Science has made tremendous progress in the last few centuries. Since the introduction and subsequent application of the scientific method, almost any scientific discipline has seen the rise not possible otherwise. Many of the branches of science, like applied physics, chemistry, and medicine, have also changed the level of welfare of humanity dramatically. However, several directions the sciences have taken and the results produced have been questionable at best, creating major adverse effects that are felt to this day despite sufficient effort being made to mend them. The unbalanced ecosystem is probably the best-known and publicized example, with several others being primarily of ethical origin. Animal testing falls into this category. While being cited as one of the most powerful scientific instruments in modern medicine, as well as a number of other fields, it is still cited as unethical, cruel, ineffective, and despite the strong support from the scientific community, remains the topic of hot debates and unsettling controversy. While still having certain weak points, an uneven historical record of abuse, and a number of unsolved issues, animal testing still remains a crucial part of scientific research which greatly benefits and enhances the research process.
Animal testing has a wide application range. It is utilized by scientific institutions worldwide, with its main focus being medicine and toxicology. It is also used in educative purposes in schools and universities, for behavioral studies in psychology and cognitive sciences to study both individual and group behavior, in genetics and heredity studies, and in the multitude of commercial applications, like the testing of cosmetics, with the latter forming less than five percent of a total volume (“Animals in Research” par. 2). All of the applications are regulated in any given field, and although these regulations vary by country, the tendency is towards tightening the control. Two reasons are responsible for this: first, science constantly searches for more effective ways of research, and whenever such a substitute is found, it replaces the in vivo testing.
Second, the pressure of the public, regardless of it being supported by solid facts or driven by hysteria, is always taken into account. The testing can be divided into two large categories: the applied research, in which an animal or animals are used for the in-depth research of a specific topic, like the influence of a specific or outbound factor on certain aspects of activity or functioning, and pure research, which has no certain specified goal but instead aims at observing and researching a certain aspect in its entirety. As the latter more often than not adheres to non-intrusive observation and monitoring and rarely comes in conflict with the established ethical norms, it is rarely opposed. The former, however, has gained much publicity and notoriety thanks to the efforts of the animal activist groups and the media. It is also marginally connected to other controversial practices, like genetic modification, which adds to its bad reputation. Nevertheless, specialists of various fields point to the multitude of benefits achieved solely through animal testing and arguably not achievable otherwise.
The main field that is associated with animal tests is medicine. First, it comprises the impressive part of the total research. Second, it has a long history and predates modern medicine, being featured in historical accounts as well as the fiction of the time. Finally, the visual aspect of medical testing is usually dramatic enough to initiate an emotional response. Medicine is also easily the most fruitful of the fields where the results of animal tests can be easily observed. As a matter of fact, it is not an easy task to find any major achievement made by medicine that does not involve animal research in some form. Several of these, like the studies of penicillin and insulin, relied on animal testing to a degree where it can be safely assumed that the result would be otherwise unachievable. The more modern examples include the Herceptin – the humanized mouse protein which is successfully used in breast cancer treatment to inhibit chemical signals of the cells that produced uncontrolled growth, which was achieved by animal experimentation (Junttila et al. 352).
The development of HAART, the Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapies that prolong extensively the life expectancy of people who have AIDS, relied heavily on it (Zhao et al. 652). The inhalers aimed at reducing asthma attacks were all developed and tested using animals. Finally, almost all modern vaccines, including those against polio, meningitis, tuberculosis, have all been perfected on animals. These are the examples of medications directly resulting in saving thousands of lives, and while it can be argued that at least some of these results could be achieved bypassing the animal testing stage, the amount of people who could not live to see it is rarely taken into consideration. The toxicology experiments, which also comprise the formidable bulk of total research, are equally important. They allow to avoid and prevent the majority of adverse effects of medications and a wide variety of household chemical products, including cosmetics. This last aspect was especially rigorously criticized because the consumer products are arguably a luxury as opposed to a medical application, which is a necessity.
The majority of the criticism targets the ethical side of the question. Gaining in popularity with the emergence of animal rights groups like PETA, it actually has a long history and can be traced all the way back to the aftermath of the publication of On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. One of the conclusions drawn from the theory of evolution was the blurring of boundaries between ethical grounds for the treatment of animals and humans. This is the point maintained to this day. The assertion is that the experiments are unethical, as the animals are treated unfairly, participate in the experimentation without their consent and are subject to cruelty throughout the process, as the tests are often painful or otherwise harmful to their well-being. While the assertion is without a doubt legitimate, it is important to remember several points. First, the issue is not left unaddressed, as modern research is guided by ethical principles, which aim at reducing all the said negative effects. Summed up in 1959 by W. M. S. Russell and R. L. Burch, these are known as Three Rs, or Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement (Watson 40).
