Animal Testing Unethical

Using animals as an alternative to human testing has been a highly controversial topic over the past few decades. With harsh conditions and unethical treatments, the understanding of animal testing is very important. From over-the-counter medications to experiments on cures of chronic illnesses, animals were used in one way or another. Unfortunately, not all experiments given to animals involved a tasty snack or a simple treat. Many experiments involved several incidents of agony and pain without relief. Not knowing the effects that certain experiments have on animals is not only causing pain and suffering of the animals, but also slowing the evolution of these products, wasting money on the production of unethical decisions. Understanding
the effects that these experiments have on the vast variety of animals, as well as finding alternatives to experimental research is crucial in advancing the evolution of research and testing.
The first backlash that animal testing receives is the negligence to an ethical procedure.
When treating the animals with an experiment or even the living conditions that these animals are put into, experimenters aren’t taking into consideration how much pain or turmoil that the animals are experiencing. In an article written by ProCon, the author states “According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation.” (ProCon, 2016). Experimenters are more focused on the results and the reactions from the testing products rather than the well-being of these animals. Ethics and morality take a huge role in animal testing and research. Many moralists wants to give several reasons on why animal testing is wrong, but they all share one common piece of information. This type of experimentation is immoral. One of the most outstanding parts of this research is the lack of laws that protect animals from experiencing cruelty during experimentation. In an article by the Atlantic, it is stated “scientific men to animals should be under any laws or restrictions save those general ones which regulate the behavior of all men so as to protect animals from cruelty.”. (Dewey, 1926). Experimenters are allowed to conduct experiments with as much pain infliction as desired, under one condition. Pain is allowed to be inflicted on the test subject if it meant not inflicting pain on human beings. Again,
this goes back to the morale of the situation, putting animals over humans because of how they are socially classified within the US. However, you get to the other side of the country where certain animals are praised, as many of which are used for worshipping or are considered a delicacy. In an article written by Monica Engebretson, the author states “While 80% of the world still allows animal testing for cosmetics, roughly half of the global cosmetic market is now firmly closed to animal tested cosmetics.” (Engebretson, 2016). Experimenters are beginning to lean away from animal testing due to it being so inhumane, however, there’s still a large chunk of businesses that use this technique as a way to alternative testing. A lot of businesses, in other third-world countries are arising as a cruelty free market, meaning that they do not induct harm to animals with the testing of their company's product.
With animal testing still surfacing to this day, it’s important to understand that animals and human beings are completely different species. When testing a medication or a product on an animal, there’s no guarantee that the reaction of an animal test subject will be the same for a human being. With rats and mice being the number one use of a test subject due to their high numbers of repopulation, experimenters fail to recognize the biological differences between a rodent and a human being. The inner structure of a rat and a human being may be very similar, but that does not mean their bodies work in the same way. When drugs, most commonly prescriptions undergo research and development, experimenters are jeopardizing time and money spent on valuable research. In an article written by John Ericson, the author states “Side effects are missed, and millions of dollars are wasted. Even if a new chemical entity is deemed safe at the animal stage, it still only has an 8 percent chance of being approved for human use.” (Ericson, 2014). With a success rate of only 8 percent, it leaves humans at a 92 percent rate of experiencing side effects and potentially death because of the miniscule resemblance that mice have on human beings. This doesn’t go without saying that all animal testing that has been done was a mere failure, most of the medications that have been verified by the FDA have been tested on mice. The issue with this kind of testing is that all types of byproducts aren’t considered when testing. What might happen in one test rat’s liver might have a completely different reaction on a human’s liver. Experimenters are taking a very high risk when moving products tested on rats to those on humans with an extremely low chance of similar results.
