Caitlin Prochnow

Professor Malcolm Campbell

UWRT 1104

6 December 2017

Animal Experimentation: the good, the bad, and the ugly

According to Sean Carmody, in the United States one animal dies in a laboratory every

second. Animal testing refers to the use of non-humans in testing research and development

projects (Animal Testing). Animals used for experimentation include dogs, cats, ferrets, rabbits,

pigs, sheep, monkeys, mice, and rats, but what purpose do they actually serve? Presenting the

pros and cons of animal experimentation is important in order to improve the alternative methods

for animals and provide safety for consumers.

Nearly 1,900 years ago ancient Greek physicians used animals to learn unknown facts

concerning anatomical composition. They examined the nervous system including sensory and

motor nerves. The Greeks also determined how tendons related to functional differences. Galen

of Pergamum, a Greek physician, used animals to understand the cardio-pulmonary system as

well as brain and spinal cord function (Scutti). These ancient physicians were the building blocks

of todays medicine.

One of the most important discoveries in the late nineteenth century was the value of

vaccines. Scientist Louis Pasteur developed vaccinations for anthrax and rabies, which are still

used today. Pasteur also established a food processing idea known as pasteurization. His germ

theory still impacts how we control diseases today (Murnaghan). Russian physiologist Ivan

Pavlov is famous for demonstrating how dogs can be conditioned to respond to a biological
stimulus, such as food. This was an influential scientific advance that was discovered

accidentally in one of his experiments.

Animal experiments are condemned by some groups, including People for the Ethical

Treatment of Animals and Cruelty Free International, although important breakthroughs such as

antibiotics, anticoagulants, and kidney dialysis have been developed following animal testing.

According to Murnaghan, the importance of animal testing was proven once again in 1937 when

diethylene glycol, or DEG, was introduced into a drug used to treat streptococcal infections. The

chemist was unaware that DEG was poisonous to humans because it wasnt tested on animals

prior to being released. This preparation that was untested led to the deaths of more than a

hundred people. After similar disasters, the government passed the 1938 Federal Food, Drug and

Cosmetic Act that required safety testing of drugs on animals before they could be marketed. In

other words, the safety of humans has now been put as a priority by the government.

There are several reasons why animals are still used in experiments today. Scientists

continue to advance scientific knowledge by studying animals. Continuing these studies has

proven important to the understanding of cell processes. All animals and the bodies of animals

are like humans in the way that they perform many vital functions such as breathing, hearing,

digestion, movement, sight, and reproduction. Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with

humans while mice share 98%. These likenesses allow us to develop new technologies and

medicines that benefit us all. The use of scanners and implants, such as pace makers, are

performed safely and effectively due to animal studies. New medicines and procedures will

continue to require testing as we must weigh what is beneficial or harmful to humans and the

environment. The requirement of scientific investigation serves as a protection from harmful

chemicals that would impact consumers, workers, and the environment. A medicine is first tested
on tissues and pieces of organs, but our laws require that it be tested on a living animal (Why

Animals are Used).

However, some doctors and scientists have proven that non-animal testing is a better

alternative. Using human tissue in toxicity studies is more accurate than the use of animal

models. It is also more cost effective, useful, and advantageous. Products that are cruelty-free

have been found to be environmentally friendly (Alternatives in Testing). It is questionable

whether or not animal testing is a waste of government research dollars. The cost of DNA

synthesis (creating DNA for various contexts) using animal tests is nearly $32,000, as opposed to

an in vitro method which costs $11,000.

We should also be aware that animals and humans are never exactly the same.

Reactions will never be as they are in a human. Other differences that are to be taken into

consideration are anatomic, metabolic, and cellular (Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or

Commercial Testing?). Animals dont get many of the human diseases such as HIV, many types

of cancer, Parkinsons disease, or schizophrenia (Arguments Against Animal Testing). An

example of how drugs react differently on animals as opposed to humans is the arthritis drug

Vioxx. This drug was shown to have a protective effect on the hearts of mice. However, this

medication was responsible for more than twenty-seven thousand heart attacks and sudden

cardiac deaths before it was removed from the market in September 2004. Animals may mislead

researchers into ignoring potential cures and treatments. To elaborate, aspirin is dangerous for

some animals but is widely used for humans to thin the blood, for minor muscular pain, and

headaches (Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?). In the case of FK-

506, a drug used to lower the risk of organ transplant rejection, was almost discontinued because
animal test results were not positive (Akhtar). As in most scientific studies there is always a

chance of failure to produce a positive result.

Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. Some of these

include: in vitro, micro-dosing, microfluidic chips, computer models, stem cell and genetic

testing, and non-invasive imaging techniques (Alternatives in Testing). In-vitro, meaning in the

glass, are studies that are performed with microorganisms and cells outside of their normal

biological environment. Micro-dosing is the technique of studying human behavior to drugs

through the administration of low doses. The significance of these tests is that they provide

alternatives to animal testing that are already familiar to most scientists and doctors.

A study of 101 scientific discoveries based on animal experimentation found that only

five percent were accepted treatments over a twenty-year period. At one point, 115 million

animals were used in experiments and only twenty-five new medicines were approved. The Food

and Drug Administration of the United States invests fifty billion dollars per year in research.

The expense of keeping research animals should always be taken into consideration; they must

be housed, fed and cared for humanely (Using Animals for Testing: Pros Versus Cons). The

approval rate of new drugs remains the same as it did fifty years ago. Even when animal

experiments are successful, 95% of the drugs fail when tested on humans (Arguments Against

Animal Testing). It remains difficult to predict how dangerous drugs will impact human health.

In the 1950s an untested sleeping pill, thalidomide, was advertised as a cure for insomnia,

coughs due to colds, and headaches. The drug also diminished morning sickness in pregnant

women. The consequences of using thalidomide caused over ten thousand children in forty-six

countries to be born with deformities i.e. deformed or missing limbs. In response to this disaster,

testing was done on pregnant mice, guinea pigs, cats, and hamsters and the same result were
seen. This led to thalidomide being taken off of the market (Should Animals Be Used for

Scientific or Commercial Testing?).

Another concern is how the animals are treated in labs. Laboratory animals live in a

continuum of distress and are unable to express natural behavior. At times this leads to self-

mutilation and stress induced psychosis. Even mice express concern when they hear or see

other mice in distress. The most devastating laboratory protocols are related to testing new

drugs, infecting with diseases, poisoning for toxicity tests, burning skin, causing brain damage,

implanting electrodes in brain, maiming, and blinding (Healy).

Laboratory procedures are categorized as follows: mild, moderate, severe, and non-

recovery. The mild procedures may cause short-term mild pain such as anesthesia, MRIs,

obtaining blood samples, and short-term social isolation. A moderate procedure includes long-

lasting mild pain. These include surgery under general anesthetic, causing cancer in an animal,

modifying their diet, and/or forced swim tests. Severe procedures are those in which fatalities are

expected by testing a device that could cause pain or sustained electric shocks. According to

PETA, non-recovery procedures are when a general anesthetic is introduced before the start of

the procedure, and the subject is humanely killed and never regains consciousness. This type of

action has got to stop.

At times, after a procedure has been concluded, a post-mortem examination is part of the

study. This examination can include taking tissue samples of the animals organs for further

study. There is always a possibility that it may be necessary to kill the animal to prevent further

suffering. Per the Animals Scientific Procedures Act of 1986 there are several methods that can

be used: anesthetic overdose, carbon dioxide gas exposure, breaking of the neck, blow to the

head destroying the brain, or a shot to the brain for hoofed animals only. Any method of killing
not covered in Schedule 1 requires a license to perform (Animals are Not Ours to Experiment

On). This is highly disturbing to me because treating another human like this would get you sent

to jail, but somehow treating animals with the same cruelty is legal.

In 1959, British scientists William Russell and Rex Burch established the three Rs to

minimize the impact of research on animals. The first R reduction, pertains to the number of

animals used in research. The number of experimental techniques, the methods for obtaining data

analysis, and the sharing of that data with other researchers is part of the plan. The second R

refining, focuses on the way the animals are cared for to reduce their suffering. This would

include using less invasive techniques, improving medical care and living conditions. The third

R replacement, is obtained by using alternate procedures and experimenting on cell cultures

instead of live animals. They may also employ the use of computer models and studying human

volunteers as well (Scutti). I agree with all three of these concepts because they are steps in the

right direction in order to protect animals while providing needs to humans.

