SHOULD PRODUCT TESTING ON ANIMALS BE ALLOWED?

Tara Kemp - 0219

AICE Global Perspectives 9239

Gabriel John Overton High School

Word Count: 1782

 Kemp 2

More than one hundred and fifteen million animals across the globe are killed yearly due

to animal testing. Many think it is a cruel and unfair way to take advantage of animals, while

others believe it is a crucial step in discovering new medical advances for humans. Overall, the

supporters for testing on animals are the ones who agree with using animals to help invent new

medicine for humans. The majority of those who do not support animal testing do not support the

idea of harming animals just to test a new beauty product such as makeup or shampoo. These

people believe animals should not be used for any type of testing, medical or product, when there

are many new faux alternatives to using animals. In total, animals can be extremely useful when

it comes to identifying new advances in medicine; yet, alternatives should be usedwhenever

possiblewhen it comes to testing products outside of medicine such as makeup, skin, and hair

products. Still these debated questions stand: Should alternatives be used in place of animals?

Are animals and humans even biologically related? What really happens to animals behind the

door of animal testing?

This topic can be seen as a very controversial issue due to the multiple views related to it.

While some believe animal testing should not be allowed at all (even for medical purposes),

others conclude that animals play a very vital role in the discovery of new medical technologies.

According to John J. Pippin, MD and Kristie Sullivan, MPH, a procedure was conducted in

which dogs' pancreases were removed to help study insulin and its effects on diabetes. Because

of the success of this experiment, people with diabetes now have tools to help them cope with
 Kemp 3

their disease. Studies like these portray the importance of animals in medical research and how

vital they can be in discovering new medical outbreaks for humans. Most people who support

animal testing usually only support it for medical purposes.

Americans for Medical Progress, or AMP, believes that "animal research plays a crucial

part in the development of medical, veterinary and scientific breakthroughs." According to AMP,

animals should be allowed to be used for medical experimentation for the purpose of finding new

cures and developing other important studies. They believe that the animals being used in the

testing laboratories should be treated with respect and compassion and there should be no testing

done that could be considered 'cruel'.

Chris Abee, Director of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center's animal

research facility, also supports the use of animals in medical research. He argues that "we

wouldn't have a vaccine for Hepatitis B without chimpanzees," and states that using these

animals is "our best hope" for discovering a cure for Hepatitis C. Abee uses the argument that,

without the use of chimpanzees in Hepatitis C researcha disease that kills roughly 15,000

Americans yearlyfinding the cure would be much more difficult.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, is the largest animal rights

organization in the world, with more than 5 million members and supporters. They state,

"Examples of animal tests include forcing mice and rats to inhale toxic fumes, force-feeding

dogs different pesticides, and dripping corrosive chemicals into rabbits sensitive eyes." They

then make the claim that "even if a product harms animals, it can still be marketed to

consumers." These are a just a few examples of how animals can be mistreated in the product

testing environment and how products that are tested on animals can still easily be sold to the
 Kemp 4

public. Many people support this same view and argue that humans have no right to capture

animals and use them as test subjects for product testing.

However, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), does support the use

of animal subjects in medical testing. The AVMA endorses the principles embodied in the "3 Rs"

tenet of Russell and Burch from 1959. These principles include: replacement of animals with

non-animal methods wherever possible; reduction of the number of animals consistent with

sound experimental design; and refinement of experimental methods to eliminate or reduce

animal pain and distress. They believe that animals play a vital role in research, testing, and

education for the ongoing improvement of human and animal health and welfare. Like PETA,

the AVMA loves and supports the protection of animals, however, they believe that animals play

a huge part in the discovery of new medicine and products for humans.

According to the Humane Society International, many non-animal replacement methods

such as cell-based studies, silicon chip biosensors, and computational systems biology models,

can provide faster and more human-relevant answers to medical and chemical safety questions

that animal experiments cannot match. With these new alternatives, scientists predict a lower

need for animals in a testing environment and believe that companies who product test are

moving closer to eliminating the use of animals in testing altogether. However, living systems

such as humans and animals are extremely intricate and are debatably impossible to replicate.

The California Biomedical Research Association (CBRA) states that studying cell

cultures in a petri dish, while sometimes useful, does not provide the opportunity to study

interrelated processes occurring in the central nervous system, endocrine system, and immune

system. CBRA also claims that, chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice

are 98% genetically similar to humans. They argue that all mammals, including humans, are
 Kemp 5

descended from common ancestors, and all have the same set of organs (heart, kidneys, lungs,

etc.) that function in essentially the same way with the help of a bloodstream and central nervous

system. This, in essence, makes mammals with living systems the perfect test subjects.

Nevertheless, Paul Furlong, Professor of Clinical Neuroimaging at Aston University

(UK), states that "it's very hard to create an animal model that even equates closely to what we're

trying to achieve in the human." Even though mammals such as chimpanzees and mice share the

same living systems as humans, there are many factors that make animals unreliable as test

subjects such as their size, placement of organs, and reaction to the tests. Thomas Hartung,

Professor of evidence-based toxicology at Johns Hopkins University, argues that alternatives

should be used opposed to animal testing because "we are not 70 kg rats."

