Horenziak 1

Anya Horenziak

Lisa Cook

English 1101, R40

11 December 2020

Animal Testing

When animal testing is mentioned, one image always comes to mind. A small, terrible white

bunny with red dripping eyes, patches of fur burnt off, and its ribs visible. Thankfully, since that

image came to surface on the internet years ago, scientists have taken more measures to make

experimentations on animals more ethical. Unfortunately, not everyone holds the same mindset.

Animal testing has helped many doctors treat patients with medicines. We have been able to

preform surgeries safer, test beauty products, and even determine the safety of weapons of war.

Recently, more and more cosmetic companies have begun to label their products as “cruelty

free” which is a huge step in the right direction. But even still, animals who are tested on most

likely need to be euthanized because their bodies cannot heal from the wounds they received

while being a test subject. While to most people, testing on animals seems necessary, to those

who dig deeper can find while it isn’t only mice and rats who get tested on, it is unreliable, and

there are other alternatives that in the future can be even more accurate.

Unfortunately, scientists do not only test on small rodents such as mice and rats. A book

titled Animal Experimentation states, “Scientists in certain fields have favored using nonhuman

primates in experiments because they closely resemble humans in physiology.” Because

nonhuman primates so closely resemble humans, begin to question whether it is moral to use

them. However, it isn’t just inhuman primates who are being used in laboratories.
 Horenziak 2

“Investigations in the 1990s revealed that some Class B [dealers who often acquire animals from

shelters and sell them to research facilities] abducted family animals off of the street”

(Experimentation). Now, instead of little mice and rats, its your friendly neighborhood dog or

cat. When you have a pet, or two, it is obvious that they have a personality. Even between two

dogs of the same breed there are personality differences. Furthermore, these types of dealings

are fully legal. Ever since 1996, lawmakers have been trying to get the Pet Safety and Protection

Act to pass (even up until as recently as 2019) to no avail (Experimentation). Thankfully, the

National Institutes of Health decided to stop funding Class B dealers when it comes to research

on cats and dogs.

Some drugs are thrown away because they do not present the same side effects in humans

than it did in animals. Arthur Allen says, “It’s bad for the public when a product like Rezulin,

Warner-Lambert’s diabetes drug is withdrawn from the market for causing liver disease and

deaths after 800,000 patients have taken it.” This drug was tested on mice who didn’t present

side effects. Only after a huge population of patients taking the medication died, or became

extremely sick, did they take it out of circulation. Even Noah Berlatsky, author of an article

from PETA says, “92 percent of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests

fail in human trials because they don’t work or are dangerous.” 92 percent is a huge margin of

error. If only 8 percent of drugs tested on animals are successes, why do we keep using them

when there are other safer, more accurate options? Also, some companies breed rats, or mice, to

fit specific needs. They will take out certain genes, but because they take out those original parts

of the animal doesn’t make them “the perfect test animal” (Allen). After testing an Alzheimer’s

vaccine on mice with preferred results, scientists were forced to pull the plug on human trials

because they were seeing brain swelling in the human recipients (Allen). This further proves the
 Horenziak 3

point of unreliability in animal testing because the mice failed to show side effects humans could

experience.

One of the biggest concerns while contemplating whether or not to discontinue animal testing

altogether is what other options do we have? As humans, we certainly do not want to have a new

drug tested on us, unless necessary, but according to Carol Howard neither humans nor animals

will have to suffer. There have been some tests where “the animals are replaced, either by

methods that don’t involve animals at all (mannequins, computer simulations, etc.) or by in vitro

(literally in glass) techniques, where the studies are done with cells or tissues in culture”

(Howard). This is important to note because instead of live animals, scientists can test on just

the cells of animals or reject the use of any living tissue and use a simulation. One might say a

simulation is not always exact, and they would be correct. However, at the rate of which

technology is developing we can expect alternative testing to arise sooner rather than later.

People who are for animal testing would argue that rats, mice, monkeys, or any other animal

that is tested on don’t have feelings because they are just an animal. Noah Berlatsky says “If

experimenting on one intellectually disabled person could benefit 1,000 children, would we do

it? Of course not! Ethics dictate that the value of each life in and of itself cannot be superseded

by its potential value to anyone else.” Testing on one human to benefit the rest of the population,

and so is testing on animals to benefit the human population. Another argument Sam Vaknin

makes is pain is not something we can prove. Vaknin says, “We cannot prove the waves in the

subject’s brain when he reports pain, are pain. Nor can we show that they caused the pain, or

that the pain caused them.” When a person or an animal is in pain, you don’t need to view their

brain waves. Pain is shown in obvious discomfort, squirming, whimpering, screaming, crying,

etc. There is no doubt when my pets are in pain. Watching anyone, human or animal, in pain is
 Horenziak 4

uncomfortable and makes you want to help them. Why would you voluntarily cause a living

thing pain?

On the surface animal testing may seem necessary, and for many years it was, but now it

isn’t only rats and mice being tested on. It is nonhuman primates and even household pets like

cats and dogs. These sorts of experiments are not even reliable most of the time. More drugs

than can be counted are taken off the shelves because the animals didn’t show side effects that

appeared in humans. And most importantly, there are other options now. We can use cells and

simulations instead of a living organism. Hopefully, in the future we will see companies lessen

the use of animals and start to use more accurate and humane ways of experimenting with

medicines, beauty products, and weapons.

Works Cited

Allen, Arthur. "Using Animals for Medical Testing May Be Wrong for Scientific Rather than

Ethical Reasons." The Rights of Animals, edited by Debra A. Miller, Detroit, MI,

Greenhaven Press, 2009. Current Controversies. Gale in Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

link-gale-com.sinclair.ohionet.org/apps/doc/EJ3010062281/OVIC?

u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=e8cc8eae. Accessed 13 Dec. 2020. Originally published

as "Of Mice or Men: The Problems with Animal Testing" in Slate, 2006.

"Animal Experimentation." Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2019. Gale in

Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link-gale-

com.sinclair.ohionet.org/apps/doc/PC3010999220/OVIC?

u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=20c983da. Accessed 13 Dec. 2020.

Berlatsky, Noah, editor. Animal Rights. Farmington Hills, MI, Greenhaven Press, 2015. Current

Controversies. Gale in Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link-gale-

com.sinclair.ohionet.org/apps/doc/EJ3010954207/OVIC?

u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=2dd94b66. Accessed 13 Dec. 2020.

Howard, Carol. "Alternative Testing Can Replace Animal Experimentation." Animal

Experimentation, edited by Ronnie D. Lankford, Jr., Detroit, MI, Greenhaven Press,

2009. At Issue. Gale in Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link-gale-

com.sinclair.ohionet.org/apps/doc/EJ3010002240/OVIC?

u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=4ef3e58a. Accessed 13 Dec. 2020. Originally published

as "Yes, Dad, There Are Alternatives" in AV Magazine, Spring 2005, pp. 14-15.

Vaknin, Sam. "Whether a Right or Not, Animals Should Be Treated Morally." The Rights of

Animals, edited by Debra A. Miller, Detroit, MI, Greenhaven Press, 2009. Current
 Horenziak 6

Controversies. Gale in Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link-gale-

com.sinclair.ohionet.org/apps/doc/EJ3010062263/OVIC?

u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=ce243b4d. Accessed 13 Dec. 2020. Originally published

as "The Rights of Animals" in

Www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/TheRightsofAnimals.htm, 2006.