Medical testing on animals

History of animal testing

An estimated 26 million animals are used every year in the United States for scientific and
commercial testing. Animals are used to develop medical treatments, determine the toxicity
of medications, check the safety of products destined for human use, and other biomedical,
commercial, and health care uses. Research on living animals has been practiced since at least
500 BC.

Proponents of animal testing say that it has enabled the development of numerous life-saving
treatments for both humans and animals, that there is no alternative method for researching a
complete living organism, and that strict regulations prevent the mistreatment of animals in
laboratories.

Opponents of animal testing say that it is cruel and inhumane to experiment on animals, that
alternative methods available to researchers can replace animal testing, and that animals are
so different from human beings that research on animals often yields irrelevant results.

Regulations

Animal testing in the United States is regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA),
passed in 1966 and amended in 1970, 1976, and 1985. The AWA defines “animal” as “any
live or dead dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or
such other warm blooded animal.” The AWA excludes birds, rats and mice bred for research,
cold-blooded animals, and farm animals used for food and other purposes.

The AWA requires that each research facility develop an internal Institutional Animal
Committee (more commonly known as an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, or
IACUC) to “represent society’s concerns regarding the welfare of animal subjects.” The
Committee must be comprised of at least three members. One member must be a veterinarian
and one must be unaffiliated with the institution.

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) reports the number of animals used for research each year, though it excludes
animals not covered by the AWA. For fiscal year 2010 (the latest year for which data are
available as of Oct. 11, 2013, 1,134,693 animals were reported. Since the data excludes cold-
blooded animals, farm animals used for food, and birds, rats, and mice bred for use in
research, the total number of animals used for testing is unknown. Estimates of the number of
animals not counted by APHIS range from 85%-96% of the total of all animals used for
testing. The USDA breaks down its data by three categories of pain type: animals that
experience pain during their use in research but are given drugs to alleviate; animals who
experience pain and are not given drugs ; and animals who do not experience pain and are not
given drugs .
Public Opinion

A public outcry over animal testing and the treatment of animals in general broke out. Most
say medical testing on animals is morally acceptable (down from 65% ), with 39% saying it is
morally wrong. Youngers are less likely to accept animal testing. 47% of people aged 18-34
say that animal testing is morally acceptable, whereas 60% of people aged 35-54 and 61% of
people aged 55 and older say it is morally acceptable. 67% of registered voters in the US are
opposed to using animals to test cosmetics and personal care products. The poll found that
women are more likely to object, with 76% of women under 50 and 70% of women over 50
being opposed to animal testing, and 63% of men under and over 50 being opposed. 52% of
voters said they feel safer using a product that was tested using non-animal methods, while
18% said they feel safer with products tested on animals.

Early History

Descriptions of the dissection of live animals have been found in ancient Greek writings from
as early as circa 500 BC. Physician-scientists such as Aristotle, Herophilus, and Erasistratus
performed the experiments to discover the functions of living organisms. Vivisection
(dissection of a living organism) was practiced on human criminals in ancient Rome and
Alexandria, but prohibitions against mutilation of the human body in ancient Greece led to a
reliance on animal subjects. Aristotle believed that animals lacked intelligence, and so the
notions of justice and injustice did not apply to them. Theophrastus, a successor to Aristotle,
disagreed, objecting to the vivisection of animals on the grounds that, like humans, they can
feel pain, and causing pain to animals was an affront to the gods.

Pros and cons

Pros of Animal Testing

1. Helps researchers to find drugs and treatments:

The major pro for animal testing is that it aids researchers in finding drugs and treatments to
improve health and medicine. Many medical treatments have been made possible by animal
testing, including cancer and HIV drugs, insulin, antibiotics, vaccines and many more.

2. Improves human health:

It is for this reason that animal testing is considered vital for improving human health and it is
also why the scientific community and many members of the public support its use. In fact,
there are also individuals who are against animal testing for cosmetics but still support animal
testing for medicine and the development of new drugs for disease.

3. Helps ensure safety of drugs:

Another important aspect to note is that animal testing helps to ensure the safety of drugs and
many other substances humans use or are exposed to regularly. Drugs in particular can carry
significant dangers with their use but animal testing allows researchers to initially gauge the
safety of drugs prior to commencing trials on humans. This means that human harm is
reduced and human lives are saved – not simply from avoidance of the dangers of drugs but
because the drugs themselves save lives as well as improve the quality of human life.

