Name: __________________________
Period: _____
Animal Testing:
The issue:
Is it immoral to conduct painful and
often deadly medical and scientific
experiments on animals? Or do the
benefits of animal testing outweigh
any ethical concerns?
Directions: Use the article below to complete your
Contemporary Issue Research Notes. Highlight key facts
that represent arguments “for” and “against.”
Summary of Arguments
The issue: Is it immoral to conduct painful and often
deadly medical and scientific experiments on animals?
Or do the benefits of animal testing outweigh any ethical
concerns?

Table of Contents:






Summary of Arguments
What Is Animal Testing?
Public Opinion Drives Animal-Testing Laws
Supporters Argue That Animal Testing Is Necessary
Animal Testing Morally Wrong, Opponents Say
Common Ground in the Animal-Testing Debate?
GT students must read all sections of the article. On-grade level
students must read the underlined sections and may read the
additional sections.

Supporters of animal testing say: Animal testing has been
a crucial step in the development of countless new medical
techniques and technologies. Proposed alternatives to
animal testing are simply ineffective and produce
substandard results.
Critics of animal testing say: Some of the experiments
conducted on animals are cruel and painful, and nearly
every animal tested is killed following the procedure.
Because the experiments are often carried out in stressful
environments, much of the data acquired are not reliable
anyway.
Every year, an estimated 30 million animals are used in
biomedical experiments and research projects. Rats, mice,
guinea pigs, dogs, monkeys and rabbits are just a few of the
types of animals used by private companies and universities
to test the safety of drugs and other newly developed
products. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires
that all newly developed drugs, both over-the-counter and
Page | 1
prescription, be tested on animals before being approved for
human consumption. [See 1996 Animal Testing]
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. 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. 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.
What Is Animal Testing?
Human beings have long conducted scientific experiments on
animals in an attempt to learn more about the inner workings
of their own bodies. The ancient Greek physician Galen
routinely dissected living animals--a practice known as
vivisection--to study their nervous, respiratory and digestive
Page | 2
systems. Although much of his scientific "discoveries" would
later be disproved, Galen's vivisection experiments on pigs,
apes and dogs proved to be highly influential among the
ancient Greeks.
Since then, countless examples of animal testing have
produced far more significant scientific gains, particularly in
the field of genetics. While working for the Department of
Agriculture, famed geneticist Sewall Wright published a
series of scientific papers in 1921 regarding inherited traits in
guinea pigs. Wright devised animal-breeding techniques that
geneticists still use.
Many other examples of animal testing have had long-lasting
scientific effects. Dogs were used in experiments relating to
artificial insemination in the 18th century. Much later, in the
1950s, two researchers at the Worcester Foundation for
Experimental Biology in Massachusetts used both dogs and
rabbits in pioneering work leading to the development of the
first birth-control pill. And, in perhaps the most famous
example of animal experimentation in the last several
decades, Scottish medical researchers successfully cloned a
sheep in 1996. "Dolly," the first cloned mammal in human
history, became world-famous after being unveiled in 1997.
Animals are widely seen as useful subjects for medical
experimentation because they are so genetically similar to
human beings. Researchers affiliated with the Human
Genome Project, a research project that created a working
model of the human genome (the sequence of base parts of
all the human genes) in 2004, say that rodents--particularly
mice--are nearly identical to human beings in their genetic
composition. Rodents such as mice, rats and guinea pigs
comprise roughly 95% of the animals used in biomedical
research. The remaining 5% includes monkeys, fish, birds,
cats, dogs and many others, although testing on larger
animals and domesticated species has plummeted in the last
several decades.
Some animal research invariably requires lab animals to
experience moderate to severe pain. Researchers at the
University of Buffalo in New York, for example, have infected
hamsters with the debilitating schistosomiasis parasite in
order to develop a more effective treatment. At the University
of California in San Francisco, one researcher implanted
metal coils into the eye sockets of monkeys in order to study
eye movement. In that case, test monkeys were restrained
for up to eight hours.
