CFMUNESCO 2014
Forum: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
Issue: Question of animal experimentation
Student Officer: Giulia Martello
Position: President
______________________________________________________________________
Definition of Key Terms
–
“Alternatives to animal testing” (or alternative testing methods, or only
‘alternatives’): studies of different test methods which avoid the use of alive animals, thus
reducing the suffering of the animals under treatment. The two most “popular” alternatives
are the in vitro cell culture and the in silico computer simulation.
–
“In vitro cell culture”: technique of conducting a given procedure in a controlled
environment outside a living organism or cell. The problem of in vitro experiments is that
they often fail to reproduce the precise cellular conditions of an organism, so they may
lead to results that do not reflect the reality of the living organism.
–
“In silico computer simulation”: studies “performed on computer or via computer
simulation”. The expression in silico was first used in public in 1989 during a workshop,
and refers to biological experiments carried out entirely with the use of a computer.
–
“Three Rs”, also called 3Rs, stands for Replacement, Reduction and Refinement.
These tenets were first proposed by two Universities Federation for Animale Welfare
(UFAW) scholars, William Russell and Rex Burch, as ways to minimise the use of animals
in research without compromising the quality of scientific work. The 3Rs are widely
followed as basic principles of humane experimental technique. “Replacement” means the
use of alternative methods; “Reduction” indicates the decrease of the number of animals
used; “Refinement” points at the use of methods to improve animal wellness.
–
“Vivisection” is considered as a kind of surgery carried out on a living organism for
experimental goals. For the purpose of this report the word refers to any animal testing
while alive. Actually the term has taken on a negative meaning: most of the animalist
organisations use it accusingly referring to practicing scientists, who, on the other hand,
rarely mention it.
Introduction
This report is an introduction to the world of animal testing, (also known as “animal
experimentation”, “animal research”, and “in vivo testing”). This theme is a living matter
that affects a lot of nations all over the world and that is the object of several debates
during the years until the present-day.
The issue of animal testing is a very delicate and important one, as it contains a lot of
interesting facts and lots of contradictions.
CFMUNESCO 2014
There are obviously many pros and cons to the practice of animal experimentation,
reason why, the discussion takes on more levels: an ethical and moral level, a scientific
level, a political level and finally a juridical level. In the following sections these four
different perspectives and their relation with the issue of animal experimentation will be
analysed.
The issue of animal testing mainly creates a conflict between two groups of people: on the
one hand those who support the animal research and on the other hand those who
contrast it and endorse alternative methods of research. It will be important to bear in mind
that they are not necessarily divided into scientists versus animalists; and also the small
minority, which is mid-way in favour and mid-way against the practice of animal testing,
should be taken into consideration.
Background Information
Historically speaking…
This question has very deep roots. Animal testing did indeed start before nineteenth
century, although there are not enough documents to demonstrate it. It is surely known
that during the nineteenth century a lot of experiments were conducted on animals by
scientists; because “it was the nineteenth century physiologist Claude Bernard who set out
the principles of experimental medicine. Claude Bernard continues to be cited by bench
scientists who wish to provide a scientific justification of animal experimentation.” 1. They
already used sheep and dogs for psychological and medical tests.
Developments
A great turning point came in the second half of the nineteenth century, when it was
discovered that if the pancreas is removed from a dog, the animal gets diabetes. But if the
duct through which the pancreatic juices flow to the intestine is ligated - surgically tied off
so the juices couldn't reach the intestine - the dog develops minor digestive problems but
no diabetes. Such scientific discovery represented an important step to help diabetics to
keep controlled their high blood sugar.
Moreover, new anaesthetics and antibiotics were composed thanks to animal testing, as
well as other life-saving treatments. For instance, the crucial test for an antibiotic is the
mouse protection test - testing whether the drug will protect a mouse against an
inoculation of virulent microbes. Lithium, indeed, one of the most successful
pharmaceuticals for mental illness, was originally discovered by a researcher who
observed its calming effect on animals.
1
Hugh LaFollette and Niall Shanks, Animal Experimentation: the Legacy of Claude Bernard (International Studies in
the Philosophy of Science, 1994) pp. 195-210.
CFMUNESCO 2014
Animal testing began to play a more relevant role in medicine with the development of
vaccines. More and more developments occurred throughout the century, including many
potent cancer drugs and HIV drugs.
The most fruitful period of animal testing were the 1980s, from that time on this practice
began to be on the decline for two main reasons: firstly because a lot of regulations were
established in order to limit that kind of experimentation, and secondly because a lot of
alternatives were introduced to replace the methods used until this moment.
