Arnold1

Animal Testing: Wrong or Right

Joshua Arnold
Dr. Johnson
10/30/14

Arnold2

According to the hasting center approximately 26 million animals are used in animal
research every year, about 70,000 of those animals used in research are nonhuman primates.
(The Hasting Center). Every year animals are forced to live in cages, in laboratories to facilitate
the medical gain of humans. These animals have given humans valuable research to help cure
diseases. Animal testing has given science many cures and treatments that helped save human
lives. The human lives that were saved is a very good thing, but testing on animals not only
benefits human lives but also benefits the animals that are being test on. Testing on animals also
lead to the discovery of treatments and cures for disease usually found in animals. Testing on
animals has also saved species of animals from extinction. While alternatives to researching on
animals exist they are not a better or comparable to animal testing because drugs and treatments
need to be studied in their entirety. This means there needs to be a full working biological system
that is living. This is so the drug can be studied while interacting with not only the target area but
all of the body as well, to see if the drug or treatment creates negative effects in other parts or
systems in the body. Animals are also surprisingly similar genetically and DNA wise to humans.
Humans and Animals share a very large amount of DNA with many different animal species.
There are negatives to testing on a living organism and that is animals can be mistreated. This is
a very sad thing, and is no way endorsed or even promoted. There are so many regulations in
place to fix the error of research animal cruelty. There will always be mistreatment, but the
government and other regulatory enterprises are creating rules, regulations, and inspections so
the mistreatment can be fixed. Mistreatment of animals is neither ethical nor recommended, due
to the influence it can have on the results of the experiments or drugs. The test done on animals
can also be unpredictable and unreliable due to the fact that there are certain biological
differences that could have effects on the drug or treatment being studied. There is no alternative

Arnold3

that is reliable enough or whole enough to test drugs effectively. Animals are necessary, for now,
but scientists are continually perusing ways that will make animal testing more comfortable for
the animal, and possibly even eliminate the necessity of animal testing. Animal testing is
controversial and can be very hard to understand, there are valid arguments to both sides.
Animal testing however has more benefits to it than negatives, and the alternatives that are listed
are not viable because they do not have a full functioning organism that shows the interactions
between all of the different systems in the body.
Animal testing and research have led to the successful cure of several different diseases
and many different vaccines, which have improved the overall quality of human life. The
California Biomedical Research Association (CBRA) stated that every medical breakthrough in
the last 100 years has been a direct result of animal testing (CBRA). An example of this would
be the experiments in which dogs had their pancreases removed. When the pancreas was
removed, insulin was discovered. This helped lead to the healthy lifestyles that most diabetics are
able to lead now. The polio vaccine was first tested on animals, and after being tweaked and
declared ready for human trials was able to reduce the cases of 350,000 in 1988 to 223 in 2012
(CBRA). Testing these vaccines on animals can give us a full biological system perspective and
how the certain vaccines interact with not only the desired system but the other systems in the
body as well. According to the Anderson Cancer Center animal research facility states that we
would not have a vaccine for hepatitis B if it was not for chimpanzees (Associated Press). The
Anderson Center also states that chimpanzees are the best chance we have at finding a cure for
hepatitis C (Associated Press).
To fully be able to gather the appropriate knowledge to cure vaccines and cure diseases a
fully functioning, and living system must be present and tested on or humans will not fully

Arnold4

understand the effects that a medicine could have on the whole biological system of a person.
There are a couple alternatives that could serve well but only if they were done prior to animal
testing. When first testing a drug a live whole, fully functioning system is necessary. A valid
alternative is studying cells in a petri dish (CBRA). The advantage of studying cells in a petri
dish is that you can know how it interacts in the particular cells that you are looking for. An
example of this would be if you are studying a particular skin cream on the human skin cells.
You would then be able to observe exactly what the cream does for those skin cells. The problem
with this is the skin cream could potentially affect not only your skin cells but then affect the
pores that are in your arms and other cells under your skin. This could create a potential problem
because you do not know entirely what the cream will do for the body. Another pro for using
animals is that with a whole functioning system you can evaluate the side effects to the fullest
extent of the body due to it being able to carry the medicine throughout the entire body and see
the full extent of the medicine affects (Rodgers). There are also certain diseases or disabilities
that cannot be studied by cellular cultures. Blindness cannot be studied by putting cells into a
petri dish. Blindness can only be studied on a functioning being with blindness as a disability,
due to the causes of blindness and the complexities of eye sight and the brain (CBRA).
Computers could also be a good source to an alternative for animal testing but, not even the best
super computer in the world can make the complexities of the human body in such a fluid motion
as the body itself does. The computer is not strong enough to create such complexities that would
suffice for a full body system as complex as the body that would track the full effects of a drug
entering the body or working its way through the system (SpeakingOfResearch). The body is far
too complex for a computer or other alternatives to be a viable alternative to a living and
functioning organisms that we are currently using.

