Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Animal testing. After reading those words an opinion immediately develops in your brain
revolving around past knowledge of the subject. Most people already have a developed opinion
revolving around animal testing. People can see it as a positive, something that is going to
advance the medical field and go to develop new cures for many different diseases. Others see it
as a negative, something that is harming millions of different animals worldwide and providing
no new benefits towards advancing the medical field. This paper explores both sides of animal
testing, the positives and the negatives. This paper dives into the anatomical differences in both
humans and animals which has led to the many mishaps with developing medicine through
animal testing, the cruel and inhumane methods used, the alternative methods, and animal
testings astonishing accomplishments over the years. Overall this paper strives to expose the
reader to a new side of this issue and to hopefully get the reader to reconsider the opinion that
Animal testing is not a new phenomenon, it has been around for years. Descriptions of
the dissection of animals have been found in ancient Greek writings from as early as 500 BC.
in order to discover the functions of living organisms.Through these early experiments, there
were many new discoveries about how the human body functions. For example, Roman
physician and philosopher Galen (130-200 AD), demonstrated that arteries, which were believed
Reading 3
by earlier physicians to contain air, actually contained blood. Also, English Physician William
Harvey (1578-1657) discovered that the heart, and not the lungs, circulated blood throughout the
Animal testing was only seen as a positive because people believed that animals could
not feel or think. This all changed in the 19th century with the increased amount of domestic
animals. This was the moment when two opinions develop revolving animal testing, the people
against it and the people for it. This lead to some early advancements in restricting the amount of
animal testing being used such as the Great Britain’s Cruelty to Animals Act of 1876. Today,
animal testing is still prevalent in society, but the fight against it is just as strong. The
development of new regulations and groups such as PETA work to restrict and regulate the many
aspects of animal testing. However, an estimated 26 million animals are still used every year in
the United States for scientific and commercial testing. The animals are used to develop medical
treatments, determine the toxicity of medications, check the safety of products destined for
human use, and other biomedical, commercial, and health care uses.
One of the flaws to animal testing is that drugs that have been tested on animals are not
necessarily safe for human use due to anatomical differences. Many different species of animals
are used for testing in order to determine the safety and effectiveness of many medicines and
chemicals. Some of these animals do have similar anatomical structure to humans, but none of
these animals have the exact same structure. We share approximately 99% of our DNA with
mice. Researchers can use mice to see what effects specific genes can have on human bodies.
They are able to do this by “turning off” specific genes in a mouse and looking at what effects
turning them on and off would have on the body. (“The animal model: Biological”). The amount
Reading 4
of DNA that we do share with certain species of animals is very high and does go to show that
there are many similarities in the anatomical structure between animals and humans. However,
the differences in anatomical structure is of more concern when trying to translate the results and
effects given by testing medicine on animal into how human bodies may react.
Many researchers have been studying the similarities between mice and humans in order
to see if mice are an accurate enough model to test for human diseases. They found that gene
regulation and other systems important to mammalian biology have many similarities between
mice and humans. However there are some small differences in many DNA variations and gene
expression patterns. For example, the regulatory elements and activity of many genes of the
immune system, metabolic processes, and stress response vary between mice and humans.
(“Comparing the mouse and human genomes.”). Another specific difference between mice and
humans anatomical structure is the pancreas of both mice and humans differ greatly. The human
pancreas consists of the head, the body, and the tail. While the mouse pancreas has 3 lobes that
are less well defined: the duodenal, the gastric, and the splenic lobe which are not present in the
human pancreas. When looking at a microscope it is easy to identify that humans have larger
lobules than the mouse. (Dolenšek, Slak Rupnik, Stožer, (“ Structural similarities and
differences”). These small differences can make a big impact when trying to produce medicine
and chemicals to the public because if there is a difference in how certain parts of the body
functions then there is a potential that there will be a difference in how the body will react.
It is also important to consider that mice are not the only animals that important medicine
is tested on. Animals such as monkeys, birds, rabbits, and guinea pigs are also being used in
these testings. These animals also share a large amount of DNA with humans, but have their own
Reading 5
anatomical differences with humans that can pose issues when testing. There have been many
instances where a drug or a chemical was tested on animals and the results given were not the
results that occured in humans. This can be dangerous because a drug that is given out could
potentially be harmful for humans without anyone knowing because it wasn't harmful for the
animals that it was tested on. Events like this have occured in the past with the result being long
lasting effects on the humans who took the medicine or was exposed to the chemical.