The 1980s’ acts and laws were to be the first attempts to regulate animal testing and limit
alleged cruelties on animal beings. But in recent years, animal research has been sharply
criticized by animal protection and animal rights groups. Several countries issued laws in
order to make the practice more humane.
Such debates on the ethics of animal testing started during the seventeenth century and
nowadays they are still present.
The Issue
-PRO ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATIONIt is now well known that animals are used for scientific purposes, such as medical studies
at universities, experiments and research in scientific labs. But which are the reasons of
using non-human animals as tests subjects? They share many physiological and genetical
features with humans, therefore animal experimentation can be helpful to gain knowledge
about human diseases or for testing potential human treatments. So animals may undergo
experimentation or may be modified into conditions helpful for the development of medical
science.
The supporters of animal experimentation usually argue that animals can not be
considered morally equal to humans, then tests carried out on animals are worth it
because the benefits outweigh the harm caused to them.
The first step of this way of thinking is to prove that humans are more important than
animals. There are more than one ways to come to this conclusion. Some philosophers
developed the theory of a ‘moral community’, which basically is a group of individuals
sharing some traits in common. These individuals are considered part of a certain moral
community, taking charge of particular responsibilities towards each other and also
acquiring specific rights. Even though a moral community could theoretically include
animals, according to the concrete it often does not. Since most animals are not able to
develop the cognitive capabilities of humans and also do not seem to be fully autonomous
(animals do not rationally choose to pursue specific life goals), they are not included in the
moral community. Once animals have been excluded from the moral community, humans
have only a limited obligation towards them; so the human family certainly does not have
to grant animals all human rights. So, if animals do not have the same rights as humans,
human beings are automatically allowed to use them for research purposes. The logical
CFMUNESCO 2014
conclusion is the fact that experimentation might harm the animal is less morally
significant than the potential human benefits of the research.
But a problem arises along with this way of thinking: what about humans lacking the
cognitive capacities that commonly characterise their species? Are infants and mentally
disabled people excluded from this moral community? Are they not entitled to the
fundamental rights and freedoms granted to the rest of human beings? Does this mean
that their fellows are allowed to use them for experimentation? Most people are surely
uncomfortable with these positions. This dilemma may be solved considering these
humans as close to meeting the criteria, and to the admission to the human moral
community. This permits to the argument to run.
It is possible to underline four general reasons supporting such argument:
–
One of these major reasons is the advancement of scientific understanding through
basic biological research, which helps to understand how living beings work for the benefit
of humans. The study of animals is a substantial part of this research process. A great deal
of knowledge of the human body's anatomy and functions can be traced to scientific
findings from animal research. Comparing different species and studying the differences
and similarities between them is one way to gain insights. Even small animals can be used
to study complex biological systems such as the nervous or immune systems, which follow
the same basic organisation and function in all animals.
–
The second reason why in vivo testing is still so common is that animals can
become useful models for the study of diseases. Since humans and animals share
hundreds of illnesses, animals can serve as models for the research on human illness and
to understand how disease affects the body, and all possible consequences. Studying
disease mechanisms in animal models offers the chance to develop new technologies and
medicines for the human and animal benefit.
–
Another argument in favour of animal experiments is the possibility that it gives to
develop and test potential forms of treatment. Some scientists consider this opportunity
offered by animal testing an essential part of applying biological research to real medical
problems, allowing them to reach new targets for disease intervention. Data from animal
studies is essential before new therapeutic techniques and surgical procedures can be
tested on human patients.
–
The fourth reason in favour of animal research is the idea of protecting the safety of
people, animals and environment. New medicines require testing because researchers
must measure the beneficial as well as the harmful effects of a drug on a whole organism.
A medicine is initially tested in vitro using tissues and isolated organs, but legally and
ethically it must also be tested in a suitable animal model before clinical trials on humans
can take place. The animal tests provide data on efficacy and safety. Testing on animals is
also useful to protect consumers, workers and the environment from the harmful effects of
chemicals. All chemicals for commercial or personal use must be tested so that their effect
on the people and animals exposed to them is predictable.
-AGAINST ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION AND PRO ALTERNATIVES-
CFMUNESCO 2014
As opposed to this completely scientific and practical point of view, some people argue
that all animal trials should end because it is wrong to treat animals merely as tools for
furthering knowledge. According to this viewpoint animals own the same rights as human
beings to fully live out their lives without any pain and suffering.
