The controversy of animal testing:

By Ethan Benatar

 

Animal testing has affected the advancements in the testing and implementation of medicine but, because of society’s recognition of animal rights, Animal testing has become frowned upon by today’s moral standards towards animal rights. The conflict between science and morality arises as this scientific controversy balances the positives that come with animal testing such as accuracy and advancements of medicines but carries negatives because animals are being tested on. In this paper, I will explain both arguments involving this controversy and conclude about the controversy.  

 

 

While animal testing has become a controversial topic in science, it can also be credited to our advancements in medicine due to the great similarities between animals and humans. Without animal testing, our current knowledge and implementation of medicine might not have been as advanced, and medicines would not have become far less harmful to humans in terms of side or unknown effects as medicine can be perfected by testing it on animals to understand the potential reactions certain people might have to medicines being made. In the book “the costs and benefits of animal testing” author Andrew Night when talking about why animals had been implemented into scientific testing for medicine stated “clearly all animals subjected to scientific procedures are higher vertebrates. These animals possess the neuroanatomical mechanisms and psychological capacities significant enough to experience pain, fear, and psychological distress” (Night, 181). Night’s analysis explains why the use of common lab animals such as rats, mice, cats, dogs, monkeys, etc. which is due to their ability to process feelings like humans. This similarity is crucial to developing medicine that is not harmful to humans as any issues with the medication will be shown by the distress of the animals being tested on allowing for more precise medicines to be produced from animal testing. While this does hold true, Night also highlights that the implementation of animals in scientific testing is not mainly because of results but rather for “cultural reasons” as Night explains. He goes on further to prove this stating “in fact, most reviews have demonstrated that animals are insufficiently predictive of human outcomes to provide a substantial health benefit during the development of human clinical interventions” (Night, 183). Night highlights how animal testing has proven to be inaccurate in some areas and further explains how its perseverance in the scientific field can be credited more towards its cultural connections to science rather than the effectiveness of animal testing. This analysis while highlighting why animal testing is implemented (due to the similarities of test animals and humans psychologically and neurologically) does not always supply sufficient results and therefore questions the implementation of animal testing in the scientific field if it is not yielding the results needed to advance medicine further. 

 

 

In addition to the results yielded by animal testing, animal testing also has other downsides when it comes to the translation of animal models into human data.  In the paper “the flaws and human harms of animal experimentation” the author, Aysha Akhtar explains the inconsistencies in translating data due to the species and strains of the animals being tested. In this paper, Akhtar stated “Even rats from the same strain but purchased from different suppliers produce different test results. In one study, responses to 12 different behavioral measures of pain sensitivity, which are important markers of spinal cord injury, varied among 11 strains of mice, with no clear-cut patterns that allowed prediction of how each strain would respond” (Akhtar). This is significant because even when dealing with one of the most used animals in animal testing can produce inconsistent data making it harder to draw conclusions from the tests carried out. In many people’s eyes, animal testing can be seen as a trade-off where the results that contribute to the advancements in science are weighed with the cruelties that animals endure when being tested but if these tests cannot prove to show consistent data yielding patterns that can further advancements in science and medicine then it defeats the purpose of animal testing, to begin with. In addition to this misleading data that can come from animal testing can be harmful to humans. In this paper, Akhtar also highlights that results that come from misleading animal testing can produce inaccurate safety and efficacy data as well as misdirecting resources that can be useful to more correct testing (Akhtar). By using up time, energy, and materials, animal testing does not be consistent in yielding correct data which not only hinders advancements in medicine and science but can also produce inaccurate data potentially putting the health of patients relying on the medicines involved in these tests. Overall, animal testing produces little result for the effort that is put into it and does not work for the better health of humanity making its implementation in science researching questionable.  

 

 

Advancements in technology often correlate to the advancements in science and even open gateways for new methods of testing within the scientific field. These advancements have helped develop useful alternatives to animal testing to sustain animal rights within scientific practice. The article “Animal testing and its alternatives-the most important omics is economics” explains alternatives to animal testing and new approaches that have yielded more promising results stating, “the substitution of in vivo testing, the in vitro and in silico approaches are used as enabling technologies in many fields, sometimes complementing data obtained from animals, sometimes providing for entirely new information” (  Meigs, Smirnova, Rovida, Leist, Hartung, 2018). This highlights how alternative testing has not only been able to supply new information but complete information where animal testing fell short. Due to the shortcomings of animal testing and its cruel nature to the well-being of animals along with the success of new alternative methods, animal testing is not necessary anymore and scientists should rely on such testing less until it becomes obsolete and eliminated as a method of scientific testing. Science has been developed as civilization has become increasingly advanced and holding on to animal testing due to its cultural connection within scientific testing only hinders the ability for science to further advance allowing for better and more correct medicines to be produced with data from these tests. 

 

 

To conclude, while animal testing has contributed to scientific research it is outdated and outperformed by its alternatives and only hinders the progression of scientific research. For science to adapt it needs to adapt to the advancements in technology as well as the morals of modern society and preserving animal testing as a scientific practice both goes against these developments in morality and technology. Overall, this controversy under my examination proves to show that Animal testing has failed to sustain its use in scientific practice and the elimination of this practice will prove more beneficial than harmful in the practice of science.  

 

 

 

Meigs, Lucy. “Animal Testing and Its Alternatives – the Most Important Omics Is Economics.” ALTEX, vol. 35, no. 3, 2018, pp. 275–305, 10.14573/altex.1807041. 

 

 

Knight, A. The Costs and Benefits of Animal Experiments. Google Books, Springer, 27 May 2011, books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=EjIWDAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=benefits+of+animal+testing&ots=RiJeryLBhr&sig=wuX4dNG3xM3_X7BIU6KfE2tzoUM#v=onepage&q=benefits%20of%20animal%20testing&f=false 

 

AKHTAR, AYSHA. “The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, vol. 24, no. 04, 14 Sept. 2015, pp. 407–419, , 10.1017/s0963180115000079.