Arnold5

There several animal species that share a very similar DNA structure and amount of DNA
with humans, chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans (CBRA). There are
approximately 70,000 chimpanzees used in research every year (CBRA). Mice with a few other
animals like birds, and fish account for 95% of the total amount of animals used in research each
year (CBRA). If you study Charles Darwin, humans evolved from animals, that means that for
the most part animals and humans have all of the same organs like; hearts, kidneys, and lungs
(CBRA). With the help of the bloodstream and the central nervous system all of these work in
the same basic way, there will be some minor differences but they work in the same systematic
way (Understanding Animal Research). Due to the fact that humans and animals are so
biologically similar they are going to experience a lot of the same biological disabilities,
diseases, and conditions; like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes (ProCon.com). Animals and
humans share such a large amount of DNA and system similarity in the body, that the one thing
animals lack is cognitive functioning. Animals lack the ability to cognitively provide moral
judgment like humans do, and this is shown in the fact that nearly every race of humans since the
beginning of human kind has mistreated animals or used them for some type of certain gain
(Machan). The Native Americans used to use the animals as food, but also use their pelts for
coats, and houses. The Native Americans also used to use animals blood for rituals and then the
bones for tools that they would use every day. Nearly every culture in history has been using
animals and has not given them their rights due to their low cognitive functioning and lack of
moral judgment (Hinkle). Animals also have significantly shorter life cycles than humans, which
makes them perfect for studying on. Mice only live two to three years, so using a mouse as a
subject is more feasible for times sake than using humans (ProCon.com). Using mice, scientists
can study the effects of drugs and various treatments over a life span and generations even, with

Arnold6

using humans this would not be possible (Society of Toxicology). Mice are particularly good
when used for cancer research, due to their short lifespan. With such short lifespans, scientists
can test the effects of certain treatments of cancer and understand how they affect the body and
at a much faster pace and ability to learn more knowledge at a quicker rate (Procon.com).
The medical community follows a very strict set of codes and values about testing on
animals. The code of ethics for psychology has approved the use of animals in testing as long as
regulations are followed. A poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientist were questioned and more
than 90% agreed that the use of animals in research is essential (Cressey). If animals were not
tested on, with approval from different ethics boards, then cosmetics would be extremely unsafe.
According to the USDA, American women use an average of 12 personal care products per day
(USDA). If these products were not previously tested on animals and deemed safe to use, then
the women of America would be in trouble. Before these potentially dangerous products are
allowed on the market, they are first tested on animals and this test decides whether they are safe
to use on humans in human trials. Mosquito repellent is first tested on animals, and this repellent
is often used to prevent the spread of malaria (SCJohnson). If this product was not able to be
tested on animals it would take greater amounts of time to decide what formula works safely and
effectively. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2012 an estimated 627, 000
people died from malaria (WHO). This terrible disease is spread through a parasite that is inside
the mosquito, which is passed on to the human when they bite into your skin to feed (WHO).
Every year about 3.4 billion people world-wide are in danger of getting this terrible disease
(WHO). This is with Mosquito repellent being used in the industrialized world, if this product
was not tested on animals first, there is then the potential for the product not working and then
far more people would be at risk, or the repellent could be potentially dangerous to people.

Arnold7

Testing products on animals is recommended by 5 different organizations, which are respected

country and often world-wide; The American Cancer Society, American Physiological Society,
National Association for Biomedical Research, American Heart Association, and the Society of
Toxicology all advocate for the use of animals in research (Procon.com).
Humans do not gain all of the benefit from animal testing. There have been many
diseases that animals have that would not have been cured if animals were not test subjects for
scientist. Examples of animal diseases that have been cured or provided vaccines for in order to
save thousand even millions of animals every year are as follows; rabies, distemper, feline
leukemia, infectious hepatitis virus, tetanus, anthrax, and canine parvo virus (California
Veterinary Medical Association CVMA). The testing of treatments for animals help science
found the benefits in humans of pacemakers for heart disease and remedies for glaucoma and hip
dyslexia (CVMA). Testing on animals also helped save several animal species from extinction, a
couple of those animals being; the black-footed ferret, California condor, and tamarins of Brazil
(American Association for Laboratory Animal Science AALAS). Another species is currently
trying to be saved from extinction. Koalas which live in Australia, are on the endangered species
list and are suffering an epidemic from the STD chlamydia (Beaumont). There are new vaccines
that are currently being tested, this vaccine could potentially save this animal species from
disappearing, and this would not be possible without the use of animal testing. Not only do
humans gain from the test done on animals, but the animals themselves are saved from many
deaths each year from diseases that scientist were able to cure or create vaccines for by testing on
animals in the first place. Testing on animals does create some deaths but, that many animals are
saved by the tests done to cure diseases that animals themselves carry or suffer from in the first
place.