The arguments supporting this position focus on the moral status of an animal: most
people agree that animals have at least some moral status, therefore pets’ abuse and
harm is considered totally wrong. Unlike in the past, where animals had no moral status, in
our times the question has shifted from whether animals have moral status to how much
moral status and what rights they have.
The answer to these questions is that non-human animals do not have exactly the same
moral status as humans and so do not even have the right to benefit of an equal treatment.
The ethicists (people who specialize in or are very concerned about animal ethics and
whose judgment on ethics and ethical codes has come to be trusted by a specific
community), deem that animals should be respected with the same concern which is
reserved to humans. Animals do not have the rights to kill us, force us to do something or
otherwise treat us merely as means to further their own targets, so human beings cannot
exercise similar rights against them.
A common argument in favour of this position claims that moral status originate from the
capacity to suffer or to enjoy. In respect to this capacity, many animals are not different
from humans, since they can feel pain and experience pleasure. Therefore, they should
have granted the same moral status and deserve the same treatment as humans. “The
practice of experimenting on nonhuman animals as it exists today throughout the world
reveals the consequences of speciesism. Many experiments inflict severe pain without the
remotest prospect of significant benefits for human beings or any other animals. Such
experiments are not isolated incidences, but part of a major industry...” 2.
The ethicists and supporters of this way of thinking argue that granting animals less moral
status than humans is to be considered a form of prejudice called “speciesism”. It means
an innate tendency to deem the human species morally superior only because it is the
group to which we belong, while it is argued that being of a particular race or gender does
not give one any grounds for declaring outsiders to be of a lower moral status. Moreover,
a lot of European and American doctors and university professors, since the middle of the
twentieth century, confirm that beneficial conditions, which allowed the decline and
eradication of some diseases, do not come from animal studies. They state that they come
from improvements in public health, sanitation and a general improvement in the
standards of living.
Furthermore, advocates of this view believe that animal tests are: time and resourceintensive, restrictive in the number of substances that can be tested, that they provide little
understanding of how chemicals behave in the body, and that in many cases do not
correctly predict real-world human reactions. Similarly, health scientists are increasingly
questioning the relevance of research aimed at "modelling" human diseases in the
2
Peter Singer MA Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, Animal Liberation (2009)
CFMUNESCO 2014
laboratory by artificially created symptoms in other animal species. These scientists
highlight above all the scientific limitations of animal testing: very often the symptoms
and responses to potential treatments seen in other species are dissimilar to those of
human patients. As a consequence, 9 out of every 10 medicines that appear safe and
effective in animal studies fail when given to humans. Drug and research failures represent
a slowdown in medical progress, a waste of resources and a risk for the health and safety
of volunteers in clinical trials.
-MIDDLE GROUNDThe two views mentioned above represent two common positions at the opposing ends of
the spectrum. Others endorse a view closer to the middle of the spectrum. Usually, this
middle view accepts experimentation on some, but not all, animals and aims to avoid
unnecessary use of animals in scientific research by pursuing alternatives to animal testing.
This middle ground is composed by those people who share the best arguments from both
the points of view. They claim to be against in vivo testing but believe that in some cases
the good results of testing does outweigh animal’s sufferings, putting themselves in a
middle position advocating a few basic principles – the so-called 3Rs – which, according
to them, should be followed in animal research.
The first principle supports the preferential research use of less complex organisms
whenever possible. This means that there is a hierarchy considering more complex
animals on the top and microorganisms and plants at the bottom.
Another principle is the aim to reduce the use of animals as far as possible in any study.
Extensive use of the existing literature and bibliography, for instance, can ensure that
experiments are not unnecessarily replicated and that animal models are used only to
obtain information not already available to the scientific community. Another way to make
the best out of animal use is to ensure that studies are conducted according to the highest
standards and that all information collected are concretely useful for the ongoing research.
Providing high quality, disease-free environments for the animals helps to demonstrate
that every animal counts. Additionally, well designed studies and appropriate statistical
analysis of data can minimise the number of animals required for statistically significant
results.
The third principle concerns the treatment of animals used in researches and studies and
it states that animals should be ensured that pain and harm should be reduced as much
as possible, and when appropriate, anesthesia should be used. Additionally, test and
studies conducted on animals should have a reasonable duration, so that animals who will
subsequently experience disease or suffering can be euthanized. Also, anyone who
handles the animals should be properly trained.
Eventually alternative methods of research are to be promoted whenever possibile to
avoid in vivo testing.
CFMUNESCO 2014
Summing up...
