Petersen 1

Jordan Petersen
English 1010
Allison Fernley
25 March 2015
Is Animal Testing Immoral Or Is It Necessary?
There have always been ethical issues that scientists and researchers face. Among many
of the issues, I find animal testing one of the most controversial because it is about the human
race using their knowledge and technology against the other animals that do not have this
advantage. Humans use this advantage in order to benefit themselves. Is it really fair for humans
to use tools in which other animals do not have and that their animal structure will not allow for
them to develop? Or is it fair because humans do have these tools and it would be foolish not to
use them? I am much more of an animal person than a people person and I dislike that the human
race changes the natural environment and does whatever they want to animals for their own
benefit. Non-human animals cannot stand up for themselves and I think humans have used this
power for mostly evil. In other words, I am not a big fan of animal testing. However, many
innocent humans, such as children with certain diseases, have been helped through animal
testing. Even animals can be helped through certain testing. A drug tested on an animal may
make the animal sicker, but it may make it healthier. It is difficult to answer the question of
whether animal testing is immoral or if it is just necessary for the human race to survive. There is
a thin line between right and wrong.

Petersen 2
Fenwick, Nicole, Shannon E. G. Duffus, and Gilly Griffin. "Pain Management For Animals Used
In Science: Views Of Scientists And Veterinarians In Canada." Animals (2076-2615) 4.3
(2014): 494-514. Academic Search Premier. Web. 27 Mar. 2015.
This article talks about the analgesics in animal testing. Pain to the animal can either be
caused by the research of pain on animals or it can be caused indirectly by researching something
else, but then inflicting pain on the animal by accident. Efforts to refine animal testing discussed
are based on giving animals pain medication to relieve some of the pain they feel. This is not an
easy plan because animals cannot inform anyone of their pain. Even if they were given pain
medication, it is possible that the researchers will not give the animal enough medication.
In the article, it says that pain is hard to define and every animal experiences a different
level of pain. Pain is a strong emotion and everyone has felt it before. It is important to know that
other animals besides humans also feel pain. Most of the article discussed the results of a survey
that was taken by a variety of scientists and veterinarians. The survey asked questions about pain
and what methods were done in their research to decrease pain to the animal. The article lists
their comments, which I think helps with the logos and pathos, since they are real comments
from real people about the issue.
I am choosing to use this article in my essay because it shows that people are aware of the
ethical issue of animal testing and that there are some efforts to make it less painful for the
animal. It would also benefit my essay if I wrote about some of the comments from scientists and
veterinarians about the issue.

Petersen 3
Lein, Pamela, Paul Locke, and Alan Goldberg. "Meeting Report: Alternatives For Developmental
Neurotoxicity Testing." Environmental Health Perspectives 115.5 (2007): 764768. Health Source - Consumer Edition. Web. 27 Mar. 2015.
Developmental neurotoxicity testing (DNT) is a workshop that states that one of their
goals is to either refine animal testing or find another alternative for research methods. Both the
DNT and the authors of this article believe that it would be difficult to use computer-based
technologies as an alternative to animals because the information needed to make a virtual model
would have to be extremely accurate. The DNT has thought about just refining animal testing by
using small organisms such as chick embryos and certain fish. By doing this, animal testing
would be cheaper and easier since these organisms have small lifecycles that researchers can
observe for testing medication. It is important for them to update their animal testing procedures
because they worry about the health of kids without it.
The article addresses alternatives to animal testing or ways in which it can be refined, but
also acknowledges the challenges that come with it. DNT is more concerned with creating costeffective methods for testing rather than the ethics of animal testing. Because of this, it seems
like they think it is necessary to some degree to use animals instead of finding alternatives. All
three authors of this article are involved in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences
and Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) so they do know important information
about animal testing and have attended conferences about it in the past.
I think this article could be advantageous to my Position Synthesis Essay because it has a
very different viewpoint from the other article I read, New Models in Cosmetics Replacing
Animal Testing. I like that both articles mention computer-based technologies as a replacement
for animals and that one is more in support of it than the other for different reasons. This article

