Animal testing has been successfully used in medical research for a long time. Despite this, several points have been raised by various activist groups challenging the relevance and efficiency of the practice and, more famously, its ethical background. Despite the concern voiced by its opponents, animal testing remains a viable practice that is both beneficial and important for humans and, to some degree, animals.
The central argument which is used against animal testing is cruelty and inhumanity, with certain groups like PETA going as far as suggesting the violation of animal rights. The testing is said to create unnecessary suffering in subjects, so the question that is often raised is, “Do we have the right to use intelligent living beings without their consent?” Two weak points can be outlined in this argument.
First, while it is a certainty certain that at least some amount of discomfort and anxiety accompanies the testing procedures, the modern-day testing process is rigorously regulated by the Animal Welfare Act of 1966, as well as a number of state laws and recommendations. The regulations ensure the maximum possible comfort and the least stress or suffering for the subjects, which benefits the reliability of the results and is thus in the interests of the researchers. In other words, any possibility of suffering that is “unnecessary” is promptly eliminated. Second, the testing continuously produces valuable data that has already helped to overcome many dangerous conditions.
This latter notion is also constantly challenged by testing opponents. One popular argument is that testing can be substituted with other methods of research. This argument is partially correct, as at least some results are equally obtainable through cellular testing in a petri dish. The problem, however, is that such research is already conducted without animal involvement, and the one which requires live subjects deals with enormously complex structures such as nervous or immune systems, which can not be studied in vitro. Computer simulations have been suggested. This, too, can be a viable alternative. Currently, however, the simulation is not precise or reliable enough for such tasks and requires verification, which, ironically, is often performed by comparing results to those of the animal testing. This places computer simulations in the category of perspective alternatives rather than immediate ones. Finally, some of the radical approaches name voluntary human participation as an alternative. This obviously contradicts all of the existing medical ethics and will be enormously complex from the legal perspective to the point where the ethical and legal proceedings may get in the way of scientific effectiveness.
Another argument against animal testing states that the results obtained from animals are not applicable to humans. While certain examples of such mismatch can be found in the history of research, but an even greater list of successful applications can be created, which includes, but is not limited to, the discovery of insulin, the polio vaccine, tuberculosis, childhood leukemia.
Finally, some of the opponents charge humans with “egoism,” meaning that people exploit animals for their benefit. On the other hand, the treatments of many animal conditions, such as feline leukemia, rabies, and infectious hepatitis, became possible thanks to the tests on animals and even contributed to saving several endangered species, such as koalas suffering from chlamydia epidemic.
To conclude, the current state of medicine both requires and benefits from the use of the testing. Thus, rather than the outright ban, the development of equally reliable alternatives should be the priority of people who want to make a difference.