4. Alternative methods of testing do not simulate humans in the same way

Scientists typically use animals for testing purposes because they are considered similar to
humans. As such, researchers do recognise the limitations and differences but the testing is
done on animals because they are thought to be the closest match and best one with regards to
applying this data to humans.

Cons of Animal Testing

1. Animals are killed or kept in captivity:

In animal testing, countless animals are experimented on and then killed after their use.
Others are injured and will still live the remainder of their lives in captivity.

2. Some substances tested, may never be used for anything useful:

The unfortunate aspect is that many of these animals received tests for substances that will
never actually see approval or public consumption and use. It is this aspect of animal testing
that many view as a major negative against the practice, as it seems that the animal died in
vain because no direct benefit to humans occurred.

3. It is very expensive:

Another con on the issue of animal testing is the price. Animal testing generally costs an
enormous amount of money, as the animals must be fed, housed, cared for and treated with
drugs or a similar experimental substance. On top of that, animal testing may occur more than
once and over the course of months, which means that additional costs are incurred. The price
of animals themselves must also be factored into the equation. There are companies who
breed animals specifically for testing and animals can be purchased through them.

4. Animals and humans are never exactly the same:

There is also the argument that the reaction of a drug in an animal's body is quite different
from the reaction in a human. The main criticism here is that some believe animal testing is
unreliable. Following on that criticism is the premise that because animals are in an unnatural
environment, they will be under stress. Therefore, they won't react to the drugs in the same
way compared to their potential reaction in a natural environment. This argument further
weakens the validity of animal experimentation.

Industries That Use Animals For Testing

The use of animal testing spans more industries than you probably think. From cosmetic
companies and the pharmaceutical industry to shampoo companies and detergent brands,
countless companies around the world are mistreating animals in the pursuit of putting out
new products. Animals are being tested for: cosmetics, personal care, household cleaning,
office supplies, for example: Colgate, Palmolive, Sanex, Adidas, Escada, Gucci, Boss,
RIMMEL London, Bourjois Paris, LACOSTE, BURBERRY, Calvin Klein Fragrances, Max
Factor, Wella Professionals, Johnson's Baby and so on.

Should animals be used in research?

Animals, from the fruit fly to the mouse, are widely used in scientific research. They are
crucial for allowing scientists to learn more about human biology and health, and for
developing new medicines.

The use of animals in scientific research has long been the subject of heated debate. On the
one hand it is considered morally wrong to use animals in this way solely for human benefit.

On the other hand, removing animals completely from the lab would impede our
understanding of health and disease, and consequently affect the development of new and
vital treatments. Although sometimes these studies do reduce the quality of life of these
animals, thorough regulations are in place to ensure that they are carried out in a humane way.

To help minimise the harm animals may experience while being studied in the laboratory,
researchers are required to follow a set of principles, the ‘three Rs’. These are:

Replace: Replacing, where possible, experiments using animals with alternative techniques
such as cell culture, computer modelling or human volunteers instead of animals.

Reduce: Reducing the number of animals used, by improving experimental techniques and
sharing information with other researchers so that the same experiments aren’t being done by
many people.

Refine: Refining the way the animals are cared for to help minimise any stress or pain, by
using less invasive techniques where possible and improving medical care and living
conditions.

Conclusion
The choice should be simple. Animal testing is a cruel and outdated method that unnecessarily
tortures and kills countless animals every single year.

It is very possible to continue with your buying habits without having blood on your hands.

In Colombia, for example, House Representative Juan Carlos Losada introduced a bill before
Congress in August of 2018 that will ban the use of animal testing on a wide variety of
different products that include, but aren’t limited to, cosmetics, cleaning products, absorbents
that are used in tampons and diapers, and much, much more.
This is a great initiative and if passed, will likely generate even more momentum outside of
Colombia. If this happens, it is likely that other passionate politicians who fight for animal
rights around the world will introduce such bills to push for bans on unnecessary animal
cruelty. We should, however, expect that the testing industry currently profiting at the
expense of animals will fight this progress.

Many companies are adapting to the growing movement that doesn’t use animal testing in the
product development process. Hopefully, that number will only grow.

As consumers become more educated about where they spend their money and where their
products come from (and how they were developed), animal testing will become less of a
common practice and something people look back to in the future as one of the things they
can’t believe people used to do.

Do you use products that used animal testing? If so, do you plan on researching a bit more
before you support companies that do test on animals?