Animal Testing
Introduction
Animal testing is a big business in the U.S. So-called breeding companies, such as the Wilmington, Mass.-based Charles River Laboratories Inc., create genetically modified laboratory animals, which they sell to universities, drug companies and medical research firms. In fiscal year 2004, Charles River Labs reported a net income of nearly $90 million. The company offers lab rodents at prices ranging from around four dollars to upwards of $200 for specially engineered diabetic mice.
Many animal rights activists oppose the use of animals in medical research, arguing that it is cruel and morally indefensible. Animals used in research are often subjected to conditions that cause them “pain and distress,” in the words of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which oversees animal research. U.S. law requires that researchers administer painkillers to lab animals unless those drugs would skew the results of the test. However, mice, rats and birds–which comprise more than 90% of the animals tested in the U.S.–are exempt from that requirement. (Haugen, 2006: 54-61) Nearly all animals used for research purposes are killed after the experiments are over. Is animal testing a necessary component of biomedical research? Or should it be abolished on the grounds that it is unethical and perhaps even scientifically irrelevant?
Supporters of animal testing argue that society as a whole has benefited immensely from such research, and will continue to do so for years to come. Animal testing has been a critical step in ensuring the safety of scores of new pharmaceuticals and medical procedures, they argue. Advocates also maintain that it is morally justified to use animals in sometimes dangerous and painful experiments because they contribute to the greater good. Proposed alternatives to animal testing–including experiments performed using tissue samples, cell cultures and computer modeling–have not proven to be useful or accurate, they argue.
Animal testing’s opponents; however, contend that human beings have an ethical responsibility to treat animals with respect. People involved in animal testing exploit animals as though they were objects, subjecting them to extreme pain and suffering, opponents maintain. Many foes of animal rights also argue that animal testing has little to no scientific merit. (Judson, 2006: 77-83) The bodily functions of rats, for example, are vastly different from those of human beings, they say. Therefore, most data collected by animal researchers are basically useless, resulting only in the painful deaths of scores of defenseless animals, opponents assert.
Historically, animal testing has had a major impact on the fields of medicine and health care, supporters assert. New medical procedures and drugs require rigorous animal testing before any human testing can be permitted, advocates maintain. Responding to animal-rights activists’ charges that animal testing is unethical, supporters argue that it would actually be unethical to sell pharmaceuticals that have not been previously tested on animals.
In actuality, many supporters argue, people should not think twice about using animals for research purposes. Ethically, there is nothing wrong with the only truly evolved species of animal on the planet using other creatures for its benefit, they contend. Additionally, they note that steps are taken to anesthetize test subjects whenever possible in animal research, and many effective laws are in place–both in the U.S. and in other countries–that protect lab animals from undue pain and suffering. (Haugen, 2006: 54-61)
Animal-testing advocates say that if diseases such as AIDS and cancer are ever to be cured, research on animals will have to continue to be an integral part of medical research around the world. In addition to AIDS and cancer, diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease, muscular dystrophy and Lou Gehrig’s disease may all one day be cured through treatments first tested on animals, supporters argue. (Balls, 2006: 1-2)
Supporters of animal testing also decry the occasionally violent tactics used by some animal-rights activists. Backers maintain that the anti-animal research contingent sometimes goes too far in expressing its opposition. Those threatening actions have had a chilling effect on the large community of scientists that defends animal research; many have become afraid to speak out and show their support for fear that they or their families will be targeted by animal-rights extremists, advocates contend. (Judson, 2006: 77-83) Consequently, the pro-animal testing camp has gotten minimal media coverage, while groups opposed to the practice make headlines on a daily basis, backers assert.
Opponents of animal testing contend that it is morally wrong for humans to assert their dominance over animals by exploiting them in animal testing. Foes of animal testing argue that laws such as the Animal Welfare Act have been watered down so much that they are virtually useless. They note that mice, rats and birds–the animals exempt from the act’s provisions–comprise about 90% of all the animals used for testing in the U.S., and therefore have little or no legal protection from the often excruciating conditions of animal testing.
Some of the procedures that animal researchers perform in the name of science are cruel, unusual and sometimes sadistic, opponents contend. Some of those procedures have been known to involve forced feeding, vivisection, the administration of high doses of potent drugs and inhumane living conditions, they say. “If the American public had all the facts about what’s happening to animals in labs, labs would be closed,” argues Michael Budkie, the founder of the nonprofit group Stop Animal Exploitation Now! (Balls, 2006: 1-2)
In other words, the stress of being the subject of testing leads to tangible changes in an animal’s nervous system, therefore spoiling any data accrued in a given experiment, opponents maintain. Most animal testing is performed with humans in mind; it can actually be dangerous to use data that have been distorted by a rat’s high level of stress and apply it to the human body, opponents argue.
Opponents say that alternatives to animal testing are readily available, but have been ignored by the scientific community as a whole. Scientists could be using computer models of the human body to test new medical procedures, and they can use tissue samples and stem cells–cells that can be altered by scientists to become any type of cell found in the body–to test the effects of new drugs, opponents maintain. The FDA, which requires that all new drugs first be tested on animals, is behind the times–perhaps deliberately, opponents contend, due to the fact that animal testing is such a big moneymaker for the U.S.
Conclusion
Most scientists, however, do not agree that there are widely available alternatives to animal testing. The vast majority of the scientific community continues to insist that animal testing is necessary–at least for the time being. Many supporters of animal testing have said publicly that they, like animal-rights activists, would prefer it if they did not have to kill and harm animals in the name of science.
Indeed, although animal testing is still widely used–and seen as necessary by most scientists–some of the alternatives mentioned by animal-rights activists are also in use. For instance, tests measuring eye and skin irritancy can often be duplicated using cell cultures and tissue samples, scientists say.
Some animal-testing supporters have acknowledged the positive influence that animal-rights activists have had on their methods. It appears that both sides of the animal-testing debate would like to see animal research ultimately eliminated. The two groups differ, though, on how soon they would like to see the practice eliminated, observers say; supporters want animal testing eliminated as soon as researchers can do without it, while opponents want it eliminated right now.
Works Cited
Haugen, David M. “Animal Experimentation” Publishers Greenhaven Press, 2006: 54-61
Balls, M. & Combes, R. “Applying the Three Rs to animal experimentation and animal testing: are we merely drifting or lying at anchor”? ATLA 34, 2006: 1-2.
Judson, Karen “Animal Testing”. New York: Benchmark Books, 2006: 77-83
