Mary Carter Johnson

ENG 112 - Argument Paper

July 7 2019

Why Animal Testing Is Bad For The Soul

Since the 1900s, animals have been used as test subjects for products before they go onto

the market. Animals have been the main way for a drug or product to be passed by the FDA to be

placed onto market shelves. In recent years, the effects of animal testing have come into light

with the public. This testing unethical to the animals and unreliable, since there have been

instances where products have different results to humans than to other animals. There have been

many developments in creating alternatives to animal testing that are more reliable to show the

true effect of a drug on humans. Companies need to move away from testing on animals and

move to alternatives because only then will both humans and animals be safe from a company’s

product.

In past years, scientists have not been ethical in their laboratories during animal testing.

Without using other sources to test a certain product, many scientists just use animals for their

models. Since animals can easily be bred with no extra expenses needed, this causes concern.

This is because breeding is not normally controlled, and it leads to having inbred animals that are

used for testing: “​The use of rats and mice is so popular in laboratory studies because they’re so

readily available” and that it “leads to inbred rodents, meaning the similarities between human

and rodent DNA shrinks and even less accurate results are produced.”​(Mellon). It has been

proven that there are other ways of testing a product, but scientists rather take the way that is the
most convenient. For example, Temple’s Lewis Katz School of Medicine choose to use animals

to test their HIV drugs instead of a computer simulation alternative. This is because the mice and

rats were more convenient to use and test on(Mellon). There are other alternatives to animal

testing that has been developed throughout the years and give valid insights into mechanisms of

action(Hessel). Not only does it hurt the animals,but it also hurts any scientist involving

themselves in animal testing. Cutting animals open, dissecting them, or giving animals toxic

chemicals can desensitize the person doing the experiments: “​each step they’re becoming more

and more desensitized to the pain they’re inflicting on other living beings”​(Mellon). This

desensitization can cause animal testing to become more unethical because the scientists forget

the pain they are inflicting on a live animal. There has been a way to combat unethical ways

through the media. Many platforms have been created to help minimize harm to lab animals. For

example, a website called AnimalTestInfo is a website created to “could serve as a tool for

evaluating and monitoring practices in laboratory and animal research” and to “ uncover new

information about animal testing, including potential targets for efforts to minimize harm to lab

animals”(PLOS). New technological advances are a way to keep scientists in check and to ensure

that the animals are not going through any unnecessary measures; however, it is not mandated

that every scientist reveal what goes on in their lab. Though many platforms have been created to

help combat this, the scientists are bound to tell the public; therefore, animals could be

unethically harmed without the public noticing.

Though certain animals may function in similar ways as humans, animals are not

completely one-hundred percent identical to humans. This makes animals an unreliable source of

how a certain product may affect a person. In Nutrition Health Review, it states that “tests can
show great improvement in animals with disorders that mimic human disorders, but trials are

mimicked on human subjects, the results often do not resemble those of the animal studies”. This

information is very factual due to the various amounts of examples of drugs that were FDA

approved and had to be taken out of the market due to its harmful effects on humans. For

example, a company voluntarily took its popular painkiller rofecoxib (Vioxx®) off the shelves in

2004 after concerns about the drug's safety received public attention(Nutrition Health Review).

The Nutrition Health Review said that “as a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), this

drug(Vioxx®) was widely prescribed to treat symptoms of osteoarthritis, acute pain, and

dysmenorrhea”. This drug was very quickly taken off the marketplace when the effects of the

drug turned out to be harmful and deadly to patients who were prescribed the FDA approved

drug: “the drug was found to be responsible for 88,000 to 139,000 heart attacks in the five years

during which it was available, according to F.D.A. analysts(Nutrition Health Review)”. The drug

was only tested on animals before being released to the public. The FDA mandates that every

drug goes through preclinical testing with animal subjects before it can be approved to be put on

the shelves; therefore, many harmful drugs are on the market(Stachura). No human trials were

tested until after the drug was released. In an interview with Steven Kaufman, M.D, he stated

“The genes interact with the cells, the cells interact with each other in the organs, and the organs

interact with each other, and by the time you end up with a disease process in your animal model,

you are actually talking about a disease that is different in humans in substantial respects.” This

doctor explains the reasons why animals will mostly produce faulty results: animals are made of

a different genetic compound than humans, and a product to combat a certain disease in an
animal may be processed differently in a human. This proves that companies need to stay away

from animal testing. Animals are NOT like humans, and many lives have suffered because of it.

In the U.S., every drug product must go through the Federal Drug Administration.

Animal testing is mandated by the FDA for certain drugs to receive approval for distribution to

the public(Stachura). The FDA mandates that every drug goes through preclinical testing with

animal subjects before it can be approved to be put on the shelves; therefore, many harmful

drugs are on the market(Stachura). Many harmful drugs are misleading because the consumer

relies on the FDA approval of the drug. The FDA does not require the drug to be tested on

humans. This means that there is little indication for what the true effects will be for humans-this

is absolutely dangerous! 5.34% of newly approved drugs have been pulled off of shelves because

of the detrimental effects it has on humans(Stachura). The FDA needs to incorporate alternatives

to animal testing to help get the quality of drugs that would benefit the consumers without

hurting the companies providing the drug. There have been some movements that have tried to

outlaw animal testing. New Zealand passed the Psychoactive Substances Amendment Act

