Introduction
Humans have been finding new ways of exploiting animals for many centuries. Animal testing has become an integral part of the pharmaceutical, biomedical, and cosmetics industries. This process has provoked many hot debates in recent centuries, with different arguments and opinions on both sides. Some people believe that animal testing should be banned, calling it an inhumane practice and fighting for animal rights. Others may claim that this process may save countless human lives, which are far more valuable. The medical research industry is the most debated field that justifies painful and uncomfortable experiments for the greater good. It is essential to understand that this process should continue or find a new acceptable form as the possible benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
Main body
First of all, one of the possible ways to avoid animal testing is to conduct in vitro experiments. According to Meigs et al. (2018), there are about 50 alternative and approved methods conducted in testing tubs and requiring only microorganisms and cells. It means that living organisms suffer no harm, and these types of experimenting may be considered more ethical. The results of the new animal-free approaches exceed all expectations and “have made animal experimentation obsolete or reduced it by 80% and more” (Meigs et al., 2018, p. 278). Animal usage in the fields of drug discovery, toxicology, and vaccine creation has been steadily decreasing. The ban on animal experimentation may promote the creation of new approaches and techniques that yield greater results at a lower cost.
On the other hand, some researchers find that in vitro experiments may only be complementary to actual animal tests and still cannot replace this unethical process. Garattini and Grignaschi (2017) provide several arguments against in vitro experiments. First, drugs applied to living organisms provide valuable experiments because testing is conducted according to real-life experience. The experiment may face several barriers or hindrances that cannot be simulated in the test tubes. Furthermore, Garattini and Grignaschi (2017) claim that “cells or tissue cultures cannot mimic the complexity of a living organism where cells are assembled in organs, under the influence of nerve, hormonal, immunological and circulatory systems” (p. 2). It means that some interactions between drugs and organisms cannot be predicted based on the results gained from test tubes. Lastly, many animal species are similar to humans, possessing similar organs and functions. It makes them perfect candidates for experiments that require accurate and complex results.
Additionally, another field of experiments may concern mental health issues. As claimed by Coates (2020), currently, people face problems of variability within patients and the impossibility of biopsying the brains in vivo. Because of these reasons, animal models may be used to some extent. For example, mice and rats have similar psychology to humans, allowing them to provide analogies between cross-species findings. Coates (2019) says the following: “we can undertake experimental manipulations that could not be ethically or practically undertaken in humans, e.g., administering drugs, lesioning parts of the brain, introducing genetic manipulations, or altering the in-utero movement” (p. 26). Consequently, animal models may help to identify aberrant behavioral and neurological processes and provide methods for their treatment.
Nevertheless, the practical advantage of animal testing is not the only aspect of the process. It is crucial to forming a moral judgment and acceptability of this activity. One of the points of view is that humans force their sense of morality on animals. For example, Petteta and Ciccocioppo (2020) dwell on the terms of active and passive moral subjects. The behavior of animals is based mainly on instincts, and they cannot recognize their rights or status. In contrast, human “has the responsibility to respect animals’ rights but without neglecting their own and those of his species” (Petteta & Ciccocioppo, 2020, p. 5). The idea may be pretty practical, but humans possessing a sense of self and rational judgment should focus on their well-being. On the contrary, some people may say that one of the human’s essential characteristics is responsibility. It requires forming a healthy relationship with other species because of respect and a sense of duty. However, it is vital to keep in mind that humans progressed immensely by using animals for their purposes. It may be unethical, but it allows us to create a better place in the future.
Similarly, animal testing may not be necessarily called cruelty. Petteta and Ciccocioppo (2020) form several factors that define cruel action from non-cruel. The essential difference is that a cruel act is done freely without any reason or need. The only potential gain of such activity is a feeling of satisfaction or pleasure from inflicting pain or harm to other living beings. In contrast, “if the intention is informed by a very strong need that requires that act and that act only, with no other possible alternatives, then the act could be considered non-cruel even if it is harmful to others” (Petteta & Ciccocioppo, 2020, p. 5). The reasons for animal experimentation involve necessity instead of unnecessary pleasure. One can hardly argue that the most appropriate way to save human lives justifies the legitimacy of such actions. Scientists and ethicists operate on the presumption that it is important to proceed with animal testing based on the potential benefits.
Moreover, special measures have been created to reduce the ethical burden of this process. For example, some principles, known as the “3 Rs”, were formulated to regulate animal experimenting (Coates, 2019, p. 13). They include a replacement, reduction, and refinement, encouraging researchers to avoid painful operations or animal exploitation if possible. However, these principles are hindered by several obstacles. Currently, the alternative ways to animal testing concern mostly the toxicology and biologics fields of study. The new approaches are created at a slow rate. The process of transitioning to non-animal testing is complex and may take a lot of time because the new experiments require numerous validations. With the current technologies, it is possible to recreate human tissues or cells or use computer-modeling techniques. Some volunteers may participate in drug testing by taking small doses, providing valuable information for the researchers. Despite the existence of non-animal testing methods, the current level of technology is still not developed enough to provide rapid and precise results without experiments on living organisms.
Conclusion
In conclusion, animal testing may be called an unethical and immoral practice that abuses animal rights and promotes violence. However, this process has been the cornerstone of scientific research for many centuries. The full transition to alternative methods is impossible under the present circumstances and may endanger the lives of many humans. Animal experiments should continue until the results of alternative methods become more accurate than their counterparts. Although, it is possible to start limiting this process and introduce new laws and practices to preserve ethical and moral values.
References
Coates K. (2019). Critical perspectives on animal testing. Enslow Publishing.
Garattini, S., & Grignaschi, G. (2017). Animal testing is still the best way to find new treatments for patients. European Journal of Internal Medicine, 39, 32-35. Web.
Meigs, L., Smirnova, L., Rovida, C., Leist, M., & Hartung, T. (2018). Animal testing and its alternatives: The most important omics is economics. Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, 35(3), 275-305. Web.
Petetta, F., & Ciccocioppo, R. (2020). Public perception of laboratory animal testing: Historical, philosophical, and ethical view. Addiction Biology. Advanced online publication. Web.