Arnold8

Animal testing is not without problems, any time you involve people there is bound to be
errors or frustrations that unfortunately are then transferred or taken out on the animals. The
treatment of animals that are used for testing are less than satisfactory conditions. According to
the Human Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force
feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, and prolonged periods of physical
restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of
pain to study its effects and remedies, and killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neckbreaking, decapitation, or other means (Humane Society International). There are tests produced
by cosmetic companies that force animals, like rabbits, to not blink for hours or even days to test
how irritating the cosmetic is on the eye and so they cannot blink away the product (Scientific
American). The United Stated Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported in 2010 that 97,123
animals were tested on and during those experiments the animals were subjected to some sort of
pain and were given no anesthesia during the test. The animals were as follows; 1,395 primates,
5,996 rabbits, 33,652 guinea pigs, and 48,015 hamsters (USDA). There is also a test in which
chemicals are tested for the necessary amount needed to cause death, the scientist gave all the
animals the chemical amount and studied the effects until 50% of the animals used died from the
drug (Humane Society of the United States). Animals are also mistreated often, due to the life of
the animals being in vain due to experimental error or poor design. The experiments can be
poorly designed or poorly executed. The results then should not be valid because proper
procedure was not followed and potentially skewed the data (ProCon.com). A meta-analysis
,done in 2009, on studies produced in the US and UK, found many serious flaws of experiments
where tests were done on animals like primates and rodents (Kilkenny). The study found that
87% of the studies failed to randomize the animals used; this could produce selection bias

Arnold9

(Kilkenny). The same study found that only 59% of the studies stated the hypothesis or
objective of the study and the number of characteristics of the animals used (Kilkenny). This
affects the validity of the study because proper procedure was not followed, which then means
the date should not be valid and that the lives of the animals used were in vain.
The use of animals in testing and research does create the potential of mistreatment of
these animals, because even people are mistreated when placed in the care of someone else.
Humans make mistakes, especially when treating other people and this does apply to animals as
well. Harm is not something that most scientists want to do to animals but there are those types
of people out there and they are in everything not just research with animals. This field is highly
regulated and any scientist or program that wishes to test on animals has to undergo a
conversation and presentation with the IRB or Institutional review board or an ethics board of
their company, but also strict regulations by the government (AWA). There are state and local
laws that regulate animal testing as well. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) has many stipulations
for animals while they are in the care of scientist (AWA). There are regulations of minimum
housing standards for research animals which regulate the enclosures size, temperature, and the
animals access to clean food and water (AWA). The AWA also requires regular visits by a
veterinarian who will see if the company is meeting the desired and regulated requirements
(AWA). There is usually a committee called an IRB or Institutional Review Board that will have
to review your proposal for experimenting and then make sure your experiment meets the
requirements ethically and legally of the treatment of animals. If animals are to be used during
the experiment. If you get passed the IRB you then will have to meet the Institutional Animal
Care and Use Committee (IACUC) (Americans for Medical Progress). Then if that was not
enough, larger laboratories usually volunteer to be reviewed for humane treatment by the