The fact that most lab animals are killed, combined with the
pain often inflicted during the testing, has led some animal
researchers to admit that they sometimes experience a
certain amount of mental anguish in the workplace. Anneke
Keizer-Zucker, a researcher at a Pennsylvania consulting
group, said that participating in animal testing was initially
"tough to get used to" and that she would often come home
from work "mentally exhausted." Keizer-Zucker told the
Seattle Times in 2003 that she was training to become a
certified grief counselor to aid fellow animal researchers who
are experiencing similar anxieties about their jobs.
New approaches to animal testing have been developed as
the science behind it continues to evolve. So-called knockout
Page | 3
mice are genetically altered to conform to the parameters of a
given experiment; for example, certain genes can be
"knocked out" from a mouse's genetic makeup to produce
diabetes in mice. Knockout mice are far costlier than normal
mice. Generally speaking, the larger an animal is, the more
money it costs. Monkeys used in animal testing have fetched
upwards of $3,000.
Not surprisingly, animal testing is a multibillion-dollar industry
in the U.S. Companies supplying animals, such as Charles
River Labs, make high yearly profits, as do private firms that
conduct the research, including Britain's Huntingdon Life
Sciences. Also, the National Institutes of Health, a
government agency specializing in medical research, spends
billions of dollars in federal money each year for its animal
testing program.
Public Opinion Drives Animal-Testing Laws
Unquestionably, a great many scientific breakthroughs have
resulted directly from animal testing. Many new vaccines and
surgical procedures have been directly derived from
experimentation on animals and, as journalist John Cook
notes in the online magazine Salon, "There is virtually no new
drug--from Viagra to Prozac to Claritin--that has been brought
to market in recent decades without a large number of
animals dying in the process."
Because of the untold quantity of animals killed in animal
testing, however, many people have come to oppose the
practice. Polls show that a significant number of Americans
have mixed feelings toward the practice--particularly when
household pets such as cats and dogs are used in the
experiments, or when the experiments are perceived as
being of no scientific importance.
In the mid-1960s, when public concern about animal welfare
was reaching a crescendo, President Lyndon Johnson (D,
1963-69) signed into law the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). That
legislation established the USDA as the federal department in
charge of the transport, handling and housing of certain
species of animals used for scientific purposes.
Animal-rights activists, however, decried the AWA in its
original incarnation, arguing that it did not give the USDA
enough power to actually enforce the proper treatment of
animals. They also protested the act's limited definition of
"animals" as dogs, cats, primates, guinea pigs, hamsters and
rabbits, pointing out that those species actually comprised
just a small percentage of animals used for research
purposes.
Amendments to the act were passed in 1970, expanding the
number of animal species protected by the AWA, as well as
requiring that tested animals be administered painkillers
unless the drugs would compromise a given experiment's
results. However, mice, rats and birds--the animals most
commonly used in scientific research--continued to be
excluded from the AWA's terms, due to an executive decision
by the USDA's administration.
Media coverage of animal-rights abuses in the mid-1980s
sparked another public surge of protest against animal
Page | 4
testing. Sweeping amendments to the AWA were enacted in
1985. Scientific facilities that handled lab animals had to
begin to take extra steps to ensure those animals'
"psychological well-being." Additionally, a regulatory body
known as the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee
was established, along with practical guidelines for periodic
inspections of animal-testing labs. The 1985 amendments
further expanded the federal definition of "pain and distress"
in relation to animal testing.
seen as a necessary step in the development of new
cosmetics, shampoos and skin care products, animal testing
has been increasingly phased out of the global cosmetics
industry, responding to public outrage at the practice.
Although the FDA supports animal testing of cosmetic
products, it does not require it for cosmetics to receive
approval. In the European Union, meanwhile, a total ban on
cosmetics-related animal-testing will begin to be enforced in
2009.
Those revisions were widely hailed as a major improvement
to the AWA. However, many animal-rights activists argued
that they still did not go far enough, particularly because
mice, rats and birds remained unprotected under the AWA's
terms. Organizations such as People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (PETA), the Animal Liberation Front
(ALF) and the Britain-based Animal Aid have all been very
vocal in their opposition to animal testing both in the U.S. and
around the world.