The basic ethical reason why some people support animal research is that they do not
consider animals lives the same as human ones. Human life is thought to underlie higher
values and therefore animal do not deserve the same rights as humans. They also believe
that the killing of few animals now is justified by the rescue of many other human lives in
the future.
Anti-testing supporters still accuse scientists of killing animals pointlessly and affirm that
there are "alternatives". Pro-test supporters claim that these so called "alternatives" are
more complementary methods than effective replacements and should be used alongside
animal
experiments
for
better
results.
Laurie Pycroft, founder of Pro-Test (UK) stated that despite the efforts of finding and
developing “cruelty-free” alternatives, at this time no alternatives are as accurate or useful
as animal testing3.
The most important results
1922 - Diabetes was still almost unknown. Frederick Banting, a Canadian medical scientist
and doctor, used dogs to find and study a therapy for the problem of high blood sugar in
diabetics. Thanks to his discoveries on insulin today over 15 million people are alive.
1928 - Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin, which was tested on rats only around 1940.
Only at this time it was found out that penicillin could help to nurse bacterial diseases.
1952 - Polio is an infectious virus that affects the nerves of the body. The life-saving polio
vaccines were discovered and improved thanks to experiments conducted on monkeys.
1953 - Joesph E. Murray developed kidney transplant techniques while working on pigs
and dogs.
Major Players Involved
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is an American animal rights
organisation based in Norfolk, Virginia, and led by Ingrid Newkirk, its international
president. It is a non-profit corporation with 300 employees, has three million members
and supporters and is the largest animal rights group in the world. Today it focuses on four
issues—factory farming, fur farming, animal testing, and animals in entertainment.
PETA lobbies governments to impose fines where their own animal-welfare legislation has
been violated, promotes a vegan diet, tries to reform the practices in factory farms and
slaughterhouses, goes undercover into animal research laboratories, farms, and circuses,
initiates media campaigns against particular companies or practices.
National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS) is a national, no-profit animal welfare
organisation based in London that actively campaigns against animal testing for
3
Laurie Pycroft founder of Pro-Test (UK), Is Animal Testing Necessary to Advance Medical Research? (2011)
CFMUNESCO 2014
commercial, educational or scientific research purposes. More recently, in 2009, the year
in which the European directive on Animal testing regulations was being comprehensively
reviewed for the first time in over two decades, NAVS and its animal and environmental
group, Animal Defenders International, joined a call for a Europe-wide ban on the use of
non-human primates in research.
France
The French legislation imposes an institutional and project license to be obtained before
carrying out tests on vertebrates. An institution must submit details of their buildings and
the reason for the experiments, thereafter a five-year license may be granted following an
inspection of the premises. The personnel licensee must be trained and educated
according to the appropriate standards. However, these regulations are not applicable for
invertebrate animals.
United Kingdom
Since 2004 in the UK there are several universities, commercial organizations, non-profit
organizations, government departments, National Health Service hospitals, public health
laboratories and other public bodies that are active in the field of animal research.
The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 requires experiments to be regulated by
three authorisations: a project license for the person in charge of the project, which
clearly outlines the numbers and types of animals to be used, the experiments to be
conducted, and their purpose; a certificate for the institution where the experiments take
place in order to ensure it has adequate facilities and staff; and a personal license for
each scientist or technician who carries out any procedure. According to the 1986 Act the
license is granted only if there is a reasonably practicable method which involves the use
of protected animals and the use of animals with the lowest degree of neurophysiological
sensitivity. This has the aims of reducing pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm as much
as possible,
and
which
finally attempts
to
gain
satisfactory results.
A campaign document by Animal Aid (a British animal rights organisation founded in 1977)
criticised the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 alleging it as a “vivisectors’ charter”,
which allows scientists to practice animal testing without restrictions and which makes
them immune from persecution.
United States of America
In the United States, the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 (AWA) and the Animal Welfare
Regulations are in force to ensure that non-human vertebrate animals used in research
are treated with a certain standard of care, provided that they will not interfere with the
guidelines of actual research or experimentation. But these regulations only protect
mammals. Moreover, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUC) are
established in order to exercise a strict control over the use of animals in research studies.
China
China is a country where cosmetics animal testing has always been carried out. China’s
mandatory testing requirement hasn’t just caused unnecessary suffering for animals, but
has shut companies that refuse to test on animals out of the market. The most recent
CFMUNESCO 2014
news seem to confirm that the China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) stopped
requiring tests for ordinary cosmetics, and will instead allow manufacturers to choose
available alternatives to conduct risk assessments.