Arnold10

Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International

(AAALAC) (Americans for Medical Progress). If that is not yet enough, if you are receiving
funding from certain places those places then require you to meet their standards and then are
subjected to randomized visits and inspections from their inspectors for the humane treatment of
the research animals. The US Public Health Service (PHS) requires you to comply with their
policies regarding research animals and the Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals
(AWA). The use of research animals is heavily regulated and watched and like everything that is
done with human professionals, it can go wrong. This is an unfortunate fact, and this is shown
when putting older adults into nursing homes, sometimes they are abused. The professionals
there are held to higher code of ethics but they break the code sometimes, and that is
unfortunately a part of working with people. Sometimes professionals will not perform their
duties as they are instructed or ethically bound to. Professionals also do not wish to mistreat
animals because this could skew or misrepresent the data that they are trying to use. As said by
the journal Nature Genetics stressed or crowded animals produce unreliable research results,
and many phenotypes are only accessible in contented animals in enriched environments, it is in
the best interests of the researchers not to cut corners or to neglect welfare issues (Nature
Genetics). Many facilities give the animals time during the day or evening where they can go
outside and enjoy playing with caretakers and other animals. Sometimes there are facilities that
will even give the animals toys to play with (Americans for Medical Progress).
Animal testing does not necessarily guarantee a cure or vaccine for humans; actually very
few drugs or treatments that pass animal trials work on humans. In fact 94% of drugs that pass
animal test fail in human trials (Understanding Animal Research). A 2013 study published by
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS)

Arnold11

found that nearly 150 trials of humans treatments to reduce inflammation in critically ill patients
have been undertaken, and all of them failed, despite being successful in animal tests (Akhtar).
This shows that the predictability of animal tests transferring to human trials and being
successful is very slim and unlikely. Test performed on animals are also unreliable because there
are few systems in the animal body that are different from the human body, and this would affect
the way that certain drugs and treatments would interact with the human body. According to
New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS) the anatomic, metabolic, and cellular
differences between humans and animals make them a poor substitute for humans (NEAVS). It
is extremely hard to create an animal model that is even closely related to what science is trying
to achieve in humans (NEAVS). The biological systems of humans and animals are too different
for them to be reliable for a human system. Due to these biological differences a drug or
treatment that passes animal testing does not guarantee the safety of humans. This is shown by
the Thalidomide sleeping pill used in the 1950s (Science Museum). Thalidomide was tested on
animals and did not cause any problems, but when released for human consumption pregnant
women who took the pill gave birth to babies who were deformed, approximately 10,000 babies
were born with defects because of this release (Science Museum). When the drug was later tested
on pregnant animals it did not produce the same results unless the drug was given at extremely
high doses (Greek). The biological difference in animals and humans created an issue where
10,000 babies were born with defects. The same biological differences could potentially
persuade medical professionals from finding cures for humans. Aspirin is a very effective drug
for humans, and is used by millions of people world-wide every day, but to some of the animals
that are used for research it is toxic and can kill them with a small dose (Akhtar). The biological
differences in animals could cause researchers to throw the drug or treatment away or dismiss a

Arnold12

certain drug because it did not pass animals trials and might not have any relevant effects on
people.
Animals may not always be the best way to find cures for humans due to the differences
between biological functions in the species. There may be small differences in animal species
and humans but we share a very large genetic percentage with many different species of animals.
As stated earlier tests on other alternatives could not produce more reliable results. Petri dish
experiments will only allow a person to see the effect of a drug or treatment on the desired cells,
not the whole system. This could potentially cause problems with drugs that work with the brain.
The drug is put into the body and transferred up to the brain through the blood stream, and there
is many different systems that the drug would work with while on the way to the brain. Due to
there being multiple different systems this drug would interact with, it could cause problems
because the interaction between the drug and one system is study able in the petri dish but when
trying to study the effects of this drug between two different systems there could be an issue.
This is an important dynamic that could not be studied in this way. Human subjects could not be
used because it would be unethical. The lives of these volunteers would be put in danger any
time the drugs would be tested and this would put the human subjects in unnecessary danger
(Speaking of Research). This is unethical because some experiments require genetic
manipulation and that would be very unsafe and extremely invasive of the humans volunteering
(Greek). The world Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki said that human trials should
be preceded by tests on animals (US National Institutes of Health (NIH)).
In conclusion animal testing can have negative effects on the animals and can cause death
to these creatures. There can be mistreatment by the professionals that are supposed to be
keeping up with regulations that require a certain level of non-harm. This can be a very

Arnold13

unfortunate part of working with humans. Animal testing however, can provide science with
valuable research that leads to the discovery of cures or treatments that could save human lives.
Insulin for diabetes was discovered through animal testing and quite possibly would not have
been discovered so early if animal testing was not around (CBRA). The cures and treatments
discovered do not just benefit humans; they do help animals as well. The animals being
researched and experimented on can lead to cures and treatments for diseases or conditions that
often plague animals. Animal testing lead to the revitalization and saving of some species of
animals from extinction. Animal testing can sometimes be misleading or not predictable due to
the biological differences between our species and animal species. This however, is something
that is not going to be fixed unless testing on humans, no matter what type of alternative that is
used the only way to fully test a drug on a system that is similar to a human body is to find a live
and fully functioning human system. Testing on animals is highly regulated to reduce the harm
and uncomfortableness that animals experience and to make the experience they are having as
pleasant and possible. Testing on animals may not be the best solution to finding cures,
treatments and solution to human conditions and problems but as of right now it is the best we
can do. There should be a continuation on regulating and bettering the conditions of the research
animals and there should be alternatives explored by professionals. Animals however, should be
continued to be tested on because it benefits humankind and animals. It also reduces the danger
that animals and future humans will experience from diseases and conditions that will continue
to develop and plague animals and humans.