The experience that these test animals receive is beyond immoral and is very frowned upon by members of society. The biggest issue with animal testing that people have is the way that they value animals in our everyday lives. In an article written by LoneStarCollege, the author quotes, “people have different feelings for animals; many look upon animals as companions while others view animals as a means for advancing medical techniques or furthering experimental research.” (LoneStarCollege, 2017). However, the pain, suffering and deaths that are derived from testing is not worth the human research, or even the benefits from research if found successful. Experimenters fail to recognize that animals are very much like human beings in terms of emotions. They both think, react and feel pain, however, when put into research, their rights are violated and they are forced to be inducted into experiments without a say. Most of the testing that they experience are very painful, involving seriously sickening environments without proper sanitation. The most outstanding thing that people of society have issues with is the forced action that animals are required to make. They are unable to deny treatment or even resist without the reaction of a punch to the face, slap on the wrist or some other sort of physical or mental abuse from the experimenters. From the same article, the author quotes “Animals feel pain in many of the same ways that humans do; in fact, their reactions to pain are virtually identical (both humans and animals scream, for example).” (LoneStarCollege, 2017). Even with animals screaming and showing signs of immense pain, experimenters motive is to test a product and determine whether or not it is successful. They aren’t all that involved with making sure that the animals are having a pleasant experience.
With animal testing occurring with many of the products that are on store shelves, it’s best to understand ways to move on and hopefully improve animal testing, including alternatives. With newer advances in the technology world as well as countries moving away from animal testing. Many researches are trying to implement the 3R program into research and experiments. In an article written by Rachel Hajar, she quotes “(1) for the replacement of animals with non-living models; (2) reduction in the use of animals; and (3) refinement of animal use practices.” (Hajar, 2011). In a response to the experiments done on animals, a way of advancing experimental technology is try other alternatives such as non-living models or if researchers would to use animals then they would be required to follow a certain curriculum that would restrict the ability of researchers to hurt animals when testing medications or products on them. Stated again by the author “By employing the 3Rs when continuing to use animals for scientific research, the scientific community can affirm its moral conscience as well as uphold its obligation to humanity to further the advancement of science for civilization and humanity.” (Hajar, 2011). Scientists are trying to produce medications and chemicals at a fraction of a time at a fraction of a cost. In an article written by Andrew Rowan, the author quotes “chemicals will be conducted in a fraction of the time, at a fraction of the cost, and with greater predictive relevance for human and environmental safety compared to current.” (Rowan, 2011). Researchers are focusing on very important aspects of animal research but trying to implement safety as well as “cumbersome animal-based approaches.”. The EPA is focused on moving away from animal research and prioritizing “high-throughput systems”. This way, speed and outcome advantages become a bit more relevant. With this kind of technology, there has already been a 50% drop in non-animal testing with researchers and experimenters.
Even with the horrible instances of animal abuse within animal testing, people still believe that animal testing is the best choice for research.
Two really strong points arise from people who feel animal testing is beneficial. The first point that comes up is “There is no adequate alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system.” (ProCon, 2016). Because the living systems of both humans and animals are extremely complex, studying animals and humans in a petri dish doesn’t provide the opportunity in studying the entire system of a human or animal. Determining how a medication affects a human, it requires for it to run through the organs to get the full effect. In this way, animals and humans are very similar. However, the point against it is there are now alternative testing that can completely replace animal testing. The use of petri dishes, involving animal and human cells can provide more productive results since it provides the opportunity in using both human and animal cells. Researchers are able to provide microdoses of medications to human beings in which if any poor results were to happen, the dose wouldn’t be large enough for something severally significant to happen. From there, blood can be used in which would allow researchers to make an observation on how a medication can alter a human beings body. Additionally, scientists are able to make artificial organs from tissues and human cells by using a microchip to recreate the functions of human organs. All
done without the use of animals. The next point made by people who are pro animal testing state “Animals are appropriate research subjects because they are similar to human beings in many ways”. It is stated that chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with human beings, as well as mice being about 98% similar. Testing medicine on animals is predicted to have similar results due to the organs acting in the same way as a human’s does. The opposing point is that animals are very different in other ways, making animal research a poor subject. “The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models for human beings.” (ProCon, 2016). Researchers find it extremely hard to be able to use animals as research subjects to accurately replicate human beings. A professor from Johns Hopkins University states that animals cannot be used for human testing because “we are not 70kg rats”.
Animal testing has been an extremely relevant and controversial topic for several decades. It’s an extremely difficult topic to overcome, as to some, it’s the only way of research. Unfortunately, this becomes truly a convenience to researchers. It’s a lot cheaper for researchers to take an animal and conducts an experiment rather than spending the extra time evolving technology to provide more of an accurate representation of human development. Understanding what is currently going on with the products we see on the shelves on a daily basis, it’s hard to fathom that an animal was probably beaten or abused just to get the successful result on a human being.