Peter Li, the Humane Society International’s China policy adviser, said “This is an
important first step for China in moving away from cruel and unreliable animal testing for
cosmetics. Our Be Cruelty-Free campaign has worked hard to achieve this milestone, but
we know much work remains before we eliminate all cosmetics animal testing in China, so
we are not resting on our laurels. In making this rule change, China is acknowledging the
global trend towards cruelty-free cosmetics, and that’s hugely significant”.
Relevant UN Treaties and Regional Conventions and Events

European Convention for the protection of vertebrate animals used for
experimental and other scientific purposes (No 123, Council of Europe) –
multilateral agreement, 18th March 1986.

Universal Declaration Of Animal Rights (UDAR), September 1977.

Universal Declaration for Animal Welfare (UDAW) - proposed intergovernmental agreement.
Possible Solutions
The issue of animal testing is very controverted and there is no clear-cut solution.
Nevertheless, animal testing and its increasing relevance (and use) worldwide place this
issue on the UN agenda. At international level, indeed, there is no bounding body of laws
or a general declaration of principles to be observed by all members of the UN. In order to
find possible legal or political solutions some questions must be taken into account:
in what way the practice of animal testing differs from LDC and industrialised
countries?
-
how the pain threshold can be determined for animal experimentation?
beside the request of animal rights group to drastically abolish animal testing,
what are their main arguments and proposals to ameliorate the situation?
-
who funds the research on animals?
Another possible solution could be the creation of an international agreement with shared
provisions which should fit as much as possible the needs of almost signatory states.
Notes from the Chair
To conclude, this is a little hint that I would like to give you:
Focus on the position of your country on this topic, (trying to develop your
personal view on it). Adopt the mindset that you are representing the ideas of
someone else.
CFMUNESCO 2014
While studying the topic ask yourself a lot of questions that relates to your
country’s situation and then try and find the answers.
-
If you will prepare a resolution
As I said at the beginning of the report, this is a very delicate issue, therefore
I would suggest you to keep a “soft” attitude while writing the clauses. Do not
be too drastic in your proposals, just approach the problem with an open
mind.
Here I listed you some questions you may find useful to clarify your ideas:
How do they use animals? – Do they suffer? – Is this method really safe and helpful? –
Does it really help rescue humans diseases? (If yes, why? If no, why do they keep testing
on animals?) – Are there any medical treatments that do not need the use of animals? If
yes, why do they keep testing on them? Do these alternatives really work?– What about
people who is against animal testing and then uses animal-tested drugs? Is not it
contradictory? (develop the question from an ethical point of view, too) – What do
animalists say? What do scientists say? What do politicians and laws say? – Do animals
have rights? What kinds of rights? Why? – Consider pros and cons of animal
experimentation.
CFMUNESCO 2014
Bibliography
Adam Hepworth. (11-26-08) “Animal Research: The Ethics of Animal Experimentation” http://web.stanford.edu/group/hopes/cgi-bin/wordpress/2010/07/animal-research/
“Alternatives: Testing Without Torture”: http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-forfood/eating-health/alternatives-testing-without-torture/
Alternatives
to
animal
testing:
experimentation/alternatives-animal-testing/
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-
“The three Rs”: http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/how/the-three-Rs
Key terms - “Differences between in vitro, in vivo, and
http://mpkb.org/home/patients/assessing_literature/in_vitro_studies
“The
Truth
about
Vivisection”
http://www.vivisectioninfo.org/faq.html
-
‘Frequently
in
silico
Asked
studies”:
Questions’:
Universal
Declaration
of
Animal
Rights:
http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~bump/Universal%20Declaration%20of%20Animal%20Rights.
htm
“Why Animals are Used”: http://www.animalresearch.info/en/designing-research/whyanimals-are-used/
Universal Declaration for Animal Welfare (UDAW): http://animalkindltd.co.uk/universaldeclaration-of-animal-welfare;
http://www.ifaw.org/international/get-involved/universaldeclaration-animal-welfare-udaw
“The
Discovery
of
Insulin”
http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/insulin/discovery-insulin.html
-
Sir
John
Vane
(1996)
“Animal
research
and
medical
progress”:
http://www.animalresearch.info/en/medical-advances/128/animal-research-and-medicalprogress/
“Why Evolution is True” – ‘William Lane Craig argues that animals can’t feel pain’:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/william-lane-craig-argues-thatanimals-cant-feel-pain/
Other useful links:
-
http://www.hsi.org/campaigns/end_animal_testing/qa/about.html
-
http://www.navs.org/
-
http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/resources/faqs