Thalidomide was a drug released in the early 1960s and was a mild sleeping pill that was
advertised as being safe enough for pregnant women to use. However, thalidomide caused an
estimated 10,000 birth defects most commonly known as phocomelia (the failure of the limbs to
develop). This drug was released to the public because it was tested in animals and did not result
in birth defects and death unless given at very high quantities. (“The Tragedy of Thalidomide,”)
Many people are still affected by the release of thalidomide in the 1960s. This goes to show how
animal testing can not be as reliable because there are anatomical differences that will affect the
outcome of how different medicines and chemicals affect the body. This tragedy occured
because there was a anatomical difference between humans and the animals being tested which
differences between humans and animals is with Vioxx. Vioxx was an arthritis drug that went to
cause 27,000 heart attacks and various cardiac deaths. This drug was released in the first place
because when it was tested on mice, it was deemed effective in reducing arthritis pain. However
in this case the results from the animal testing did not translate to humans and caused many
deaths and injuries. (“Should Animals be used,”). There have been many more examples, with
Reading 6
the outcomes not being as tragic, of anatomical differences causing difference results in humans
than in animals. This raises the question if animal testing is a reliable source to determine if
Animal testing involves many cruel and inhumane methods that lead to dangerous health
effects to a variety of animals. “Cruel and inhumane” methods can be defined as any method that
goes to harm the animal when there are other options to limit pain inflicted upon it. One example
of one of these methods is the Draize eye test. The Draize eye test is mainly used by cosmetics
companies who want to test certain cosmetic ingredients. This method involves clipping rabbits
eyelids open, for many days. The technician drops the product in their eyes and the clips prevents
the rabbit from blinking away the product. (“Should animals be used for scientific,”). This can
cause pain and discomfort to the animal all for the testing of cosmetics. Another example of a
cruel testing method is exemplified while testing the effects of toxoplasmosis on kittens. The
kittens are used for research in toxoplasmosis, a parasitic illness that mainly affects unborn
babies and people with weak immune systems. The kittens are fed infected meat in order to test
the parasites eggs. The cats are usually killed after research because they are deemed as unsafe
While, there are laws and agencies in place for protecting animals, but there is little
regulation of these laws which allow for cruel animal testing to still occur. The Animal Welfare
Act which excludes some 95 percent of the animals that are commonly tested on, such as rats,
mice, birds, fish, and reptiles. The law however only provides minimal protections for the rest
(“Federal Law and Agencies,”). This is one issue for animals because there are laws in place to
protect them from cruel and inhumane methods, but the most tested on animal, mice, does not
Reading 7
get these protections. As well as not providing protection, the Animal Welfare Act has obvious
loopholes which allows for any procedure or protocol to be allowed as long as the researcher can
state a “scientific need” for using animals in that manner to advance human health. For example,
the AWA requires that researchers provide pain-relieving medication to the tested animals in
order to minimize the pain or distress from the conducted experiment. However, the pain
Regulations.”). These loopholes make it hard for animals to get the protections that are applied in
the laws. Also agencies are very similar to the laws that are set in place currently. Protection
agencies are supposed to protect the animals being used regularly and make sure that cruel
methods don’t occur. One agency that has some of the most issues is the United States
Department of Agriculture. This is the federal agency that oversees and inspects laboratories that
experiment on animals and locations who breed and sell animals for use in laboratories. From the
description of the agency, it seems like it would be successful in providing protection, but the
issue is there are only 115 USDA inspectors to oversee more than 7,750 licensed facilities. This
makes adequate inspection and regulation of these facilities close to impossible. Also when the
USDA does finds facilities that are not following AWA regulations, they will issue penalties
which are typically very small. This allows for facilities to keep breaking the AWA regulations
There are many other alternative methods of testing drugs and chemicals that don't
involve animals which have proven to be just as accurate. Traditional animal testing methods
have been accurate for most of the time, but as discussed previously, these methods have been
shown to not be as accurate because of anatomical differences. These new alternative methods
Reading 8
are proven to be just as accurate as the traditional methods, but eliminates the use of animals.
These testing options are a better choice because they are less expensive to perform as well as
One example of a alternative testing method is in-vitro testing. A test performed in vitro
(latin: "in the glass") means that it is done outside of a living organism and it usually involves
isolated tissues, organs or cells.You can use in vitro data to fully or partly fulfil information
requirements that would otherwise need data to be generated with tests on living organisms
(ECHA, In vitro methods). In-vitro testing is also known as organs-on-chips. The chips contain
human cells that are grown to mimic the structure and function of human organs and organ
systems. The chips can be used to replicate human physiology, diseases, and response to drugs.
