Animal Testing Debate

ENVIRONMENT

ANIMAL TESTING DEBATE

By Audrina Wong and aSHLEY lEONG | Photography by Shanting Hou | Layout by Stephanie Ma & Natalie So

Animal testing is the use of animals in experiments for scienti c and biomedical research. In these experiments, animals are used as models to help advance understanding of the living body and how disease works. Procedures are performed on animals to assess the e ectiveness and safety of medical products, cosmetics, household cleaners, food additives, etc. For many years, people have been debating about the ethics of animal testing and whether or not animal testing should be used for research and development of products.

On the one hand, some may argue in favour of animal testing :

Study of animals has dramatically a ected the understanding of human and animal anatomy and health, and disease development. Due to the fact that the basic cell processes of most animals are nearly homogenous, and the bodies of animals are similar to humans in the way that they perform many vital functions, including breathing, digestion, movement, sight, hearing, and reproduction, animal testing helps researchers test drugs and treatments more e ectively and e ciently compared to other research methods.

Human clinical trials are lengthy, and initial study on animals will give an early indication of the safety of drugs. erefore, animal testing drastically shortens the testing period and drugs development process, creating a quicker cure to illnesses and diseases and produces results that are applicable to humans.

Animal testing plays a vital role in the medical research eld. It helps save lives and improve human health. Many treatments have been enabled thanks to animal testing, including cancer and HIV drugs, insulin, antibiotics, and vaccines.

Animal testing helps reduce human harm and ensure the safety and e cacy of medical drugs and other products for human use. Although medicines are tested using tissues and isolated organs in labs in early stages, legally and ethically, they must also be tested in animal trials before clinical trials in humans can occur. rough animal testing, scientists were able to ensure that the risk of a drug are minimalized and will not cause harm in human trials, which is bene cial to the health and safety of human volunteers.

Under the circumstances that researchers try to minimize the su ering of animals and use animal testing only if it is the only form of testing that can obtain results, it can be argued that in most cases, animal testing is morally acceptable as the great bene ts to humanity outweigh the su ering of a few animals. Moreover, to stop the use of animals in medical research would be unethical, as that means humans will have to be used instead. at would dramatically a ect the development of new drugs and treatments for those who are ill and in need.

On the other hand, some argue that animal testing is cruel, unethical and an expensive way of producing results that are incompatible, ine ective and sometimes even potentially dangerous to human health :

e amount of su ering and pain that animals experience during animal testing are so high, that the bene ts to humans cannot provide a moral justi cation for performing those tests in the rst place. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, animals are o en forced into tests that cause them to su er from vomiting, diarrhea, paralysis,

convulsion, internal bleeding and other long-term side e ects that scar them for life. roughout this process, animals su er painfully and in most cases, blindness, scarring, and death are generally the end results. In fact, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has said that in the process, “U.S. law allows animals to be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, drowned, addicted to drugs, and braindamaged.”

It can also be argued that animal testing o en does not produce reliable or accurate results. PETA recently wrote that e National Institutes of Health has reported 95% of the drugs proved to be safe in animal tests fail in human trials. Cruelty-free international also reported that “Vioxx, a drug used to treat arthritis, was found to be safe when tested in monkeys, but has been estimated to have caused around 320,000 heart attacks and strokes and 140,000 deaths worldwide.” ey also stated that: “A clinical trial of Hepatitis B drug aluridine had to be stopped because it caused severe liver damage in seven patients, ve of whom died. It had been tested on animals rst.”

Moreover, the results of animal testing may not be compatible on humans, as the anatomy and bodily functions of humans and animals are di erent in many ways, including the fact that many animals are not a ected by the diseases and viruses humans are a ected by, and may have reactions dissimilar from humans responses when drugs are administered. For example, “ e most commonly used species of monkey to test drug safety (Cynomolgus macaque monkeys), are resistant to doses of paracetamol (acetaminophen) that would be deadly in humans.”

In the end, due to inaccuracy of testing and incompatibility of results, the su ering that animals experience due to testing may not even bene t humans at all. Animal rights supporters further question why researchers o en still subject animals to testing when there are other workable non-animal methods to test their drugs.

While it is acknowledged that animal testing in many cases is inhumane and unethical, in other cases animal testing is described as a “necessary evil”, as stated by e Guardian and research institutions such as Humane Research Australia Inc., because it remains a valuable tool to save and improve human and animal lives. In order to garner the bene ts of animal testing while trying to prevent acquiring its detriments, scientists are encouraged to follow the principles of the 3Rs - Reduction, Re nement, Replacement - launched by two English scientists, William Russell and Rex Burch, back in 1959:

Reduction: Minimize the number of animals used in each research by improving experimental and data gathering techniques (e.g. to maximize the information obtained per animal) and participating in information and resources sharing with other researchers;

Re nement: Re ne experimental techniques (for example, by using less invasive procedures and applying appropriate anesthesia and analgesia), and providing better welfare and care to the animals that are being experimented on,to reduce their pain and su ering.

Replacement: Find alternative methods that avoid or replace the use of animals in experiments. Instead of animal testing, scientists have developed other ways to test drugs or cosmetic products. Researchers are using an arti cial “skin”, to test the potential damage that a product can do to the skin instead of testing on animals. ey also can test drugs in tubes, instead of inserting them in animals. Computers have also proven successful in estimating the damage a drug or chemical will cause.

Many companies have become more aware of the detriments of animal testing and have aimed to become or stay 100% cruelty-free. On June 1st, 2007, Lush, a cosmetics brand best known for selling bath bombs, no longer purchase raw materials from suppliers that have conducted animal tests on their products, and have also encouraged suppliers to test for safety using nonanimal testing methods and to fund the development of non-animal test methods. e Body Shop, the rst global cosmetics, skincare and fragrance brand to ght against animal testing, has also been using natural ingredients such as banana and basil nut oil, to ensure the safety of their products in human usage instead of testing on animals.

While animal testing can bring many bene ts, including development of life-saving medicines, it can also bring detriments, including animals experiencing an inordinate amount of su ering. While there is no de nitive right or wrong answer to this debate, it is important that individuals are aware of these issues and support companies that are cruelty-free, encourage companies to use testing methods other than animal testing, and in the case in which animal testing must be used, that the su ering of animals is minimized as much as possible.