Petersen 1

Jordan Petersen
English 1010
Professor Allison Fernley
1 May 2015
Is Animal Testing Immoral Or Is It Necessary For Human Safety?
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 involves the human
race using their knowledge and technology against the other animals who do not have this
advantage. Humans can 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? Although humans may have too much power over nature, 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 a sick animal might make the
animal sicker, but the drug might actually make it healthier if it works. 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.
Some people think that that an individuals view on animal testing is related to different
factors like age, sex, culture, religion, etc. (Ormandy and Schuppli 393-6). It is also said that
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 and the lack of

Petersen 2
alternatives to animal models (Ormandy and Schuppli 392). It is not always a black and white
issue though. A lot of attitudes about animal research are based on the degree to which animal
testing is wrong and the degree to which animal testing is moral. To most people, using animals
like rats and fish are more acceptable than using animals such as dogs and cats because they are
not as intelligent or as companion-like. People are more likely to be supportive of abolishing
animal testing if the animal is human-like, has some intelligence, and can be considered, cute,
but would be more comfortable with animal testing if the animal was only going to experience
little or no pain and was cared for during the process (Ormandy and Schuppli 397-9). Ethics in
animal testing have brought the principle of The 3 Rs to attention.
The 3 Rs (Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement) of Russell and Burch (Trnqvist et
al. 1) are based on the ethical treatment of animals. This principle is a way to help the effects of
research on animals by either decreasing the amount of animals researched, finding a more
ethical way of studying animals, or finding another method of testing products. In addition, it
requires that animal pain and distress be minimized (Fenwick, Duffus, and Griffin 495). Some
researchers dislike this principle because they think their research findings involving the use of
animals will be seized, that the 3 Rs cannot be achievable, or that this principle would have a
negative effect on the time and cost of research (Trnqvist et al. 2). And depending on the
research, pain alleviation measures may be in conflict with scientific objectives (Fenwick,
Duffus, and Griffin 495). Regardless, many efforts have been made to use the idea of The 3 Rs.
Reduction
One of the biggest reasons why animal testing is a problem is because of the pain
inflicted on the animal. Pain to the animal can either be caused by the research of pain on

Petersen 3
animals or it can be caused indirectly by researching something else, but then causing pain to the
animal by accident (Fenwick, Duffus, and Griffin 495). Efforts to refine animal testing discussed
by scientists are based on giving animals pain medication to relieve some of the pain they feel.
Many researchers already use drugs such as opioid analgesics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory
drugs (NSAIDs), local and topical anesthetics, as well as general anesthetics during surgery in
their animal research (Fenwick, Duffus, and Griffin 503). This is not an easy task because
animals cannot inform anyone of their pain. According to a study, accuracy in detecting pain
was complicated by a lack of pain indicators and the use of subjective criteria, which may
contribute to under-use of analgesia. (Fenwick, Duffus, and Griffin 495). Even if the animals
were given pain medication, it is possible that the researchers do not give the animal enough
medication. In a survey of non-animal scientists and veterinarians, some participants believed
that animals will feel unavoidable pain during research, while others felt that the pain in animal
research is well managed or that it is so minimal it should not be a concern (Fenwick, Duffus,
and Griffin 498).
Refinement
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. The DNT
believes 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
(Lein, Locke, and Goldberg). 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 (Lein, Locke, and Goldberg). However, there are not a lot of pain relieving

Petersen 4
options for animals like fish because they are too small (Fenwick, Duffus, and Griffin 504). This
is problematic because fish do have the capacity to feel pain, as a recent study shows (Ormandy
and Schuppli 397).
Replacement
Unlike the DNT finding ways to refine animal testing, Europe took action to replace
animal testing with computerized technology. It had banned the testing of animals for cosmetic
purposes a couple of years ago (Mone). Some researchers believe that using animals for testing
can lead to inaccurate results in humans because they are not the same species. 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 (Mone). 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.
From exploring the views of both sides of the issue, it is apparent that animal testing is a
concern and that some ways of research is immoral and unnecessary. There could be other ways
of researching for scientific purposes, but momentarily, the alternative methods that are available
are very limited and they will need to be worked on before they are used. Yet without animal
testing, humans may be greatly affected. There is the possibility that humans will get sick from
the products they use, whether that be medications or cosmetics, if animals are not tested on first.
While this is a valued reason for using animals to test products, I am not an advocate of it.
Animal testing should be used only if there is no other option and that there is no harm done to

Petersen 5
the animal. If the research would benefit the animal, then it would be acceptable. But it is
important to know that animals feel pain just as humans do. This is why the computer-based
model of the human organs could be a great alternative, but this technology still needs to be
developed further.

Petersen 6
Works Cited
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

Petersen 7
Reflection
The main problems in my essay were the organization with The 3Rs, not explaining why
people should care about the issue, and not expressing my own views enough. I listened to the
feedback my peers gave me and I reorganized the introduction of The 3 Rs in the order that they
were listed in the body of the essay. I also stated why people should care about animal testing
and how they might be affected if it were abolished. Then I stated my opinion in a more clear
explanation.
My think thank audience is the Pew Research Center. Surveys were used in most of this
organizations research so I thought it would be a good idea to have something regarding surveys
in my essay. I paraphrased what some of the scientists and veterinarians said about animal testing
in a survey done that was addressed in one of the articles I read.
I did my best to try to meet all of the criteria of the Position Synthesis essay. I let my
audience know what others feel about animal testing in the introduction. In the following
paragraphs, I group my sources together by using quotes from one article to support another. Intext citations are also present in my essay to back up the evidence I use. In my conclusion, I
briefly summarize the ideas and then explain why people should care and what my own view is. I
think I did well overall, but if I had taken advantage of my time more wisely, I would have tried
to find sources that show specific examples of how animal testing can be beneficial and other
examples of where it was just unnecessary.