Legitimacy of Animal Experimentation
=====================================
Wolran Kim
March 2013
A dog is lying and bleeding in a wooden bed, a monkey is hanging in a cage with his limbs bound, and a rabbit is locked up in an iron box only sticking out his face. Their eyes, which are overwhelmed by fear and panic, do not seem different from those of humans. Do humans really have the right to abuse and kill animals for their benefit? The universality of animal experimentation has existed for a long time. The issue of animal rights and welfare is not consequential; however, cruel pictures of experimental animals online or in journals still produce a feeling of something unjust or a sense of guilt. Almost all necessities (soap, detergents, cleaning supplies, etc.), cosmetics, and medical supplies in daily use are made through animal testing. Experiments on animals need a more accurate diagnosis and subsequent follow-up action for animal lives and rights, because the number of 100 million experimental animals used, shows over-testing compared to published results.
Animal testing consists of experiments using animals for scientific purposes such as education, testing, research, and production. These widespread experiments are conducted in many places including universities, hospitals, and farms, as well as pharmaceutical, cosmetics, and food companies. The testing is used for pure investigation, genetic characterization, observing behavior and growth processes, conducting toxicology and drug reaction tests, and transplantation. Approximately 100 million animals are used in tests annually worldwide, and this number does not include invertebrates. Most experimental animals are euthanized after the testing, and they are provided through mass breeding or some get caught in the wild.
The reasons for opposing animal experiments can be summarized into these four: suffering and death, ethics, accuracy, and price. The first reason, suffering and death of over-testing animals, is caused from wasteful conduct and recklessness. The experiments are harmful to animals, causing them pain and wounds through cuts, bleeding, blindness, and paralysis, and death at last for the vivisection. Animal testing in the field of biomedical laboratories is the most controversial area, and parts of live animals’ bodies are cut off. Vivisection uses cruel methods that inflict burns, incisions, cutting, and poisoning.
The most recognized publication about animal testing is The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique by William Russell and Rex Burch in 1959. Ferdowsian emphasizes the principles of the3 Rs—reduction, refinement, and replacement—which shows the right way to explore animal studies (2011). He claims that the pain and suffering of the animals in the experiment must be considered in the physical, mental, and psychological impact of the short and long term perspective similarly to humans, such as pain, fear, depression, anxiety disorders, and post-traumatic stress disorder.
The second reason, negligence of animal ethics, also incites over-testing. This morality issue is often the core of the debate, because people believe animal testing is not ethical since animals cannot volunteer for testing. Animal testing closely resembles the massacre of the Jews and human studies under the Nazi regime because Jews were regarded as the inferior race, just as animals are. For that reason, animal experiments cannot be ethically justified and the studies and the enforcement of an alternative to animal experimentation is an urgent problem.
Animal experiments are animal sacrifices for human health, development, and research, and is justified because animal life is neglected compared to a human life. Humans are creatures just as animals are, and thus have no rights to degenerate animals into experimental subjects.
In the third reason, inaccuracy of experimental processes and results is another cause of over-testing. Animals are different from humans. Hence, their testing results are not always useful or practical for humans. According to some reports, the results of animal experiments are not easy to predict, and their medical reactions are quite different from that of humans. Genetic disease especially is often impossible to track and collect evidence from animal testing, and shows the poorest effects on the results.
The fact that the disease of animals and humans being shared turns out to be just 1.16 percent shows that the outcome of animal testing could not always apply to humans. According to one review of the U.S. General Accounting Office, 52 percent of new drugs marketed between 1976 and 1985 had serious post-approval risks. Also, the abnormal psychological status of the experimental animals may cause erroneous results. In health sciences, the question continues about the results of reckless animal experiments still being applied to human disease properly, and this concern shows the demand for a more delicate scientific approach.
Finally, the wasteful cost clearly shows over-testing in animal experiments. The price of keeping and disposing of animals is quite expensive. For example, the vivisection industry spends $18 billion annually in the United States, and much of it is wasted budget without definite results or effects. On that account, alternative experiments conducted on cells, skin, organ and tissue culture, and computer simulations are attempted, but they are still not recognized practically due to minimal accuracy. Oppositely, most animal caretakers are paid minimum wage and are controlled under insufficient management. This point is another issue of the poor welfare of experimental animals.
On the other hand, the perspective of people who emphasize the necessity of animal testing is also condensed into four points: medical advancement and scientific knowledge, product safety, accuracy, and mischief of animal rights advocates. The first claim, medical advancement and scientific knowledge, is the most persuasive advantage. However, over-testing cannot be justified despite many cases with great results. Animals have been used continuously in the history of scientific research, and their contribution also highly appreciated human health and life: Louis Pasteur’s anthrax study using sheep in the 1880s, the research of insulin using dogs in 1922, the development of leprosy vaccines and antibiotic drugs using armadillos in the
1970s, the first gene transplant using mice in 1974, a birth of the first mammal of the cloned sheep, Dolly, in 1996, and toxicology testing in the 20th century. These obvious results are trustworthy as an important role through medical and scientific history. In addition, Stanley N. Gershoff also especially emphasizes the contribution of animal testing in the nutrition field, such as defending against the Beriberi disease using birds, the discovery of dandruff treatment using guinea pigs, and the study for the deficiency of vitamin A and D using mice.
