POSITIVE USE OF ANIMAL TESTING IN RESEARCH 1

Positive Use of Animal Testing in Research Colin W. Priest Loras College

POSITIVE USE OF ANIMAL TESTING IN RESEARCH 2 Animals have been used to gather important information for many years. The knowledge gathered from animal testing has been used to make drugs for people and to help map out the human brain better. Much debate has surrounded the topic of using animals for research. Opponents of animal research argue that the conditions under which the animals live are unethical and cause unnecessary harm; information could be gathered in a better way. Though some of these arguments can be compelling, animal testing is still an important factor in learning more about the human body and gathering information that could not otherwise be known through methods of testing with human subjects. Ethically speaking, researchers could not use the same tests on human beings that they use on animals; the possibility of permanent damage is far too high. Animal testing is useful for gathering information about the human brain and body that could not otherwise be known through human testing. Using animals to gather data is an appropriate alternative to human testing and, when done correctly and ethically, it can be safer for the animal as well. Before showing the case for why animal testing is still useful for research today, it is important to consider the issues that surround animal testing in the first place. Anti-animal testing advocates have leveled several objections to the use of animals in research and information gathering. Opponents of research argue that testing on animals is physically and psychologically damaging to the animals being subjected to experimentation; the benefits of testing do not outweigh the costs of testing on animals. Additionally, activists argue that the labs in which animals are being held for testing is inhumane and cause unnecessary pain and suffering for the animals, in some cases even death. The first argument against animal testing shall be discussed in detail. Research and experimentation with animal subjects has shown that animals experience a range of emotions and cognitions as well as a range of attachment and bonding mechanisms that

POSITIVE USE OF ANIMAL TESTING IN RESEARCH 3 are prevalent across different species (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011). Though pain and suffering are subjective experiences, what might be extremely painful for one person may not be so for another, multiple studies have shown that, objectively speaking, animals experience different levels of pain and emotions (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011). Research gathered from Ferdowsian and Beck (2011) showed that emotional states and pain responses exhibited by animals in testing are very similar to those that are expressed by human beings in similar circumstances. Varied forms of depression and distress were observed in their animal subjects, which consisted of various primates, dogs, pigs, cats, birds and rodents, all of which are allowed to be used in testing according to the American Psychological Association (2012). According to this research, animals can feel pain, pleasure and emotions in much the same ways that human beings do. So animals cannot rightly be considered as valid test subject for research due to the fact that their experiences are comparable to that of humanitys. If researchers find it unthinkable to do painful or damaging experiments on human beings because of the pain and injury it would could, then by the same logic they ought not to do these same experiments on animals that can feel in a similar way. Now consider the second objection to the use of animal testing in research, the inhumane conditions in which test animals are kept. Animal rights activists have gone into animal testing labs to videotape and record the horrendous conditions that are there. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have documents many cases of disgusting and ill-kept labs in which test animals are kept. PETA members protest that these conditions are unacceptable for the rights of animals, in addition to arguing that it is wrong for the animals to be there in the first place (peta.org, 2013). Negligent researchers forget to feed or water animals, change their bedding or they may leave the animals in their cages for months at a time without being noticed, all of this leads to an untimely and

POSITIVE USE OF ANIMAL TESTING IN RESEARCH 4 fruitless death of the animal. Activists argue that these conditions put unnecessary pain and suffering on the animal that has nothing to do with testing purposes and even with sanctions and penalties in place these events still take place. Researchers are not willing to abide by regulations which reduce harm on the animals and so they ought to stop animal testing all together to ensure the safety of the animals used. Another common objection is that using animals to test for negative side effects of drugs on human beings might not be accurate due to experimentation bias. Perel et al. (2007) conducted a systematic research study surveying several different types of animal models that have been used to test the effects of drugs on animals before being used for human testing. Their findings indicated that blinding and randomization was not commonly used in animal research testing for new drugs and that this may have led to an experimentation bias. Different models for animal testing must be free of experimentation bias in order to give an accurate portrayal of the effects a drug had on an animal. Perels study shows that experimentation bias can exist within the field of animal testing, leading to false positives in research. Both sides of this issue, however, can agree that experimentation bias has no place in any type of research and must be eliminated. Now to answer some more of the objections against animal testing, starting with the pain and suffering that animals feel during experimentation. An argument is made in favor of using animals in research by considering that people, not researchers, kill and harm animals every single day all over the world. Hertzog (1988) makes the cases that there are different statuses for mice: they can be pet or pest. Pest mice are considered okay to kill and eliminate, these are the ones present in houses that are disposed of with a mouse trap. Hertzog makes the claim that these mice are socially acceptable to kill because they are a nuisance. Notice that no public outcry is