(“Alternatives to animal testing.”). This type of testing is starting to be used more as the various
Another method that is becoming more popular as its benefits are being discovered is
computer modeling. Computer modeling is a computer that is able to simulate human biology
and developing diseases. Studies have shown that these computer models can predict how the
drug will work in the body and what the reaction will be. Also it is shown that this testing
method can replace testing on animals and standard drug tests. (“Alternatives to animal
testing.”). By implementing computer modeling in the place of animal testing, scientists are able
to see how the drug would react on a human body. Therefore this can be a more accurate form of
measurement because it is not looking at an animals organ system which can have some
anatomical differences to the human body system. Another positive thing about computer
modeling is this approach could also be applied to many more chemicals than animal testing this
Reading 9
can lead to wider safety assessments. Due to costs and ethical challenges only a small fraction of
the roughly 100,000 chemicals in consumer products have been comprehensively tested. While
with computer modeling, a wider range of chemicals can be safely tested, this would overall
branch out our knowledge about different types of chemicals and their effects on humans.
Along with computer modeling and in-vitro testing there is another method that avoids
animal testing, but it proven to be just as accurate. This method is human-patient simulators. The
human-patient simulators are able to breathe, talk, bleed, and even simulate death. These
simulators can be used to mimic developing diseases and injuries. The simulator is also able to
give appropriate biological responses to the diseases and injuries and can respond to the
medication given. (“Alternatives to animal testing.”). This simulator would change chemical and
medicine testing completely. This testing does not involve animals, but is able to supply
scientists with a direct look into how a chemical, disease, injury, or new medicine will affect the
body. Human-patient simulators are even starting to be used, PETA and medical doctors from
Northwestern University School of Medicine and Harvard Medical School met with senior
federal government officials and did a demonstration at the MedStar Health Simulation Training
& Education Lab (SiTEL) in Baltimore, MD, about the benefits of replacing animal use in
trauma training with advanced human patient simulators, including a demo of two prototypes,
However it is important to notice that animal testing has been and important factor to
how these alternative methods have been developed. Animal testing has provided us with enough
Reading 10
knowledge about chemical and medicine reactions that we were able to use that information to
Despite having many downsides, such as inhumane methods and inaccuracy due to
anatomical differences, animal testing has changed the development of medicine for the better.
Over the years, animal testing has allowed for new discoveries in medicine, chemicals, and
cosmetics that have led us to all the knowledge that we now know about the human body and
toxicity. Without animal testing, the development of antibiotics, vaccines, blood transfusions,
dialysis, organ transplants, chemotherapy, bypass surgery or joint replacement would have taken
a lot longer to be used in the medical field. Everyone has benefitted from animal testing and
research. In fact, practically every drug, treatment, medical device, diagnostic tool or cure used
today was developed with the help of lab animals (“How Animal Testing and Research”). This
means that animal testing has really gone above and beyond to advance the medical field despite
the negative thoughts about it. However animal testing is still doing its job and is currently
working to prevent diseases and develop vaccines. Many diseases that once killed millions of
people every year are now either preventable, treatable or have been eradicated altogether.
Immunizations against polio, diphtheria, mumps, rubella and hepatitis save countless lives and
the survival rates for many major diseases are at an all-time high thanks to the discovery of new
drugs and the design of sophisticated medical devices and surgical procedures. In the coming
years, a universal influenza vaccine may be a reality, as well as a vaccine to end the HIV/AIDS
Research with cows helped create the world’s first vaccine, which in turn helped end
smallpox. Studies with monkeys, dogs, and mice led to the polio vaccine. Drugs used to combat
Reading 11
cancer, HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer’s, hepatitis, and malaria would not have been possible without
research with primates (“How Animal Testing and Research”). One specific example of how
Inhalers, both reliever and preventer, were developed through research on guinea pigs and frogs.
One in ten children currently receive treatment for asthma. This was an amazing discovery and
would not have been made possible without the use of animal testing. (“Animal Research
Benefits Us and Animals,”). Another example is animal testings work in diabetes, The treatment
of diabetes with insulin has been studied using dogs and rabbits. Insulin research has lead to
helping many animals and people with diabetes. (“Animal Research Benefits Us and Animals,”).
