The Evils of Animal Testing

The Evils of Animal Testing Imagine your pet, whether it’s a dog, cat, bird, or rodent, huddled in the corner of a small cage, eyes wide with fear, waiting for the next routine experiment to be performed on it. Will the creature be cut open and exposed to a potentially poisonous substance this time, or sprayed in the eyes with some foul smelling perfume? Just because its not your pet, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t care. You wouldn’t want experiments preformed on your dog, why should other animals be any different? Animals should not be put through any sort of cruelty so that humans could have the latest consumer product. Testing is used on animals such as dogs, cats, sheep, hamsters, guinea pigs, and primates, (Real Issues) not only on “disgusting rodents” such as mice and rats being tested on. Animals should not have to undergo physical harm and emotional stress for the sake of our vanity, i.e. cosmetics and perfume, nor should they have to suffer because the average consumer isn’t satisfied with the standard home cleaning products. Animal testing dates back to the 1920s and is something that has to be restricted, when concerning consumer products. Although cruelty-free products are available on a larger scale, all products should be made without animal testing. It is estimated that in 1994, ten to one hundred million animals were used in scientific experiments (Finsen 16). Currently the same problem is at hand: “Product testing today accounts for between a fifth and a quarter of all animals used in science. Most of these animals are used to test drugs” (Yount 44). For product testing, some of the more infamous experimentations include the “Draize” test and the LD50 test. Product testing includes two irritancy procedures. The first test is the “Draize” test, one of the more widely known experiments. The product is applied to the eyes of rabbits. The rabbits are confined to cages where their eyes will deteriorate for three to four days while the degree of deterioration is recorded (Finsen 17). Rabbits are the animal of choice in this procedure because of their inability to make tears. The lack of tear ducts to produce fluid that can wash irritating substances out of their eyes causes many of them to become blind after these tests (Yount 45). The other irritancy procedure is a skin irritation test. The animal is shaved in a certain area and then scraped. Their wound is then exposed to the potentially dangerous product to report how irritating the substance is. Rabbits are the animal of choice in both procedures. Unlike the irritancy tests, the LD50 uses mice mostly, rather then rabbits. LD50 stands for lethal dose for 50 percent and is the usual test for acute toxicity levels in products. To test the substance, 100 animals are force fed varying doses until half of one group dies. The surviving half didn’t luck out. They are killed two weeks later to be examined for the toxic effects of the substance. This test was invented in 1927 and is still used today (Yount 45). What these two tests have most in common is how much the animals suffer before their deaths. The level of cruelty that some of these researchers force on laboratory animals is disgusting. As if completely immoral, they will operate without anesthesia, with non-sterile instruments, in an unfit environment (Yount 40). Their reason for the lack of anesthesia is the possibility it might interfere with the effects they’re trying to observe (Finsen 18). Finally, in 1985, the U.S. “toughened up” the Animal Welfare Act by emphasizing the importance of “minimizing pain and distress.” This action was prompted when footage of animal cruelty was stolen from researchers at the University of Pennsylvania. Researchers were filmed torturing the animals with self satisfied smiles (Yount 40). Animal cruelty comes in different forms. Product testing for things such as cosmetics is the worst. Think about the importance of getting the latest shade of jungle seaweed emerald green. Now think about the importance of not one, but thousands of animals’ lives. To test just one product, thousands of animals are killed. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates about 1,438,553 were used in research in 2002. The numbers are only estimates because scientists are not required to report on how many animals are used in experimentation (Real Issues). I believe this is careless and a sign that the government does not really care about animals. These animals have every right to be alive, just like humans. Animals are entitles to rights and to say that humans are exalted beings does not justify such unfair treatment. Anyone who takes part in or lets this persist cannot possibly have a conscience. The main argument that people make to support animal testing is that animals don’t have rights. Because animals “don’t have souls,” they should be killed without a second thought. Because they weren’t created “in the image of God,” they shouldn’t be respected. Because animals don’t have “inherent value,” their lives are worthless (Regan 10). Domestic animals have shown us that they are capable of emotion and rational thinking. Animals respond to humans and feel pain or joy. Is this not enough to make people feel bad about hurting them? Supporters that believe animals do not count when it comes to hurting living things may think animals don’t have souls, but we know that they’re the ones who don’t have a conscience. Animal testing for medical research is not something I can completely reject. The importance of humans over animals is obvious. However, there are plenty of alternatives to medical research through animal testing. There must be an easier way than killing millions of animals a year. The alternatives either include completely new methods or ways of diminishing the amount of animals used for research. Product testing isn’t even necessary, although plenty of alternatives exist as well. A successful alternative to the cruel and inaccurate Draize test is a test in which a laser is used to detect alterations in the optical properties of cattle eyes. These lenses are placed in a solution and a laser is passed through them. The addition of toxic substances to the lenses distorts the laser. This test accurately records the damage the eye sustained (Cohen 185). With technological advances, new techniques are abundant. With these harmless substitutes, there should be no reason animal testing still exists. Animal rights organizations everywhere are working to abolish animal testing. Organizations such as PETA and the AntiVivisection Society fund research to eliminate animal testing. Donations are made to fund research to find alternatives to animal testing. They are also helping spread the word, and once knowledge becomes public, more people will see the harm they are doing by supporting these companies that use animal experimentation. Animal-tested products are already looked down upon. Not only am I for the abolition of animal-tested products, but the European Union is as well. In January 2003 they “… voted to ban all such tests and the sale of cosmetics tested on animals anywhere in the world by 2009.” Countries such as Britain, Australia, and the Netherlands have already banned all testing of cosmetics on animals (Yount 45). Unfortunately, the process of ridding the world of animal testing is a slow one. Although slow, it’s still worth it. The U.S. should take this example and work on abolishing animal testing throughout the country. Once the US becomes a good example, other countries will follow.