to be aware of animal welfare issues and to improve levels of competence in implementation of the 3Rs. It is also important to learn the animal use and how to use proper attitude towards the animals when doing this work (Franco).

Dr. Jane Goodall is a woman that has dedicated her life to observing chimpanzees. She has spent countless hours watching them and learning, she has even gone vegetarian for the animals and the environment. Being someone who has lost her husband from cancer and her mother from Parkinson’s, she knows that it is very important to find a cure to these diseases. But also being someone who has been able to watch these animals should have an idea of how animal experimentation is not right. Dr. Goodall knows that there is suffering from these tests that are being done on innocent animals (“Ethologist and Author”).

We would not have the vaccines, antibiotics, hair products, skin care products, and so much more without the test that have been conducted on animals. But we have came a long way and now have the resources to experiment without animals. “The movement away from animal experimentation is already underway. Since the mid-seventies, the use of animals in experimentation has fallen by around 50 percent” (Rowan). By now there should be no need to keep more animals suffering, there are other ways to figure out the mysteries we seek to unravel about humans. The new technology we have could even make for better results. Many argue that the animals are needed to save lives, but if it is possible to eradicate some of the suffering than why not head in that direction. 

Makeup and cleaners are being put into bunnies eyes, mice and rats are injected with human cancer cells to give them tumors, and tubes are being forced up primates nostrils or down their throats to test drugs (“People”). That is just the beginning of what we put animals thru. They are no different then the cats and dogs who sleep with us on our beds and live in our homes. Humans should not be given the right to take lives away as they please. A large amount of the test do not even give results back that will help humans. Animals are taken away from their homes and forced into cages that are most of the time to small to walk in. These animals are being ripped away from their families in the wild or if they are born in captivity they are ripped form their screaming mothers within hours of being born. There are boundaries for animals rights, and humans have definitely crossed them.

Works Cited 

“Animal Experimentation.” Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2018. Accessed 28 Nov. 2018.

“Animal Testing Is Bad Science.” Animal Rights, edited by Noah Berlatsky, Greenhaven Press, 2015. Accessed 28 Nov. 2018.

“Ethologist and Author.”, 9 Dec. 2013, Accessed 3 Dec. 2018. 

Franco, Nuno Henrique, et al. “Researchers’ attitudes to the 3Rs-An upturned hierarchy?”, vol. 13, no. 8, 2018, p. e0200895. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, Accessed 2 Dec. 2018.

Hanlon, Michael. “Vivisection Is Right, But it is Nasty- and we Must Be Brave Enough to Admit This.” Animal Rights, edited by Noah Berlatsky, Greenhaven Press, 2015. Accessed 28 Nov. 2018

“People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.”, Accessed 10 Dec. 2018.

Rowan, Andrew. “New Technologies Could Eliminate the Need for Animal Experimentation.” Animal Experimentation, edited by Susan C. Hunnicutt, Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Accessed 28 Nov. 2018.

Untamed Medicine, Isabella

One thought on “Animal Testing

Leave a Reply