Introduction
Animals, from rabbits to dogs, are widely used in research studies as test subjects. They are an important component that allows scientists to increase their knowledge regarding human biology and health, as well as develop new drugs. The use of animals in scientific research has been a hotly debated and controversial issue that has attracted opponents and proponents. Proponents of the practice argue that they are critical in the development of new medicines while opponents claim that it is unethical to subject animals to suffering solely for human benefit. Scientists are required to act responsibly while using animals in laboratories by following a set of principles. These rules are referred as the “three Rs,” which stand for replace, reduce, and refine. Despite the existence of these rules, the use of animals for research has increased significantly. Animals should not be used in research because this practice is unethical and inhumane, better alternatives exist, and animal models are ineffective because of the differences that exist between human and animal bodies.
Unethical and Inhumane
One of the main reasons why animals should not be used in scientific research is because of the unethical and inhumane nature of the practice. Millions of animal tests that involve painful procedures are carried out each year. Like humans, animals feel pain and exposing them to operations such as injections, burns, and cuts is a violation of their rights (Meijboom and Stassen, p. 41). The acceptance of animals as organisms with rights implies that any activity that violates them in order to benefit humanity is unethical (Kalof, p. 35). In the United States alone, approximately 26 million animals are used in various research projects: the development of drugs, determination of medicines’ toxicity, and the testing of the safety of medical products (Rocklinsberg et al, p. 65). Animals are deliberately injected with toxic chemicals and infected with diseases to study their effects on tissues and progression in the body respectively (Meijboom and Stassen, p. 43). The American Veterinary Medical Association acknowledges that animals suffer both physical and emotional pain. Toxicity tests expose them to painful and deadly experiments. For example, in the Draize test, a toxic substance is placed in a rabbit’s eyes and monitored to evaluate the damage it causes to various tissues (Kalof, p. 37). The LD50 test is deadly because it tests the amount of a specific drug that is required to cause death (Kalof, p. 37). An animal is administered with a test product until it dies, which could take a long time. This amount of suffering is unethical and violates animal rights.
The Humane Society International has revealed that the majority of animals used in research suffer due to food and water deprivation, infliction of cuts and burns, forced feeding, and exposure to artificial environments. As mentioned earlier, animals deserve respectful treatment as living organisms. Therefore, using them as tools in experiments is immoral. Moreover, others are killed through cruel methods that include carbon dioxide asphyxiation and decapitation (Kalof, p. 42). A report released by the United States Department of Agriculture supported this claim by revealing that more than 300,000 animals used in scientific research within a span of 12 months were subjected to painful experiences (Rocklinsberg et al, p. 73). Tests carried out on animals are usually painful, and could cause permanent damage and death if carried out improperly. Opponents of the use of animals in research argue that using animals for research is unethical since they do not choose to participate in experiments in order to benefit humanity (Meijboom and Stassen, p. 53). The decision is made on their behalf, and their rights are violated without any regard for their well-being. Animals use in research should be abolished because cheaper and more accurate alternatives that are more effective and harmless exist.
Alternatives to the Use of Animals
The existence of viable alternatives is another reason why animals should not be used for research. Technological advancements and increased innovations have led to the development of effective methods that can be used instead of animals in scientific studies. For example, the development of various 3D printing approaches offers numerous study opportunities like tissue bioprinting that can be used by scientists (Kalof, p. 51). Other alternatives include artificial human skin, mathematical models, cell cultures, advanced computer-modelling techniques, and human tissues (Meijboom and Stassen, p. 57). These can be used to study the effect of diseases on the human body as well as their response to various drugs and treatments. EpiDerm and ThinCert are the examples of artificial human skin products that can offer better results than animal skin (Akhtar, p. 423). These products mimic the human skin because they are manufactured from human skin cells.
Several organizations have started initiatives to fight for the rights of animals by advocating for the eradication of the practice. For instance, the Environmental Protection Agency is committed to eliminate chemical testing in animals by the year 2035 (Meijboom and Stassen, p. 75). Human Society International has conducted studies to compare the costs of animal testing and in vitro testing. The results have revealed that animal testing is more expensive because of “the costs incurred to breed, feed, and treat the animals” (Meijboom and Stassen, p. 75). Moreover, it is argued that alternative methods are better because they exclude species differences that exist between human beings and animals (Kalof, p. 54). They are also cost-effective and take little time to develop, unlike animals that take several months to rear (Burden et al, p. 4). An organization known as People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) invests in the development of some of the aforementioned alternative methods. It advocates for the abolishment of animal testing by promoting the preeminence of their techniques to animals among governments and research organizations.
Advanced methods such as organ-on-chips, cell-based tests and tissue models, and the use of human lung cells are examples of in vitro testing methods that are common among modern researchers. Computer modeling has been used to effectively simulate the progression of diseases in the human body and their response to different drugs (Kalof, p. 57). Human volunteers are also used to test new drugs through the administration of small quantities, which are monitored through cutting-edge imaging techniques to determine its effect on the body (Burden et al, p. 5). Brain imaging techniques like functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and intracranial electroencephalography can replace rats, rabbits, and cats as test subjects in studies involving brain damage (Rocklinsberg et al, p. 94). These technologies allow researchers to study the functioning of minute brain components like neurons.