Arnold14

References
American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, "Animal Research FAQ," aalas.org
(accessed Oct. 28, 2014)
Americans for Medical Progress, "Animal Research FAQs: The Top 10 Questions,"
amprogress.org (accessed Oct. 28, 2014)
Americans for Medical Progress, "Touring an Animal Research Facility," youtube.com, Oct. 21,
2008
Animal Testing - ProCon.org. (2014, January 29). Retrieved October 30, 2014.
Allen, Arthur, "Of Mice or Men: The Problems with Animal Testing," slate.com, June 1, 2006
Akhtar, Aysha. MD, MPH, "Want to Improve Medical Research? Cut Out the Animals!,"
huffingtonpost.com, July 11, 2013
Animal Welfare Act (245 KB), gpo.gov, last amended June 18, 2008
Associated Press, "Texas Research Chimps Face Retirement, Relocation," khou.com, July 22,
2013
Beaumont, Peter. "Australia's Koala Crisis: Gene Sequencing Provides Hope against Killer
Diseases," theguardian.com, Apr. 20, 2013
California Biomedical Research Association, "CBRA Fact Sheet: Why Are Animals Necessary
in Biomedical Research?," ca-biomed.org (accessed Oct. 28, 2014)

Arnold15

California Veterinary Medical Association, "Animal Research: How It Benefits Both Humans
and Animals," cvma.net (accessed Oct. 28, 2014)
Cressey, Daniel, "Animal Research: Battle Scars," nature.com, Feb. 23, 2011
Greek, Ray. MD, et al., "The History and Implications of Testing Thalidomide on Animals,"
Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law, Oct. 3, 2011
The Hastings Center, "Fact Sheet: Animals Used in Research in the U.S.,"
animalresearch.thehastingscenter.org (accessed Oct. 28, 2014)
Hinkle, A.Barton. "Do Animals Have Rights?," reason.com, Sep. 23, 2011
Humane Society International, "About Animal Testing," hsi.org (accessed Oct. 28, 2014)
Humane Society of the United States, "Questions and Answers about Biomedical Research,"
humanesociety.org, Sep. 16, 2013
Kilkenny, Carol et al., "Survey of the Quality of Experimental Design, Statistical Analysis and
Reporting of Research Using Animals," PLOS One, 2009
Machan, Tibor R., "Animals Do Not Have Rights," nytimes.com, Apr. 5, 2012
Nature Genetics, "Editorial: Animal Research and the Search for Understanding," nature.com,
2006
New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS), "Biomedical Research," neavs.org (accessed
Oct. 28, 2014)
Nobel Media, "The Discovery of Insulin," nobelprize.org (accessed Oct. 30, 2014)

Arnold16

Rogers, Kara. "Scientific Alternatives to Animal Testing: A Progress Report," britannica.com,

Sep. 17, 2007
Scientific American, "Do Cosmetic Companies Still Test on Live Animals?,"
scientificamerican.com (accessed Oct. 29, 2014)
Science Museum (UK), "Thalidomide," sciencemuseum.org.uk (accessed Oct. 29, 2014)
SC Johnson, "SC Johnson Point of View on Animal Testing," scjohnson.com, Jan. 1, 2010
Society of Toxicology, "Animals in Research Public Policy Statement," toxicology.org, Mar.
1999
Speaking of Research, "Alternatives?," speakingofresearch.com (accessed Oct. 28, 2014)
Understanding Animal Research, "Nine Out of Ten Statistics Are Taken Out of Context,"
understandinganimalresearch.org.uk, Jan. 23, 2013
US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS),
"Annual Report Animal Usage by Fiscal Year: 2010," aphis.usda.gov, July 27, 2011
US National Institutes of Health (NIH), "Laws Related to the Protection of Human Subjects:
World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki," history.nih.gov (accessed Oct. 30,
2014)
World Health Organization. 10 facts on malaria. (2014, January 1). Retrieved October 30, 2014.

Arnold17