John Stuart Mill's Arguments Against Toleration

While I believe that animal testing is objectionable, others have arguments in support of tolerating animal testing. One of the strongest claims is that experimentation on animals with lower levels of rationality is more acceptable, compared with species of high mental capacities. According to John Stuart Mill in his book On Liberty, individuality is necessary for “human happiness” and “individual and social progress” (Mill, 1869, 65). While some may argue that this statement is only valid for the human condition, I do think it is applicable to animals that have a certain amount of rationality. For less rational species that do not have the ability to develop their autonomy, it is more acceptable for them to be tested on. In David Premack’s
Currently, alternatives exist that have been accepted by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, a governmental agency that focuses on keeping the public safe from the items they come into contact with. The main alternative involves the use of in-vitro technologies. These involve the production of cells or tissues that can be studied in a laboratory setting. Monamy explains that scientists can observe the effects of chemicals on ‘cultures’ rather than rats. If the chemical was supposed to cause heart problems, “…researchers can simply record changes in the beating of cultured heart cells in-vitro” (Monamy, 2000, 76). There are at least three reasons why the in-vitro method is better than using animals. First, human cells and tissues can be studied, which will lead to more accurate results without animals being harmed. Second, the ‘cultures’ can be easily replicated for more trials. Third, the cells or tissues can be observed outside of the body, with no effects from other physiological functions (Monamy, 2000, 76-77). Another alternative is the use of non-sentient organisms, or those that are not as sensitive to pain, in experimentation. These include invertebrates and microorganisms, which are not fully developed. Although vertebrates and invertebrates differ in many ways, they “…all show common cellular and biochemical traits” (Monamy, 2000, 75). Therefore, it is possible to obtain helpful data without harming vertebrates. One possibility is to incorporate coelenterate hydra, a type of freshwater organism that can be used to determine the presence of chemicals. In addition, insects, crustaceans, flatworms, and earthworms may be used (Monamy, 2000, 75). The third alternative is to utilize non-biological replacements. These can include mathematical models and computer software. According to Heidi Welsh in Animal Testing and Consumer Products, “Equations