Russell 1

Eleanor F. Russell

Professor Dunham

English 1201

4 July 2019

Animal Testing

What is animal testing? Is it necessary? What animals are affected? Are there

alternatives? These questions and many more are up for the prominent debate on animal testing.

Although this process has allowed for many breakthroughs, the sacrifices made by the animals

being tested is immense. As a consumer, you should be able to know that the products you are

buying are safe and will not cause any harm. Animal testing is a large part of this process.

Although this is fundamental, it is very displeasing that brands are not advertising that certain

products are being tested for their safety on animals, and the fact that countless animals are being

harmed every day for the single benefit for humans. Animal testing should be further regulated

or ended because although there are many positives to this process, there are many alternatives

and the negatives of improper research and other factors lead to animal testing being

heartbreaking and inhumane.

First, as explained in What is Animal Testing by Cruelty Free international, animal testing

is defined as "...any scientific experiment or test in which a live animal is forced to undergo

something likely to cause them pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm"(“What is Animal

Testing”). Within this article, there is a thorough explanation of the basics of animal testing. One

of these include the animals most affected by these procedures. By scientific standards,

vertebrate animals and some varying invertebrates are considered animals and are regulated

during the process of animal testing. Other animals such as rats and dogs are typically bred into
 Russell 2

animal farms that provide laboratories with the animals that they test. Along with these standard

animals, there exist standard products that typically are tested on animals. As explained in

Animal Testing written by NAVS, toxicity tests are performed on animals. These tests regulate

many everyday products. As said in this article, "Many items purchased and used by consumers

every day, such as household cleaners, cosmetics, drugs, and pesticides, are subjected to

government regulations requiring that they be “safe” for humans, animals and the environment"

(NAVS). In the beginning paragraph of this article, it is explained that these tests use animal

testing to evaluate the safety of household items. Animal testing is everywhere. Producers of

essential items utilize animal testing to assess the safety of the products for humans.

Next, the first issue with animal testing, the morality of experimenting on animals. The

article Animal Testing – Pros & Cons by ProCon.org explains what animal testing is from a

scientific standpoint, and what animal testing is used for. Also, this source explains why animal

testing needs to be ended and what can be done to further improve this process. Within this

article, it is explained how animals are treated before, during, and after the experiments take

place. It explains, "animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced

inhalation, food and water deprivation, 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, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other

means'"(ProCon.org). As explained in the article, these dangers placed on the animals make

many researchers question the validity of testing on animals. To continue, during many of the

experiments done on animals they go through strenuous amounts of pain and suffering for one

purpose, to make the products safe for humans. All of these factors attest to animal testing being

an inhumane and savage way of testing products.

 Russell 3

On the other hand, animal testing has lead to many cures and developments in the

scientific community. Some examples provided by Animal Testing – Pros & Cons by

ProCon.org include polio, breast cancer, brain injuries, and tuberculosis. ProCon.org notes, "The

California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical breakthrough in the

last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals"(ProCon.org). Given the

breakthroughs due to animal testing, many are debating as to whether animal testing should be

stopped altogether, or just strictly regulated. Considering the current regulations, animal testing

will never be fully regulated by the government. Companies use many legal loopholes and

various types of animals to continue to test the safety of their product on animals. By allowing

this behavior to continue, the government guarantees the suffering of animals. All in all,

although this procedure has allowed for many breakthroughs, the sacrifices by animals to too

great to continue with this process.

Another concerning factor with animal testing is the lack of similarity between humans

and animals. Animal Testing – Pros & Cons by ProCon.org notes the positives and negatives of

animal testing and explains the major variations between animals and humans. ProCon.org

observes, "The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make

animals poor models for human beings"(ProCon.org). As observed by the author, many varying

features vary between the two species. This difference may have very dangerous effects on

humans. Due to the varying difference in structures, a drug or product may not affect the animal

that it is being tested on, but the item may have a different outcome in or on the human body. In

another article, Is Animal Testing Necessary to Advance Medical Research?, written by Laurie

