Animal Testing: Dangerous, Irresponsible, Pointless Teddy

Animal Testing: Dangerous, Irresponsible, Pointless Teddy, a beagle, sat in his isolated cage with a number tattooed on his ear, void of human or other dog interactions. Throughout his life, all Teddy knew was research and isolation. He was born at Marshall BioResources, a dog facility whose only purpose was to sell the puppies for research (“Teddy’s Story”). Now, at Charles River Laboratories, the dogs are undergoing a painful, yearlong fungicide test commissioned by a pesticide company. After an investigation and weeks of public pressure, the experiment was deemed unnecessary, and Teddy, along with 31 other dogs, was released by the company and adopted. On average, 40,000 dogs are used in these experiments every year, living alone in horrible
Knight describes how the cruel treatment of test subjects is not only inhumane but can lead to inconclusive tests, meaning these animals are abused and killed with nothing to show for it. He describes gastric gavaging, which is when a tube is forcibly inserted into the esophagus to administer test compounds. Tactics like this, along with stressors like limited space, no interaction with other animals, and mental torture lead to unnatural test results. In Knight’s words, “these stressors can alter physiological, hormonal, and immune statuses and even cognitive capacities and behavioral repertoires, in ways that are not always predictable.” More stressors come into play when test subjects are pulled from the wild. Long transportation and the inability to adapt to laboratory housing and environments cause more unnatural behaviors. The inaccurate side effects cause pointless death to the animals and can lead to major dangers to humans eventually using the product. Defenders of animal research describe the humane conditions that the scientists operate in. Many credit the Animal Welfare Act, a law passed by the United States, for protecting animals and acknowledging their