Animal-rights groups such as PETA have claimed much
credit for the public's dim view of cosmetics-related animal
testing--and rightly so, experts say. However, some animalrights supporters have advocated--and, in some cases,
participated in--acts of violence against those who participate
in animal testing. Those acts range from intimidation to
destruction of property to assault. Such tactics have been
condemned by the movement's more moderate wing. "I don't
think violence works at any level," says Anita Roddick, the
founder of the anti-animal testing cosmetics company The
Body Shop. "You change by dialogue, you don't change by
violence. You change by example, by humor."
PETA has in many ways been the most successful of all the
animal-rights groups, observers say. Through its media-savvy
public relations techniques, including celebrity endorsements,
it has achieved its goal of making Americans more aware of
animal-rights issues. In 1998, for example, PETA circulated
an undercover video depicting graphic animal abuse by
researchers at a Huntingdon lab in New Jersey, including
what appeared to be a vivisection of a monkey. The USDA
fined Huntingdon $50,000 for violating the AWA.
Animal-rights groups have also helped to turn public opinion
against the testing of cosmetic products on animals. Once
Some animal-rights groups routinely use the Internet to
broadcast the names and addresses of anyone who, in their
opinion, is associated with animal testing. Controversial
animal-rights groups such as ALF and Stop Huntingdon
Animal Cruelty have been linked to physical violence, arson
and domestic terrorism. [See 2006 Huntingdon Life Sciences
and the 'SHAC 7' (sidebar)]
Page | 5
In May 2002, the animal-rights movement as whole was dealt
a blow when President Bush (R) signed into law a farm bill
that included a rider amending the AWA. The Helms
Amendment, named after then-Sen. Jesse Helms (R, N.C.),
officially codifies the USDA's exclusion of rats, mice and birds
from the AWA's terms. Animal-rights supporters
unsuccessfully fought the amendment in court.
Organizations supporting animal testing--including scienceprofessional groups such as the American Association for
Laboratory Animal Science and the Foundation for
Biomedical Research--lauded the Helms Amendment. They
say that if rats and mice were granted protection under the
AWA, research would be greatly hampered because
acquiring those commonly used animals would become a
bureaucratic nightmare. However, animal-rights groups-whether moderate or willing to resort to violence--say they will
continue to oppose all forms of animal research.
Supporters Argue That Animal Testing Is Necessary
Supporters of animal testing argue that the practice has had
a demonstrably positive impact on society as a whole.
Without animal testing, researchers would have a very
difficult time ascertaining the safety of drugs and most new
medical procedures, advocates say. "The medical arguments
for animal research are well established," writes Mick Hume
in the (London) Times Online. "[I]n short, if you have ever
taken a painkiller or an antibiotic you have benefited from it,
and if we ever hope to see cures for cancer, HIV/AIDS or
other serious diseases we will need more of it."
Historically, animal testing has had a major impact on the
fields of medicine and health care, supporters assert. "Most
people don't know what it took to cure polio," says Cynthia
Pekow of the American Association for Laboratory Animal
Science, an organization that, among other things, states that
one of its goals is to "[u]se every opportunity to improve
public understanding of the role of the profession of
laboratory animal science." Indeed, Jonas Salk, the physician
who developed a vaccine for polio in the 1950s, first tested
that vaccine on as many as 10,000 animals before trying it
out on human subjects.
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.
Some supporters of animal testing have argued that
opponents are simply unrealistic about animals and how they
should be treated by humans. Raised on cartoons and
children's books depicting friendly, talking animals, most
people are born into a "fluffy bunny culture" that is afraid to
acknowledge the benefits of animal research, according to
one researcher at Oxford University in Britain.
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
Page | 6
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.
Besides, supporters maintain, if animal testing did not exist,
what would the alternatives be? If animal-rights activists got
their way, "people and wild animals will be the guinea pigs,"
says Gina Solomon of the Natural Resources Defense
Council. Other proposed alternatives to animal testing,
including using cell cultures, tissue samples and computer
models, are simply not as effective as using living, breathing
lab animals, backers maintain. Animals "are the best possible
models we have short of humans, and experimenting on
people is not acceptable," says Frankie Trull, the president of
the Foundation for Biomedical Research, an organization that
supports and promotes animal testing.