POSITIVE USE OF ANIMAL TESTING IN RESEARCH 5 made for those who put out mousetraps in their homes. But the other type of mice are the good mice, these are the pets, the cute fuzzy mice that people have in their homes. People, Hertzog claims, associate test mice with these good mice and that a social stigma arises because people see researchers supposedly killing family pets. However, this is not the case. Mice are mice regardless of personal feelings towards a particular kind. People wont think twice about setting down a mouse trap, knowing the end result but voice cries of unrest at the thought of using mice for testing. The big difference between killing mice in a home and using mice for testing is that the mice used in testing will benefit the greater society as a whole. Any psychology textbook can show you that research done on mice helped to map mental pathways and to see the side-effects of potential drugs before they are given to humans. Pain and suffering caused by animals used in testing is not for the pleasure of doing it, it is to help people and animals to have better lives through discoveries. To answer the second objection to animal testing, that the living conditions are inhumane and cause unnecessary suffering to animals. This is true, many labs have unhealthy living conditions for animals and the animal subjects are not treated with care and attempts are not made to ease the suffering of the subjects. In order to counteract this more severe penalties and fines should be put in to place for research facilities that violate the sanctions that are currently in place. In addition to this there are to be more specific guidelines for what is humane or of scientific necessity (American Psychological Association, 2012). Tightening up these sanctions will reduce the amount of pain done to animals in research labs. Having considered common objections to animal testing the benefits of animal testing can now be discussed. Several advantages are offered from using animals in research. Animal testing benefits include life-saving treatments for cats, dogs and farm animals and in addition to

POSITIVE USE OF ANIMAL TESTING IN RESEARCH 6 this animal testing have also led to discoveries in human psychology. Testing on animals has helped many people and has made lives better from the research on animals. Life-saving medical advances for animals have been attributed to research done on animals. A study conducted by Miller (1985) shows that animals have a learned taste aversion effect. Miller cites that animals have a learned aversion to plants and vegetation that causes nausea. Using this knowledge, Miller used a chemical that creates nausea in animals and put it on crops for farmers. The results are that after eating some of the crops the animals, such as deer or birds, get nauseated. Since the animals got nauseated from the crops they ended up having an aversion to the farmers crops. In an ordinary situation, farmers would simply shoot the deer or bird eating their crops or send dogs to go kill them. The knowledge gathered from animal testing helped many animals and spared them from being killed; so animal testing has helped to save lives of animals rather than take them in this situation. Animal testing has also helped improve the lives of people as well. Rahman et al. (2013) conducted a study using lab rodents and humans to see the effects of sleep deprivation on memory processing. He found that sleep facilitates the learning processes in their different phases and that sleep deprivations greatly impairs these processes and hinders learning. Testing done on rodents in this study showed paradoxical results. In addition to learning and memory processing, Rahman et al. also found that sleep is important immediately after learning something new in order to properly encode the information into LTM for later retrieval. Rodents were used first in the study to isolate any potential negative effects that humans might experience. The benefit of animal testing is evidenced in this study by showing that sleeping patterns and memory encoding is not restricted to just human beings, it goes beyond species. Knowledge of animal encoding and learning can be useful in training dogs for law

POSITIVE USE OF ANIMAL TESTING IN RESEARCH 7 enforcement so they can better protect civilians, or it can be used to enhance the quality of life for household pets such as dogs and cats. Knowing that sleeping is important for learning and that sleep deprivation can impede learning in animals as wells as humans has many benefits. Finally, testing on animals can help suffering people. Without officially mentioning the widely known animal testing done by B.F. Skinners mice, Ivan Pavlovs dogs, Seligmans dogs, Harlows monkeys or Lorenzs ducks, many tests have been done on animals that have benefitted humanity as a whole. Tests have been done to screen for side effects of drugs before administering them to humans. A study conducted by Chung et al. (2010) studied Alzheimers disease using mice and the PrPc receptors. What he found was that certain antibodies can be injected into the body which will go to these receptors and treat some of the cognitive effects associated with Alzheimers. In order for Chung and colleagues to study this in the first place, however, animals needed to be used. This test would never have been allowed to be conducted if he were studying these same effects in humans; the risk would be too high for permanent damage or even death to result. Benefits from this study have helped to alleviate the suffering that people with Alzheimers have and improved their quality of life through administration of interventions such as these drugs. Animal testing is a very important part of the field of research because some tests, such as this one, cannot be done with humans because it is too dangerous. The benefits of testing on a few animals have helped improve peoples lives of many people. Having made a case for animal testing, it is appropriate to state how to improve the field in order to make ease the suffering on animal subjects. In order to better the lives of the animals used in testing, there ought to be more restrictions and harsher penalties on labs that violate current guidelines for animal testing, in addition to specifying what those guidelines are. Another way to reduce the suffering of animals