The history of vitamin research in the 20th century saved millions of lives through animal experiments in nutritional science. 70 percent of the Nobel Prize for physiology or medicine has been awarded to scientists who got good results through animal experiments, and many vaccines–polio, diphtheria, measles, rubella, and smallpox–would not be possible to invent without animals. Nevertheless, these several landmarks in history cannot be compared with the number of 100 million annually.
The second claim of animal testing supporters is product safety. Gershoff emphasizes that all information from animal testing leads to safer and easier ways to conduct experiments on human subjects (2009). Though, the safety of humans from the death of 100 million animals is not true “safety.” The third claim, accuracy is the biggest justification animal testing supporters have, because it works better than any other alternative. According to their assertion, a few animals tend to react the exact same way that humans would in response to certain diseases and allergies. Also, chimpanzees and other monkeys have about 99% similar to human genes. However, certain diseases, the chimpanzees, and other monkeys consist of extremely little portions of the 100 million animals used for testing.
Lastly, the reason for the mischief of animal rights advocates is truly curious, because with practical sense, the animal protectors contribute to animal right and welfare. However, according to a report, What has the animal rights movement done for animal welfare?, animal rights groups did not actually contribute to animal welfare. Radical animal lovers cause frequent trouble with unlawful violence for their unjust logical opposition. They just pressured experimental organizations or scientists and forced them to close the laboratory facilities, rather than alleviating the animal sufferings.
Collaboration of two opposite groups only can improve both the welfare of animals and humans. Nonetheless, only exercising caution and warning animal advocates movements can improve habitual over-testing. Up to these observations, two opposing claims of animal experiments have obvious reasons depending on their opinions. Human gains from animal testing are definitely not small. However, the balance of ‘harm-benefit’ in animal experiments is the core of the debate on the ethical issue, and the purpose is to enhance animal welfare and reduce animal cruelty.
The number of 100 million annually is not a small portion. Animals have feelings and emotions just like humans. Animal maltreatment will not be reduced if humans focus only on their profits and advantages. Humans, who are creatures just as animals are, do not have the right to abuse and have a free hand at animal lives. Earth is not a monopolistic market of humans, but the world consists of a blending of natural animals and plants. Injustice often becomes justice through repetition without criticism. Therefore, the catch phrase, “We do not animal experiments,” which engraved on the necessities, sounds much more impressive than any famous proverb.
=====================================
Wolran Kim
March 2013
A dog is lying and bleeding in a wooden bed, a monkey is hanging in a cage with his limbs bound, and a rabbit is locked up in an iron box only sticking out his face. Their eyes, which are overwhelmed by fear and panic, do not seem different from those of humans. Do humans really have the right to abuse and kill animals for their benefit? The universality of animal experimentation has existed for a long time. The issue of animal rights and welfare is not consequential; however, cruel pictures of experimental animals online or in journals still produce a feeling of something unjust or a sense of guilt. Almost all necessities (soap, detergents, cleaning supplies, etc.), cosmetics, and medical supplies in daily use are made through animal testing. Experiments on animals need a more accurate diagnosis and subsequent follow-up action for animal lives and rights, because the number of 100 million experimental animals used, shows over-testing compared to published results.
Animal testing consists of experiments using animals for scientific purposes such as education, testing, research, and production. These widespread experiments are conducted in many places including universities, hospitals, and farms, as well as pharmaceutical, cosmetics, and food companies. The testing is used for pure investigation, genetic characterization, observing behavior and growth processes, conducting toxicology and drug reaction tests, and transplantation. Approximately 100 million animals are used in tests annually worldwide, and this number does not include invertebrates. Most experimental animals are euthanized after the testing, and they are provided through mass breeding or some get caught in the wild.
The reasons for opposing animal experiments can be summarized into these four: suffering and death, ethics, accuracy, and price. The first reason, suffering and death of over-testing animals, is caused from wasteful conduct and recklessness. The experiments are harmful to animals, causing them pain and wounds through cuts, bleeding, blindness, and paralysis, and death at last for the vivisection. Animal testing in the field of biomedical laboratories is the most controversial area, and parts of live animals’ bodies are cut off. Vivisection uses cruel methods that inflict burns, incisions, cutting, and poisoning.
The most recognized publication about animal testing is The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique by William Russell and Rex Burch in 1959. Ferdowsian emphasizes the principles of the3 Rs—reduction, refinement, and replacement—which shows the right way to explore animal studies (2011). He claims that the pain and suffering of the animals in the experiment must be considered in the physical, mental, and psychological impact of the short and long term perspective similarly to humans, such as pain, fear, depression, anxiety disorders, and post-traumatic stress disorder.
The second reason, negligence of animal ethics, also incites over-testing. This morality issue is often the core of the debate, because people believe animal testing is not ethical since animals cannot volunteer for testing. Animal testing closely resembles the massacre of the Jews and human studies under the Nazi regime because Jews were regarded as the inferior race, just as animals are. For that reason, animal experiments cannot be ethically justified and the studies and the enforcement of an alternative to animal experimentation is an urgent problem.