(PSAA) which panned animal testing of psychoactive products(Food&Farm Week). Through

gathered research, many analysts sound some scenarios that would happen to help make drugs

approved and compatible worldwide. The six scenarios that were created were: “(1) pragmatic

modification of the animal testing ban; (2) waiting until new non-animal test models are

internationally accepted; (3) use of non-validated replacement test methods; (4) judicial

challenge of the animal testing ban; (5) 'creative compliance' by only presenting human clinical

trial results; and (6) philosophical re-conceptualisation of the 'benefits' from psychoactive

products(Food&Farm Week).” All of these scenarios have many drawbacks. These scenarios
show that animal testing how heavily animal testing had been relied on since there are no

alternatives that are easy for drug companies to adapt to. Because animal testing has been so

heavily relied on, it is hard to transition to a new alternative. A simple act or law is not going to

change the problem with animal testing. If there was more funding for the alternative models, the

transition from animal testing to the new models would be so hurtful to the companies. Many

companies do not stray away from animal testing, because any alternatives to animal testing

either simply cost too much or would take years to reconfigure how to manage the safety of a

product. OSHA has also been apart of trying to ban animal testing by incorporating a new

system, GHS labeling, for testing products. A critic of the GHS labeling says that “Rulemaking

and the subsequent review of all product labels would require significant program resources, and

result in corresponding time and cost burdens for industry and state co-regulators during the

implementation phase(Hegstad)”. There needs to be more action than just rulemaking, so it will

not be detrimental to the companies who are changing their safety regulations. Many companies

want to change their safety regulations for their products for fear of public backlash; however,

they refrain from doing so since there is no other worldwide alternative and the conversion to the

alternative models is very time consuming and very costly. This shows that there needs to be

more action within the government to help create a plan companies can use in making their

product not only safer for the public but to also get the public’s favor for the company. Countries

and organizations need to be more open and contribute to other alternatives or else animal testing

will not go away and many more people will die due to faulty government regulated products.

Animal testing has been the most convenient way for a drug company to get their product

approved. In recent years, animal testing has come into light with the public and there has been
an outcry for the unethical abuse of animals in labs to stop. Things, such as the media, have been

able to make scientists completely transparent to the public about what exactly they do in the lab;

however, scientists aren’t bound to post their activity. Also, there is no way to verify if what

scientists say they are doing and what they are actually doing is the same thing. A huge problem

is that animal testing alternatives aren’t accepted worldwide and isn’t as convenient as animal

testing is to get a product verified. Animal testing is still going to be the main way for testing

products even when the results are not very reliable because there is no way for a company to

convert to an alternative without hurting the company. New alternatives that give consistent

results with that of humans needs have been made. These alternatives would be ethical and

would save the lives of thousands- both human and animal alike. Every new product being made

is a risk of trying because it could be detrimental to a person since animal testing does not give

accurate results. There needs to be funding and a plan to help these businesses lean off of animal

testing or else animals will keep living in unethical situations and drugs will keep being

detrimental to people.
 Works Cited

"Animal Testing Not Reliable for Drug Approval Trials."​ Nutrition Health Review​, no. 95, 2006,

pp. 19,

ProQuest​,​https://login.proxy039.nclive.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docvie

w/220901984​?accountid=10163.

"Drug Policy; Investigators from Massey University Release New Data on Drug Policy the

Challenge of a Ban on Animal Testing for the Development of a Regulated Legal Market

for New Psychoactive Substances (NPS) ('Legal Highs') in New Zealand: Issues and ...]."

Food & Farm Week, Jan 21, 2016, pp. 303. ProQuest,

https://login.proxy039.nclive.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/175664

424

1?accountid=10163.

Hegstad, Maria. "EPA Eyes OSHA's GHS Labeling Approach to Advance CompTox use."

InsideOSHAOnline,​ 2017​. ProQuest,​

https://login.proxy039.nclive.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/189680

4992?accountid=10163

Hessel, Ellen V. S., Yvonne C. M. Staal, and Aldert H. Piersma. "Design and Validation of an

Ontology-Driven Animal-Free Testing Strategy for Developmental Neurotoxicity

Testing." Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, vol. 354, 2018, pp. 136-152. ProQuest,

https://login.proxy039.nclive.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/201495

2225?accountid=10163, doi:​http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2018.03.013​.

"Is Animal Experimentation Worthwhile?"​ Nutrition Health Review,​ no. 87, 2003, pp. 3-8​.
 ProQuest​,​https://login.proxy039.nclive.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docvie

w/220920200​?accountid=10163.\

Mellon, Monica. "Animal Testing is Cruel and Unreliable."​ University Wire,​ Jan 23, 2018​.

ProQuest​,​https://login.proxy039.nclive.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docvie

w/1990649366?accountid=10163​.

"PLOS; Tracking Planned Experiments Online could Spot Ways to Improve Animal Testing."

Food & Farm Week,​ Jan 04, 2018, pp. 263​. ProQuest,​

https://login.proxy039.nclive.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/198107

051​6?accountid=10163.

Stachura, Sheree,R.N., B.S.N. "Drug Safety: An Argument to Ban Animal Testing."​Journal of

Nursing Law​, vol. 12, no. 4, 2008, pp. 147-156​. ProQuest,​

https://login.proxy039.nclive.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/

206506555?accountid=10163, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/1073-7472.12.4.147.