Some groups of activists, such as PETA, are concerned over the use of animals in

research. They contend that humans have no right to use animals in ways that hurt or distress

them to benefit our species. We cant use humans without making sure that they understand the

research and participate in it willingly. With that being said, animals dont have a say on whether

they can be tortured or not so how is this far to them? These procedures can be eliminated or at

least reduced if we, as a nation, will do the following: buy cruelty-free products, donate to

charities that dont experiment on animals, request alternative to animal dissection, and demand

implementation of humane testing by government agencies and corporations.

As scientific studies progress, it is hoped that more alternative sources will be found in

order to exclude animals from the experimental process. As technology advances, less expensive
and more humane methods will be developed. Further, the use of in-vitro cell growth allows

scientists to study various populations of cells and how they are more easily analyzed. In the

United States, civilian and military facilities are already replacing animal laboratories with life-

like simulators that breathe, bleed, and die (Healy). With that being said, there also needs to be

a law put into place that protects every animal in research facilities, not just the domesticated

ones. The field of science needs to be held accountable for the sake of humans and animals.
 Works Cited

Akhtar, Aysha. The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation. Cambridge

Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 24 October 2015. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/.

Accessed 01 December 2017.

Alternatives in Testing. Neavs. www.neavs.org/alternatives/in-testing.

Accessed 05 December 2017.

Animal Testing. Dictionary.com, http://www.dictionary.com/browse/animal-testing. Accessed

05 December 2017.

Animal Testing 101. Peta. www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-

experimentation/animal-testing-101/. Accessed 02 December 2017.

Animals are Not Ours to Experiment On. Peta2. www.peta2.com/issues/animals-are-not-

ours-to experiment-on/. Accessed 02 December 2017.

Arguments Against Animal Testing. Cruelty Free International.

www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/why-we-do-it/arguments-against-animal-testing.

Accessed 05 December 2017.

Carmody, Sean. Vivisection/ Animals in Research. Last Chance for Animals.

www.lcanimal.org/index.php/campaigns/class-b-dealers-and-pet-

theft/vivisectionanimals-in-research. Accessed 03 December 2017

Companies that Still Test on Animals. Peta. www.peta.org/living/beauty/companies-

that-still-test-on-animals. Accessed 05 December 2017.

Feder, Barnaby, J. Saving the Animals: New Ways to Test Products. The New York Times, The

New York Times, 11 Sept. 2011. Accessed 02 December 2017.

www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/technology/techspecial/12animal.html.
Ferdowsian, Hope R., and Nancy Beck. Ethnical and Scientific Considerations Regarding

Animal Testing and Research. PLoS ONE, vol. 6, no. 9, 7 Sept. 2011,

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0024059. Accessed 04

December 2017.

Harm and Suffering. Neavs. www.neavs.org/research/harm-suffering.

Accessed 05 December 2017.

Healy, Hannah. The 5 Worst Animal Experiments Happening Right Now. Peta2, 30

October 2014. www.peta2.com/blog/current-animal-experiments/. Accessed 04

December 2017.

Murnaghan, Ian, Animal Testing Timeline. About Animal Testing, 26 July 2016.

www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk/animal-testing-timeline.html. Accessed 01 December

2017.

Scutti, Susan. Animal Testing: A Long, Unpretty History. Medical Daily, 27 July 2013.

www.medicaldaily.com/animal-testing-long-unpretty-history-247217. Accessed 03

December 2017.

Should Animals be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing? ProCon.org, 24 May 2016.

www.animal-testing.procon.org. Accessed 03 November 2017.

Animal Testing. Dictionary.com, http://www.dictionary.com/browse/animal- testing.

Accessed 05 November 2017.

Using Animals for Testing: Pro Versus Cons. About Animal Testing.

www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk/allegations-abuse-related-animal-testing.html. Accessed

02 December 2017.
Why Animals are Used. Animal Research Info.

www.animalresearch.info/en/designing-research/why-animals-are-used/. Accessed 05

December 2017.

11 Facts about Animal Testing. DoSomething.org.

https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-animal-testing. Accessed 01

December 2017.