Replacement is aimed at replacing the testing with the procedure of equal reliability, but not requiring the involvement of animals. The goal of reduction is to take the required number of animals involved to a minimum. Refinement, on the other hand, assures the maximal volume and quality of results from any given testing. More importantly, this principle also seeks the least painful and otherwise unethical ways of research. The problem with three Rs is that it is still far from achieving the desired “cruelty-free” status in any of the fields it is currently incorporated in. Besides, the testing nowadays is strictly regulated in most European countries and in the U.S., so the level of cruelty and unnecessary pain, while still present, is considerably reduced. It is also important to remember that opponents of animal testing frequently use outdated or distorted information, either to draw attention or because of misinformation. That is not to say that their effort is totally useless – PETA, as well as several other groups, have a track record of finding and publicizing the unethical treatment of animals in laboratories and research facilities throughout the United States (Alderson par 3). While being a serious issue, such occurrences are not a part of the scientific process and should be perceived as a signal to implement more effective control, not to ban on research entirely.
Another considerable concern is the presence of practices that are inevitably painful or harmful, even when reduced to their minimum. In such cases, according to the opponents of testing, the research should rely on alternative methods, such as computer simulations or testing on human volunteers. This view also has its weak points. The testing on humans is not likely, as the current medical and scientific ethics are regulated far more strictly than those dealing with animals, to the point where volunteering for unsafe experiments is a long and tedious process. Computer simulations, on the other hand, are becoming gradually more sophisticated and have indeed replaced animal testing in several fields, in accordance with the replacement principle. However, the human organism is still a complex enough system to be near impossible to be simulated on a level sufficient for producing a reliable result. While possible in theory, today it is not achieved on the scale that would fully eliminate the need for live subjects (Hoppensteadt and Peskin 3).
Finally, the critics of animal research often cite the low efficiency of animal testing. According to this view, the results obtained from animals are not applicable to humans because they differ from humans. This claim is mostly the result of misinformation and incorrect interpretation of data. In addition to the multitude of the outcomes achieved in medicine thanks to research done on mammals who are considerably similar to humans, which were already mentioned above, the recent research allows the growing of transplants on animals, suitable for human transplantation. The minority of studies that actually resulted in the erroneous data are usually cited but are never compared to the projected error rate in case the testing would be substituted with computer analysis or other less reliable means.
Animal testing remains controversial despite all the positive outcomes mentioned above. While yielding unparalleled results, the practice is still susceptible to errors, may lead to unwanted complications, not to mention the mistreatment of animals involved – either because of the lack of alternatives or as the result of a human factor. However, it should not be perceived as the only criteria for deciding the validity of the practice. When evaluated objectively, animal testing still remains the best available alternative when it comes to finding or perfecting a cure for a disease, eliminating risk factors in using new substances, or even modeling the behavior of human beings. The imperfection of this instrument should without a doubt be addressed, but at the current stage of science and technology, the reduction, replacement, and refinement are far better ways of dealing with it than the complete eradication.
Works Cited
Alderson, Andrew. The Men Who Stood Up to Animal Rights’ Militants. 2009. Web.
Animals in Research 2007. Web.
Hoppensteadt, Frank and Charles Peskin. Modeling and Simulation in Medicine and the Life Sciences, Network: Springer Science & Business Media, 2012. Print
Junttila, Teemu, Guangmin Li, Kathryn Parsons, Gail Lewis Phillips, and Mark Sliwkowski. “Trastuzumab-DM1 (T-DM1) Retains all the Mechanisms of Action of Trastuzumab and Efficiently Inhibits Growth of Lapatinib Insensitive Breast Cancer.” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 128.2 (2011): 347-356. Print.
Watson, Stephanie. Animal Testing: Issues and Ethics, London: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2009. Print.
Zhao, Li, Derek Galligan, Susanna Lamers, Stephanie Yu, Lamia Shagrun, Marco Salemi, and Michael McGrath. “High-level HIV-1 DNA Concentrations in Brain Tissues Differentiate Patients with Post-HAART AIDS Dementia Complex or Cardiovascular Disease from Those with AIDS.” Science in China Series C: Life Sciences 52.7 (2009): 651-656. Print.