Dr. Rachel Hajar from Heart Views also argues that without the use of animals in medical

testing, products that are produced are more likely to be faulty and dangerous towards the user.

For example, in 1937, an American pharmaceutical company created a mixture of sulfanilamide,

using diethylene glycol (DEG) as a solvent, and called the preparation Elixir Sulfanilamide.

DEG was a poisonous ingredient to humans, but the company's main chemist was not aware of

this. He just added raspberry flavoring in with the drug, which he had dissolved in DEG, and the

company sold the mixture. This preparation led to the mass poisoning causing the deaths of more

than a hundred people. No animal testing was done. This public accident (along with some others

similar to this) led to the passing of the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requiring

safety testing of drugs on animals before they could be marketed.

The Animal Welfare Act, or AWA, was created in 1966 as an act to control the treatment

of certain animals in research, exhibition, transport, and by dealers. According to The Hastings

Center, a research institution dedicated to bioethics and the public interest, mice, rats, fish, and
 Kemp 6

birds make up more than ninety-five percent of animals used in product and medical

experiments. Yet, the AWA specifically does not cover these animals in particular. That means

roughly 1.2 million animals used for testing are protected by the act, while around 25 million

other animals are left unprotected. Without the protection of the Animal Welfare Act, animals

are more likely to become vulnerable to mistreatment and abuse. However, even animals covered

by the act can be mistreated. In 2009, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) found

338 possible violations of the Animal Welfare Act at the federally funded New Iberia Research

Center (NIRC) in Louisiana.

Some opponents of the use of animals in product and medical testing also argue that it is

wrong for religious reasons. In the Bible, Proverbs 12:10 states: "A righteous [man] regardeth

the life of his beast..." The Hindu doctrine of ahimsa, as well as the Buddhist doctrine, teaches

the principle of not doing harm to other living beings. In all three of these religions, there is some

sort of reason why animals shouldn't be used solely for the benefits of humans and why no harm

should be done to them. On the other hand, there is religious evidence that states that humans

should have free domination over animals. Also in the Bible, Genesis 1:26 says: "And God

said... let them [human beings] have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the

air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that walks upon the

earth." According to the BBC, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim teachings all allow for animal

experimentation as long as there is no unnecessary pain inflicted towards them and the

experiments are proven beneficial for human beings.

In conclusion, after heavily researching this topic, I have learned the multiple different

perspectives on the matter and how different the many opinions are. Some people completely

disagree with the thought of animal testing for both medical advances and products. While some
 Kemp 7

people do not agree with just the aspect of product testing on animals. My opinion, however, did

not change. I still believe it is wrong to product test on animals because of the many new

alternatives opposed to using animals in experiments. I do understand how animals can be very

useful when it comes to developing new medicines, nonetheless, I find it easier to agree with the

opposition of animal testing because of these new alternatives, the lack of biologically related

evidence, and because of religious reasons. I could easily explore the topic even more and go

deeper into the pros and cons of animal testing to find more advocates and opponents on the

subject. I could also find more opinions on the topic to research. Overall, my opinion still stands

that animals can be highly effective for medical testing because of the similarities between the

human and animal living systems; however, alternatives for testing medicines and beauty

products have been proven to work just as well and provide the same outcome that living animals

do.
 Kemp 8

Bibliography

Americans for Medical Progress. "Animal Research." Americans for Medical Progress. N.p.,
2017. Web. 08 Jan. 2017.

"Animal Testing - ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. N.p., 24 May 2016. Web. 26 Oct. 2016.

"Animal Welfare Act." United States Department of Agriculture, n.d. Web. 28 Feb. 2017.

"Animals Used in Research in the U.S." The Hastings Center, n.d. Web. 28 Feb. 2017.

"CBRA Fact Sheet Why Are Animals Necessary in Biomedical Research?" Why Are Animals
Necessary in Biomedical Research? (n.d.): n. pag. Web.

Pippin, John J., and Kristie Sullivan. "Dangerous Medicine: Examples of Animal-Based Safety
Tests Gone Wrong." N.p., 22 Oct. 2015. Web. 28 Feb. 2017.

Hajar, Rachel. "Animal Testing and Medicine." Heart Views : The Official Journal of the Gulf
Heart Association. Medknow Publications Pvt Ltd, 2011. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.

Humane Society International. "About Animal Testing." Humane Society International. Humane
Society International, 2017. Web. 28 Feb. 2017.

Peta. "Animal Testing 101." PETA. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 2016. Web. 09
Dec. 2016.

Press, Associated. "Texas Research Chimps Face Retirement, Relocation." N.p., 22 July 2013.
Web. 28 Feb. 2017.
 Kemp 9

Speaking of Research. "US Statistics." N.p., 10 Feb. 2017. Web. 26 Feb. 2017.

"Use of Animals in Research, Testing, and Education." N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Feb. 2017.

"What Is a "Procedure"?" Understanding Animal Research. N.p., 22 Oct. 2015. Web. 28 Feb.
2017.