Name 1

Student Name

Ms. Wilcox

ENGL 5-6

July 13, 2023

Animal Testing: A Practice Long Overdue for Retirement

Over 115 million animals are used worldwide for experimentation and other biomedical

research each year (Akhtar). Is this really necessary? Considering the vital role animal testing

has had throughout the history of medical advancement, it can be difficult to argue against.

Proponents for it insist this proves continued usage of animals is required for even further

advancement, however that is not necessarily true. Yes, vital information about medicine has

been found by testing on animals, but it is far less reliable than it is made out to be. So, what can

be changed? Well, cutting-edge technology in recent years has paved the way for new methods

to perform clinical research. Thus, animal testing has proven itself to be an exhausted,

ineffective practice and should be retired in favor of more technological improvements

made in clinical trials.

Simply put, animal testing is just not a reliable indicator of effectiveness in humans. All

drugs must first go through thorough testing before being allowed in human use. The first phase

of testing is in a laboratory, where animals are most commonly utilized. This is where the vast

majority of drugs fail. “In 2004, the FDA estimated that 92 percent of drugs that pass preclinical

tests, including ‘pivotal’ animal tests, fail to proceed to the market. More recent analysis

suggests that . . . the failure rate has actually increased and is now closer to 96 percent” (Aktar).

This kind of inaccuracy is plainly inexcusable and in turn means the development of new drugs

has a sluggish turnout. Inaccuracy can also mean lethality. As an example, Brittanica’s
 Name 2

ProCon.org states, “Animal tests on the arthritis drug Vioxx showed that it had a protective

effect on the hearts of mice, yet the drug went on to cause more than 27,000 heart attacks and

sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market.” With the validity and human safety

of animal testing in question, it calls for a general reform and move to other methods of

preclinical trials.

Many alternatives exist and are ready to be put in place of animal testing. “Technological

advancements in 3D printing allow the possibility for tissue bioprinting . . . Artificial human skin

. . . can be made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and may

produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin” (ProCon.org). Bioprinting

thusly means a more sustainable alternative, and human skin cells provide greater accuracy over

animals’. This begs the question, though, of how effectively these alternatives can be utilized;

advancement means nothing when it cannot be applied. Well, during the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil

spill, many high-throughput assays probing biological pathways identified the toxicity profiles

and relative safety of eight different oil dispersants within 6 weeks (Rowan). These assays, being

tests on small samples of living cells rather than entire animals, produced much faster results and

a solution was put in place quicker as a consequence. These alternatives manage to provide

useful information and further development makes animal testing increasingly obsolete.

It can be argued, however, that animal testing should continue for the fact that it has

provided vital information in multitudes of medical studies. Over 160 drugs and vaccines

approved by the U.S. Food and Agriculture Administration, such as those for polio and

meningitis, have been discovered solely through animal testing (Sun). The list goes on too, as

“[n]early every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research

using animals . . . “ (ProCon.org). The truth is that animal testing has very deep roots in many
 Name 3

medical fields, and society would not be nearly as advanced as it would be without it. What all of

this fails to consider, though, is the fact that these studies did not have the technological

capabilities the fields have now. In only recent years, relative to the decades of study beforehand,

has innovation been made. On top of that, innovation will continue to be made, which could push

animal testing even further from prominence. “The Environmental Protection Agency is so

confident in alternatives that the agency intends to reduce chemical testing on mammals 30% by

2025 and end it altogether by 2035” (ProCon.org). Animal testing is only useful to these fields

until scientific discovery can surpass its effectiveness.

Animal testing as a practice has had its place in the medical field for many, many years.

However, its unreliability is inexcusable and the evolution of new alternatives push it further

from relevancy. Should a system that has provably harmed countless people be continued only

for the fact that it is convention? Of course not. Incredible breakthroughs and discoveries have

changed the way humans study many fields throughout history, and this is no different. Reform

is ready to be made, and continued support for animal testing only serves to prevent revolution

from happening. Aysha Akhtar, a neurologist and public health specialist, puts it eloquently:

“When considering the ethical justifiability of animal experiments, we should ask if it is ethically

acceptable to deprive humans of resources, opportunity, hope, and even their lives by seeking

answers in what may be the wrong place.”

Works Cited

Akhtar, Aysha. “The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation.” Cambridge

Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics : CQ : The International Journal of Healthcare Ethics

Committees, Oct. 2015, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4594046/#. Accessed

10 July 2023.

Rowan, Andrew. "New Technologies Could Eliminate the Need for Animal Experimentation."

Animal Experimentation, edited by Susan C. Hunnicutt, Greenhaven Press, 2013. At

Issue. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010002253/OVIC?u=mtlib_2_906&sid=bookmark-

OVIC&xid=7693d6cf. Accessed 10 July 2023. Originally published as "Avoiding

Animal Testing: Advances in Cell-Culture Technologies are Paving the Way to the

Complete Elimination of Animals from the Laboratory," The Scientist, Nov.-Dec. 2011.

“Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?” ProCon.org, 10 May 2023,

animal-testing.procon.org/. Accessed 10 July 2023.

Sun, Shany. "The truth behind animal testing." Young Scientists Journal, vol. 5, no. 12, July-

Dec. 2012, p. 83. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A314304026/AONE?

u=mtlib_2_906&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=62ad8b97. Accessed 10 July 2023.