Animal experiments are animal sacrifices for human health, development, and research, and is justified because animal life is neglected compared to a human life. Humans are creatures just as animals are, and thus have no rights to degenerate animals into experimental subjects.
In the third reason, inaccuracy of experimental processes and results is another cause of over-testing. Animals are different from humans. Hence, their testing results are not always useful or practical for humans. According to some reports, the results of animal experiments are not easy to predict, and their medical reactions are quite different from that of humans. Genetic disease especially is often impossible to track and collect evidence from animal testing, and shows the poorest effects on the results.
The fact that the disease of animals and humans being shared turns out to be just 1.16 percent shows that the outcome of animal testing could not always apply to humans. According to one review of the U.S. General Accounting Office, 52 percent of new drugs marketed between 1976 and 1985 had serious post-approval risks. Also, the abnormal psychological status of the experimental animals may cause erroneous results. In health sciences, the question continues about the results of reckless animal experiments still being applied to human disease properly, and this concern shows the demand for a more delicate scientific approach.
Finally, the wasteful cost clearly shows over-testing in animal experiments. The price of keeping and disposing of animals is quite expensive. For example, the vivisection industry spends $18 billion annually in the United States, and much of it is wasted budget without definite results or effects. On that account, alternative experiments conducted on cells, skin, organ and tissue culture, and computer simulations are attempted, but they are still not recognized practically due to minimal accuracy. Oppositely, most animal caretakers are paid minimum wage and are controlled under insufficient management. This point is another issue of the poor welfare of experimental animals.
On the other hand, the perspective of people who emphasize the necessity of animal testing is also condensed into four points: medical advancement and scientific knowledge, product safety, accuracy, and mischief of animal rights advocates. The first claim, medical advancement and scientific knowledge, is the most persuasive advantage. However, over-testing cannot be justified despite many cases with great results. Animals have been used continuously in the history of scientific research, and their contribution also highly appreciated human health and life: Louis Pasteur’s anthrax study using sheep in the 1880s, the research of insulin using dogs in 1922, the development of leprosy vaccines and antibiotic drugs using armadillos in the
1970s, the first gene transplant using mice in 1974, a birth of the first mammal of the cloned sheep, Dolly, in 1996, and toxicology testing in the 20th century. These obvious results are trustworthy as an important role through medical and scientific history. In addition, Stanley N. Gershoff also especially emphasizes the contribution of animal testing in the nutrition field, such as defending against the Beriberi disease using birds, the discovery of dandruff treatment using guinea pigs, and the study for the deficiency of vitamin A and D using mice.
The history of vitamin research in the 20th century saved millions of lives through animal experiments in nutritional science. 70 percent of the Nobel Prize for physiology or medicine has been awarded to scientists who got good results through animal experiments, and many vaccines–polio, diphtheria, measles, rubella, and smallpox–would not be possible to invent without animals. Nevertheless, these several landmarks in history cannot be compared with the number of 100 million annually.
The second claim of animal testing supporters is product safety. Gershoff emphasizes that all information from animal testing leads to safer and easier ways to conduct experiments on human subjects (2009). Though, the safety of humans from the death of 100 million animals is not true “safety.” The third claim, accuracy is the biggest justification animal testing supporters have, because it works better than any other alternative. According to their assertion, a few animals tend to react the exact same way that humans would in response to certain diseases and allergies. Also, chimpanzees and other monkeys have about 99% similar to human genes. However, certain diseases, the chimpanzees, and other monkeys consist of extremely little portions of the 100 million animals used for testing.
Lastly, the reason for the mischief of animal rights advocates is truly curious, because with practical sense, the animal protectors contribute to animal right and welfare. However, according to a report, What has the animal rights movement done for animal welfare?, animal rights groups did not actually contribute to animal welfare. Radical animal lovers cause frequent trouble with unlawful violence for their unjust logical opposition. They just pressured experimental organizations or scientists and forced them to close the laboratory facilities, rather than alleviating the animal sufferings.
Collaboration of two opposite groups only can improve both the welfare of animals and humans. Nonetheless, only exercising caution and warning animal advocates movements can improve habitual over-testing. Up to these observations, two opposing claims of animal experiments have obvious reasons depending on their opinions. Human gains from animal testing are definitely not small. However, the balance of ‘harm-benefit’ in animal experiments is the core of the debate on the ethical issue, and the purpose is to enhance animal welfare and reduce animal cruelty.
The number of 100 million annually is not a small portion. Animals have feelings and emotions just like humans. Animal maltreatment will not be reduced if humans focus only on their profits and advantages. Humans, who are creatures just as animals are, do not have the right to abuse and have a free hand at animal lives. Earth is not a monopolistic market of humans, but the world consists of a blending of natural animals and plants. Injustice often becomes justice through repetition without criticism. Therefore, the catch phrase, “We do not animal experiments,” which engraved on the necessities, sounds much more impressive than any famous proverb.