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.
Some supporters of animal testing have portrayed those who
oppose it as a fringe group that stubbornly refuses to deviate
from its ideology. "Debating with the animal-rights community
is kind of a waste of breath," Trull says. "You're not going to
convince people who make comments like, 'Even if animal
research meant a cure for AIDS we'd be against it,'" she
adds. Some have accused animal-testing opponents of
presenting willfully distorted facts and statistics in order to
paint a negative picture of animal research.
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. 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.
Acknowledging that such extremists are a fringe group at
best, supporters such as Fiona Fox of Britain's Science
Media Center have argued that pro-animal research
scientists should make their voices heard. "If all the scientists
who use animals in research, and those of us who support
their use, agreed to speak out, the extremists would be
drowned out by tens of thousands of voices," she writes.
Animal Testing Morally Wrong, Opponents Say
Opponents of animal testing contend that it is morally wrong
for humans to assert their dominance over animals by
exploiting them in animal testing. The anti-animal research
movement is "the ultimate liberation struggle...to free all
individuals, irrespective of race, gender or species," says
Page | 7
ALF's Robin Webb. "It's about respect for the individual. Each
individual should be allowed to live their life in the way nature
intended," including animals, Webb says. The idea that all life
should be valued equally--human or animal--is a common
theme in the case against 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.
Opponents say that to distinguish between regular animals
and so-called lab animals is to denigrate animal life as a
whole. Supporters of animal testing "believe there is a
species of animal called the 'laboratory animal,' and you can
do anything you want with them," says the World Wildlife
Fund's Richard Liroff. "There is no such species. All animals
suffer when you poison them."
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!
The more painful procedures are not only ethically improper,
opponents assert, they also produce results that are
scientifically inaccurate. The stress of being in a laboratory
environment affects animals' nervous systems, according to a
2004 position paper by the Physicians Committee for
Responsible Medicine (PCRM). In a lab environment, the
paper states,
routine handling...[elicits] striking elevations in pulse, blood
pressure and steroid hormone release that can persist for an hour
or more after the event. Similarly, routine features of the laboratory
environment--isolation, confinement, social disruption, noise and
restrictions on physical movement--have been shown to be noxious
for animals.
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.
Additionally, a 2004 paper written by scientists at the London
School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and published in
the esteemed British Medical Journal gave further reasons
why animal testing might not be as scientifically useful as its
supporters claim. For example, some animals used for
research are biologically so different from humans that any
data acquired in testing procedures on those animals is
automatically suspect, the paper says. "The whole original
Page | 8
concept [of animal testing] is a failure," says John Pippin, a
cardiologist and research consultant for PCRM.
director of neurosurgery at New York University. "[B]ut right
now there is," Young adds.
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.
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.
"It's clear that if you look at the science we have much better
ways of testing drugs to see whether they're going to be toxic
or helpful in human beings," says Jerry Vlasak, a Canoga
Park, Calif., trauma surgeon and animal rights activist. "The
scientific alternatives are out there."
Common Ground in the Animal-Testing Debate?
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. "I hope some day there will
be no need for animal research," says Wise Young, the
Additionally, pregnancy testing has been revolutionized by
alternatives to animal testing. "Years ago, to test for
pregnancy, you injected urine from the woman into a female
rabbit, waited 24 hours, then killed the rabbit and examined
its ovaries for a specific reaction," says Alan Goldberg, the
founding director of the Center for Alternatives to Animal
Testing at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Md. "Now
testing is done using monoclonal antibodies. It's done with
tissue cultures. It's done in the home."
Some animal-testing supporters have acknowledged the
positive influence that animal-rights activists have had on
their methods. Trull, the president of the Foundation for
Biomedical Research, says that "animal welfarists have
certainly done a good job of sensitizing researchers to the
needs of the animals in their care."
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,
Page | 9
while opponents want it eliminated right now. Still, experts
say that hope is not lost for a compromise. Animal-rights
activists' "final solution is to stop the use of all animals in
research," says Johns Hopkins research professor Richard
Traystman. "But anything short of that, they'll take."
Page | 10