Also the incredible work with animals led scientists to discover organ transplants which has gone
to save millions of lives. Organ transplants were developed through the testing of animals.
Specifically, heart and kidney transplant techniques and vital anti-rejection medication were
developed using experiments on animals. This development has helped the lives of so many
people. In 2009-2010, 3,700 people received major organ transplants (“Animal Research
Overall the goal of this paper was to get the reader to see both sides of the issue and
reevaluate what they first think when discussing animal testing. However, after reading the paper
the reader should have identified that animal testing is a complicated issue to develop an opinion
on because of the many different positive and negative aspects. Everyone has benefitted from
animal testing and research, it has gone to provide vaccines, knowledge about the human body,
knowledge about toxicity, and much more. However there is still a negative stigma around it due
to inhumane methods being used and the lack of accuracy. This makes it very difficult to choose
Reading 12
an opinion that reflects either supporting or opposing animal testing. Nevertheless, the increase
of new knowledge gained about both sides of the dilemma can be used to help spread to the
public that animal testing is not a one sided issue. It is an issue with both pros and cons, with
both downsides and upsides, with both positives and negatives, overall an issue with many sides.
Reading 13
Works Cited
Akhtar, A. A. (2015, October 24). The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation.
Alternatives to Animal Testing. (n.d.). Retrieved January 19, 2019, from PETA website:
https://www.peta.org
The animal model: Biological similarity of humans and other animals. (n.d.). Retrieved January
Animal research benefits us and animals too. (n.d.). Retrieved December 12, 2018, from
Animals in science. (n.d.). Retrieved January 18, 2019, from aavs.org website: http://aavs.org
Animal testing and research achievements. (n.d.). Retrieved January 19, 2019, from Foundation
Animal testing: US senate bill seeks an end to kitten research deaths. (2018, December 20).
Barnard, N. (2007, March). Animal testing? Vegetarian Times, (348). Retrieved from Howard
Butterly, A. (2017, June 29). Nars makeup boycotted, after cosmetics tested on animals in china.
Comparing the mouse and human genomes. (n.d.). Retrieved January 28, 2019, from National
Dolenšek,, J., Slak Rupnik, M., & Stožer, A. (n.d.). Structural similarities and differences
between the human and the mouse pancreas. Retrieved January 18, 2019, from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4589993/
Economist Newspaper. (2018, August 4). Hazchem or not? Retrieved September 24, 2018, from
http://sks.sirs.com
Failure of animal models. (n.d.). Retrieved December 12, 2018, from NAVS website:
https://www.navs.org
Hajar, R. (2011). Animal testing and medicine. History of Medicine, 12( 1), 42.
https://doi.org/10.4103/1995-705X.81548
Kaufman, S. K. (1989). Problems with the draize test. In S. R. Kaufman & B. Todd (Eds.),
Lombardo, C. (n.d.). 14 pros and cons of animal testing. Retrieved January 18, 2019, from
https://vittana.org
Neavs. (n.d.). Laws and regulations. Retrieved September 24, 2018, from https://www.neavs.org
Passini, E., Rodriguez, B., & Benito, P. (2018, March 27). Should computer simulators replace
animal testing for heart drugs. Retrieved January 29, 2019, from
https://www.scientificamerican.com
PETA. (n.d.). Animal testing 101. Retrieved September 21, 2018, from https://www.peta.org
Peter, L. (2015, June 4). EU rejects bid to ban animal testing in european labs. Retrieved January
25(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/ejop.12237
Ram, R. (2015, April). Examples of drugs which have failed after being considered successful in
animal tests [Fact sheet]. Retrieved December 12, 2018, from Lush Prize website:
https://lushprize.org
Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? (n.d.). Retrieved September 21,
Simmonds, R. C. (2018). Management of animal care and use programs in research, education,
and testing. 2nd edition. (2nd ed., Vol. 4). Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK500418/
humanesociety.org
The tragedy of thalidomide and the failure of animal testing. (n.d.). Retrieved November 14,
27 animal experimentation statistics and facts. (2017, May 30). Retrieved January 19, 2019, from
https://brandongaille.com
UK animal experiments fall by 5%- annual figures. (2107, July 13). Retrieved January 2, 2019,
US statistics. (2018, June 4). Retrieved October 12, 2018, from Speaking of Research website:
https://speakingofresearch.com/facts/statistics/
Reading 16