Animal Models are Ineffective
Animal models are not effective test subjects because they are significantly different from human beings. A common argument for the abolishment of the use of animals in research is the existence of major differences between animal and human body systems. Numerous cellular, metabolic, and anatomic differences exist between the two (Kalof, p. 64). Therefore, animals make poor models that produce misleading results, which are detrimental to human health. For example, the reaction of a new drug in a rat, rabbit, or guinea pig will be different from its reaction in human beings (Rocklinsberg et al, p. 54). Scientists have shown the difficulty experienced in modeling human diseases in animals. For instance, the pathology of stroke is well understood. However, an accurate model of the disease in animals has never been attained.
In the past, many drugs that were tested successfully on animals were rejected because they failed to work when used on human beings. A sleeping pill known as thalidomide that was developed in the 1950s and certified as safe after tests on animals was detrimental to human health. Its ingestion caused severe deformities to more than 10,000 newborn babies (Rocklinsberg et al, p. 69). Afterwards, during subsequent studies, the drug was administered to cats, hamsters, mice, and guinea pigs. The animals gave birth to normal offspring unless in cases where high doses of the drug were involved. Arthritis drug, Vioxx, “caused more than 27,000 heart complications, even though it had been certified safe for human use” (Botting, p. 65). During studies, researchers found out that it had protective capabilities on the hearts of mice, thus making a conclusion that it would also benefit the human heart. These examples show that animal models can produce misleading results and lead to health complications and even death in severe cases.
Some scientists have faulted animal testing because laboratory procedures and conditions affect the physiology and behaviors of test subjects. These factors are difficult to control and they have a significant impact on the outcome of research studies (Akhtar, p. 411). The placement of animals in artificial environments (restricted housing environments and artificial light) causes distress and uncharacteristic behaviors. For example, higher levels of blood pressure have been observed in rats that watch others face decapitation (Akhtar, p. 411). Moreover, certain conditions can cause neurochemical and genetic changes that have a considerable influence on study results.
Counterarguments and Rebuttal
Proponents of the use of animals for research argue that the practice should be encouraged because it provides effective study models, has advanced the knowledge of human health, and has led to the development of new drugs and treatments. Moreover, they claim that alternatives do not offer whole-body living systems and existing laws ensure that there is sufficient regulation (Burden et al, p. 5). For example, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) protects the rights of animals by stipulating the required housing standards and veterinary care (Botting, p. 44). Animals have shorter life cycles than human beings. Therefore, the use of human volunteers is an effective alternative.
These arguments are misleading because the disadvantages of animal testing outweigh its benefits. According to Akhtar, “physiological and anatomical differences between animals and human beings render them ineffective models” (p. 413). Moreover, they ignore the numerous deaths and health complications that have been caused by drugs that were certified as safe after testing on animals. The Animal Welfare Act was amended in 1972 to exclude mice, rats, and birds from the list of protected animals. This indicates that the practice is highly unregulated because these animals account for approximately 90 percent of the test subjects used in all experiments. Studies have shown that alternative methods are cheaper and more effective (Burden et al, p. 7). The benefits that proponents of animal use in research cite as laudable reasons for the continuation of the practice can be produced in other ways without causing suffering to animals. The number of animals used in research and the amount of pain they undergo are so high that using them while alternatives exist in morally unjustifiable.
Conclusion
The use of animals in research is a controversial issue because opponents and proponents are divided on whether it should be banned or promoted. Millions of animals, including rats, mice, monkeys, guinea pigs, and rabbits, are subjected to painful procedures in laboratories across the world. They are used in scientific processes like product toxicity testing, disease progression studies, and drug safety evaluations. Proponents argue that the practice has led to the development of innumerable drugs and treatments that have saved humanity. They claim that animals provide a whole-body system that is similar to that of human beings in many ways. At the same time, opponents argue that the practice should be abolished because it is inhumane and unethical and the majority of drugs that worked in animals failed in human beings. Animals should not be used in research because it is unethical, cheaper and more effective alternatives exist, animals do not provide perfect models, and the field is unregulated. Animals and human beings are physiologically and anatomically different. Moreover, procedures and artificial environments present in laboratories cause behavioral and other changes that influence test results. Many people have died from drugs that were tested on animals and declared safe. The health complications caused by toxic chemicals, the cruelty that animals are exposed to, and the existence of cheaper and more accurate alternatives are sufficient reasons why animals should not be used for research.
Works Cited
- Akhtar, Aysha. “The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, vol. 24, no. 4, 2015, pp. 407-419.
- Botting, Jack. Animals and Medicine: The Contribution of Animal Experiments to the Control of Disease. OpenBook Publishers, 2015.
- Burden, Natalie, et al. “Testing Chemical Safety: What is Needed to Ensure the Widespread Application of Non-animal Approaches?” PLOS Biology, vol. 13, no. 5, 2015, pp. 1-8.
- Kalof, Linda, editor. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Studies. Oxford University Press, 2017.
- Meijboom, Franck, and Elsbeth Stassen, editors. The End of Animal Life, A Start for Ethical Debate: Ethical and Societal Considerations on Killing Animals. Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2016.
- Rocklinsberg, Helena, et al. Animal Ethics in Animal Research. Cambridge University Press, 2017.