Katelyn Shinn
Focused Inquiry 112
Spring 2015
Animal Testing
Animal testing has been a controversial topic since Aristotle’s time. The main purposes
for animal testing are for drug development, toxicity testing, medical research, and education for
new researchers and surgeons. Animals such as monkeys, dogs, rabbits, mice, and rats are used
for these every day testing and experimentation. This issue is not just a problem nationally, but
globally. In fact, the UK is one of the largest countries that use animal testing on about 3.5
million animals annually. What we don’t see about animal testing is how wasteful and unreliable
it actually is. Unlike us humans, animals can’t give the consent to these tests. They lack the
mental capacity and researchers take advantage of that. However, there are many alternatives to
testing on animals that researchers don’t wish to fund or participate in. If something so
inhumane is being done to innocent creatures with the knowledge of alternatives out there, why
hasn’t the world been educated on and put a stop to such a problem?
Vivisection, also known as experimentation on a live animal, is an urgent problem that is
being conducted behind our backs. Animals are tested for things such as side effects of new
drugs for animals and humans, the safety of new household products or additives for food,
acquire knowledge on how animals’ bodies and minds work, simulate human diseases, and also
simply used as practice experiments for doctors or researchers. The main animals that are used
for these experiments are mice and rats. Mice and rats and much cheaper and breed faster than
other animals used and as a result, make up 78% of experiments. Other animals such as dogs,
monkeys, and rabbits make up 3,000 to 4,000 of the population of animals that are tested on.
However, what we don’t notice is how unreliable these tests actually are.
Animal testing is a waste of animals’ lives and very unreliable. An article written by the
BUAV (British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection) stated that, “…just one study to see if a
chemical might cause cancer takes 5 years from start to finish, uses 860 animals and costs
between £1-2 million.” Clearly, this is also a waste of money as well because approximately 20
out of 115 million products used globally are approved safe for human use after animal testing.
That factor alone proves how wasteful and unreliable the testing on animals is. The fact that
animal testing is unreliable comes from the actuality that animals don’t contract the same
diseases and illnesses that we humans do. Diseases such as certain cancers, HIV, Parkinson’s,
schizophrenia, and so on, do not affect animals. As a result, for testing purposes, these diseases
must be simulated onto the animal subject. In reality, the diseases the animals are injected with
are not the same as the ones humans are prone to. For example, as stated by the BUAV,
“…primates used in HIV/AIDS research are injected with the primate version – SIV or SHIV –
which causes illness much more quickly than HIV does in humans.” Obviously, animals do not
have the same mental capacity as we humans do. Therefore, it would not be fair or morally right
to perform such acts on beings such as these.
Animal rights expert, Doris Lin, stated that “Non-human animals cannot give informed
consent, and the vast majority of experiments using animals are so invasive and injurious, we
would never even consider allowing humans to consent to being subjects in such experiments.”
Which brings us to the term speciesism which is the treatment of certain beings based only on
their species. Doris goes on to explain that most animal rights are generalized around the idea
that treating animals differently from humans solely because they are of a different species is
morally wrong. Most researchers go off with the fact that animals don’t have much of a say in
their experiments because they lack the mental capacity to give consent. However, if the case
was a mentally handicapped individual who lacked the capability to make his or her own
choices, the situation would be much different. What factor distinguishes this experimentation
from being right or wrong? The subjects’ species.
Kate Douglas, editor of New Science magazine, states in her article, Humans Have
Rights, Should Human-like Animals?, “…[Francione] argues that all sentient beings should have
just one right: the right to not be treated as the property of humans.” Similar to the thoughts of
Douglas, Immanuel Kant supported the Rights Approach to ethics. Him along with other
philosophers stated that our human ability to choose as we please is what differentiates us from
any other being. Because of this ability, we should not be taken advantage of in ways we do not
consent to. According to the Rights Approach, we have to the right the truth, privacy, to what is
agreed, and to not be injured. Kate Douglas explains that certain animals such as chimpsanzees
and gorillas should have similar rights. Animals do not acquire the same knowledge as we
humans do, and because of that researchers manipulate them into experiments they would not
give in to if given the ability to do so. As the Rights Approach states, we have the right to not be
harmed or injured unless we freely deserve the punishment or choose such injuries. However,
convincing researchers to see it that way is and has been a never ending struggle between animal
rights activists and the science/medical community.
What researchers don’t wish to resort to because of lack of funding and the fear of new
development are the alternatives. Alternatives such as cell cultures, chemical methods, tissue
and organ culture, computer models, and human volunteers are all ways to drastically drop the
amount of animal testing being done around the world. Testing on human cells has led to
understanding many diseases such as cancers, kidney disease, and HIV. Tissues that are donated
from individuals can be used to find harmful toxins in products and know their side effects.
Computer programs have the capability of predicting if a chemical will be harmful by simulating
body processes such as heart rates or brain activity. Lastly, human volunteers have been the best
way to reduce the amount of animals being tested. With the humans’ full consent to and
knowledge of the test, researchers can see how the individuals’ brain reacts using imaging
machines and testing small amounts of drugs on the patients. Because of these alternatives,
many companies have developed cruelty-free products. Products such as Origins and Urban
Decay are free of animal testing as well as several others. PETA is in possession and updates a
list of companies that do and do not test on animals on their website. Usually those that are
cruelty-free are labeled with a letter “V” next to it for vegan.
After all these factors put into thought, why do researchers continue to use animals as test
subjects? There’s already proof of successful alternatives, so why continue? In BUAV’s article,
they state that, “Some scientists seem to like doing research that leads to more questions because
this means more work for them to do.” As said earlier, many animal tests are failed attempts and
as a result, lead to more questions and experiments on more countless animals. Along with the
desire for extensive scientific experimentation, another reason as to why scientists have no desire
to stray away from their animal subjects is the lack of money put into the research. For example,
from BUAV, in 2007 the UK government received £2.6 million for alternative testing where as
general biomedical research received an astounding £643 million. Clearly, there is not enough
motivation and education on the topic of animal testing in our world today.
So what is it that we can do? BUAV has been campaigning for several years to end
vivisection and look toward a society where such a thing is no longer wanted or needed.
Throughout there years of campaigning they have banned the capture of primates in the UK, the
testing of cosmetics in the UK, and the use of oral toxicity tests in which animals are fed
chemicals and nearly half die. As human beings we can do things such as only buying crueltyfree products, encourage schools to go cruelty-free in the bathrooms and kitchens, create public
awareness in your local town, and much more.
It’s apparent that animals are living creatures too that hold the mental capacity to such
emotions as fear, sadness, and anger. Animals should have the right to not be induced with such
violence and torture just because of the fact that they are a different species than us humans. If
such an act wouldn’t dared to be thought of put onto an infant, then who’s to say that animals are
necessary for experimentation? As Doris Lin states in her article, “Just as we do not experiment
on humans who are incapable of consenting to experimentation, we should not experiment on
non-human animals.”
Works Cited
Lin, Doris. "Why It’s Wrong to Experiment and Test on Animals." About News. N.p., n.d. Web.
<http://animalrights.about.com/od/vivisection/a/VivisectionFAQ.htm>.
"What Is Wrong with the Humanities Today?" Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences 23.1 (1969): 3-12. BUAV. Web.
Douglas, Kate. "Humans Have Rights, Should Human-like Animals?" Focused Inquiry Evolving
Ideas 2014-2015 Edition (n.d.): 134-37.