POSITIVE USE OF ANIMAL TESTING IN RESEARCH 8 in testing would be to follow Horner and Minifies (2011) Three Rs example: reduce, refine, replace. This program that they put forward seeks to reduce the amount of animals used in testing to as little as needed, but still be used in testing. Also, refining the experimental procedures in order to minimize animal pain and suffering, this would alleviate some of the pain that animals experience in testing. When drugs or some kind of treatment can be done to ease the pain of the animal without altering the outcome of the testing it ought to be done. Finally replacing has to do with switching out animal subjects for non-animal alternatives whenever scientifically possible. By switching out animals when possible, it will lower the number of animals that experience pain in experiments. Options for non-animal subjects could be computer programs that simulate human organ activity or similar technology. Putting these practices into place in animal testing will lower the amount and degree of pain that animals go through in testing. The APA Code of Ethics (2002) states that all psychologists ought to acquire, care for, use and dispose of animals in compliance with the current regulations, laws and professional standards. Each scientist has the personal duty of acting responsibly towards animals and is to ensure their comfort and health with humane treatment. Each professional researcher ought ot take these standards seriously. In conclusion, animal testing is not something that is done because it can be done; it is used to benefit people. Animals were used in the first place to safely study unknown areas of science. It was to protect people, and animals, that animal testing was used. Testing on animals is still useful today. New drugs are made and mental disorders are being navigated. Without the use of animals in testing many experiments would not be able to be done due to the dangers that it would present to humans. Though some may object to animal testing, it is a valued part of research and is still needed. Giving animals the best care possible should be at the forefront of

POSITIVE USE OF ANIMAL TESTING IN RESEARCH 9 every researchers mind when conducting experiments on animals so as not to cause unnecessary suffering.

POSITIVE USE OF ANIMAL TESTING IN RESEARCH 10 References

American Psychological Association. (2012). Guidelines for ethical conduct in the care and use of nonhuman animals in research. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/science/leadership/care/guidelines.aspx American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. 8.09. Chung, E., Ji, Y., Sun, Y., Kascsak, R. J., Kascsak, R. B., Mehta, P. D., Wisniewski, T. (2010). Anti PrP monoclonal antibody infusion as a novel treatment for cognitive deficits in an Alzheimers disease mouse model. BMC Neuroscience11(130). doi: 10.1186/14712202-11-130 Ferdowsian, H., Beck, N. (2011). Human and animal research guidelines: Aligning ethical constructs with new scientific developments. Bioethics 25(8), 472-278. Doi: 10.1111/j/1467-8519.2011.01923x Herzog, H. A., (1988). The moral status of mice. American Psychologist, 43(6), 473-474. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.43.6.473 Horner, J., & Minifie, F. D. (2011). Research ethics 1: Responsible conduct of research (RCR) Historical and contemporary issues pertaining to human and animal experimentation. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 54(1), 303-309. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0265: Miller, M. E. (1985). The value of behavioral research on animals. American Psychologist 40(4), 423-440. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.40.4.423 Perel, P., Roberts, I., Sena, E., Wheble, P., Briscoe, C., Sandercock, P., Macleod, M., Mignini, L., Jayaram, P., & Khan, K. (2007). Comparison of treatment effects between animal

POSITIVE USE OF ANIMAL TESTING IN RESEARCH 11 experiments and clinical trials: Systematic review. BMJ 334. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39048.407928.B PETA. (2013). People for the ethical treatment of animals. retrieved from http://www.peta.org/ Rahman, A., Languille, S., Lamberty, Y., Babiloni, C., Perret, M., Bordet, R. & Aujard, F. (2013). Sleep deprivation impairs spatial retrieval but not spatial learning in the nonhuman primate grey mouse lemur. Plos ONE, 8(5). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064493