Petersen 4
makes it clear that the question of whether animal testing is necessary or just unethical cannot be
answered simply.
Mone, Gregory. "New Models In Cosmetics Replacing Animal Testing." Communications Of
The ACM 57.4 (2014): 20-21. Business Source Premier. Web. 26 Mar. 2015.
Europe banned the testing of animals for cosmetic purposes a couple of years ago.
Researchers believe that using animals for testing can lead to inaccurate results in humans
because they are not the same species. At the time the article was written, there was a plan to
decrease animal testing by using computer-based technologies. For example, there was an idea to
build a virtual model of a liver in order to test certain cosmetic chemicals. This way, they could
see if a chemical was absorbed and if yes, how harmful it would be to the liver and other organs.
Although it is more ethical to use this method, it is still not going to be 100 percent flawless
because any testing procedures that yield safe results can still have risks in humans.
As a person who wears makeup on a daily basis, this article affected me personally. It
made me think of all the chemicals that I am putting on my skin when I put cosmetics on,
whether that be perfume, lotion, eyeshadow, etc. I always just apply it to my skin without
thinking if it could be harmful or not to my body since I do not ingest it. I just put it to my skin
and think that it is impossible for it to reach my vital organs. When I look at shampoo and
conditioner bottles at the store, I have noticed that many of them say on the back that the product
was not tested on animals, because they know that their customers care about the issue. I do not
like how animals are used as an instrument for testing, but at the same time, I do not want to be
harmed by the products I use. Thats why I feel that a virtual liver would be worth the hard
work to make so neither humans nor other animals have to suffer from a product. This article
was very persuasive about this technology.

Petersen 5
While this article somewhat addresses the other viewpoint to animal testing, it is clear
that the author feels animal testing is unnecessary and that it will be replaced in the near future. I
will include it in my essay because it shows that more and more researchers are adopting this
new method, which is very important when considering the question of my essay.
Ormandy, Elisabeth H., and Catherine A. Schuppli. "Public Attitudes Toward Animal Research:
A Review." Animals (2076-2615) 4.3 (2014): 391-408. Academic Search Premier. Web.
27 Mar. 2015.
The authors note the different sides of the debate of animal testing and what people focus
on. People against animal testing focus on the feelings of the animal while people in support of it
(mostly scientists) focus on the benefits of animal testing for humans. The authors believe that
the public should have more information about animal testing before deciding which side they
are on. They state why people might have different opinions about animals and animal testing.
Personal and cultural characteristics influence a persons belief about animal testing,
according to the authors. Some of the personal characteristics that have been correlated with
opinions about animal testing include age, sex, rural/urban life, religion, personality, and
experience with animals. While the authors talk about these variables and their correlations, they
do not provide statistical information, tables/graphs, or any other proof to back up these
statements.
This article is very informative about the different variables that influence a persons
belief about animal testing. I am choosing to write about these variables in my essay even if there
is no proof to back them up because it is a possibility that these factors play a role in the debate.

Petersen 6
Trnqvist, Elin, et al. "Strategic Focus On 3R Principles Reveals Major Reductions In The Use
Of Animals In Pharmaceutical Toxicity Testing." Plos ONE 9.7 (2014): 1-11. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 26 Mar. 2015.
The 3 Rs (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) are based on the ethical treatment of
animals. This principle is a way to help the effects of research on animals by either finding
another method of testing products, decreasing the amount of animals researched, or finding a
more ethical way of studying animals. Some researchers dislike this principle because they think
their research findings involving the use of animals will be seized or that it just cannot be
achievable.
Tables are shown of the reduction of animals and what was done in the study to reduce
this. It talks about the different animals used in experiments (mouse, rat, rabbit, dog) which
makes it reality and not just something you hear about with product research. Rabbits and dogs
can be pets for many people and a lot of people consider them apart of the family. This helps my
question of whether animal testing is necessary or not.
The 3 Rs have been mentioned in a lot of the articles I have previously read, so it must
be a very important principle to the ethical research of animals. I plan on writing about the
feelings from researchers about this principle and what others have said to disagree with them.
As a result, there is no right or wrong answer. Animal testing has pros and cons, but so
does not testing on animals. In my opinion after researching animal testing, animal testing should
not be used as a method for research if it does not benefit the animal. If it would only hurt the
animal, another method should be put in place, like building a computer model to test on. From
the articles I read, animals are not even a good subject to use to see what would happen to a

Petersen 7
human because both types of animals are not built exactly the same way, leading to inaccurate
results. On the other hand, if testing on a sick animal by giving it a medication that could
potentially help it, then it could be a great thing, especially if it would help humans as well.
Researchers and scientists need to find that spot in which both types of animals are benefited.