Pycroft and Helen Marston, exemplifies the opinion a co-founder of the organization named pro-

test. Within this article, Pycroft explains, “I’d love to hear a proposal for methods to realistically
 Russell 4

replace animal models that‘eliminate the risk of species differences’, but currently none exist,

and developing them is still well within the realm of science fiction”(Pycroft). Although this

author is a supporter of animal testing, she still can consider the differences between human and

animal bodily structures. In Animal Testing – Pros & Cons by ProCon.org, a professor of

evidence-based toxicology at Johns Hopkins University argues against animal testing by stating

that we as humans do not have the simplistic features of animals that are used in testing such as

rats or birds. Also, within the article, another professor of Clinical Neuroimaging at Aston

University, Paul Furlong, continues this standpoint by explaining,”' it's very hard to create an

animal model that even equates closely to what we're trying to achieve in the

human'"(ProCon.org). Through the standpoints of two experienced researchers, it is obvious to

view the bodily structures between humans and animals as very diverse from one another. This

difference between the structures of animals and humans lead to animals being insufficient

subjects for testing products for humans.

Against this background on the differences between humans and animals, certain animal

species are very similar to humans. The primary example of an animal whose bodily systems are

similar to humans is chimpanzees and mice. Animal Testing – Pros & Cons by ProCon.org

explains both the positives and negatives of animal testing and notes some of the similarities

between humans and some animals. As stated in this article, "All mammals, including humans,

are descended from common ancestors, and all have the same set of organs (heart, kidneys,

lungs, etc.) that function in essentially the same way with the help of a bloodstream and central

nervous system"(ProCon.org). These factors allow for animal testing on chimps and mice to

result in similar effects in humans. Although testing on these animals may lead to similarities in

humans, the majority of animals that are affected by testing are not as comparable to humans.
 Russell 5

Two exemplars of animals that are common subjects of animal testing include birds and fish.

Because testing on these animals is not regulated by the government, businesses can freely test.

Due to the lack of restriction these animals are very popular amongst testing. The bodily

structures of these animals vary immensely from humans. Despite the commonalities between

certain species and humans, the majority of animal testing is performed on animals that lack

similarities with humans.

To continue on the alarming concerns with animal testing, various drugs approved by the

FDA are not considered safe when tested on animals. To begin, the FDA is an establishment that

determines if medicine, food, and products are safe for humans. This organization has passed

three main medications that have later lead either to problems in humans or problems when

tested on animals. As explained in FDA-approved drugs that are spermatotoxic in animals and

the utility of animal testing for human risk prediction written by Elizabeth R. Rayburn, Liang

Gao, Jiayi Ding, and Hongxia Ding, many drugs that are approved by the FDA later have

negative impacts on humans and animals. Starting, this article explains a group of drugs that

were independently tested after being approved by the FDA. In the article, it states, "A total of

235 unique, single-ingredient, FDA-approved drugs reported to be spermatotoxic in animals

were identified in the drug labels. Forty-nine of these had documented negative effects on

humans in either the drug label or literature, while 31 had no effect or a positive impact on

human sperm. For the other 155 drugs that were spermatotoxic in animals, no human data was

available"(Rayburn 192). Spermatotoxic is defined as having a destructive or toxic effect on

sperm. Within this research, the authors continue to support the claim that the current models of

testing these drugs (animal testing) are not similar to the human body. The article explains, "The
 Russell 6

current animal models are not very effective for predicting human spermatotoxicity, and there is

limited information available about the impact of many drugs on human spermatozoa"(Rayburn

209). The article can expand on another drawback of animal testing. Considering this research,

animal testing has many underlying effects on animals and humans, that is overlooked by the

government. In another article, titled Animal Testing – Pros & Cons, written by ProCon.org,

more FDA approved drugs show the true colors. To support this claim against animal testing, the

author explains, "The 1950s sleeping pill thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born

with severe deformities, was tested on animals before its commercial release. Later tests on

pregnant mice, rats, guinea pigs, cats, and hamsters did not result in birth defects unless the drug

was administered at extremely high doses"(ProCon.org). Although this drug is from the 1950s, it

attests to the lengthy history of animal testing and how little has truly been learned through this

process. Another drug approved by the FDA, but had negative effects on humans is explained

within this article. ProCon.org observes, "Animal tests on the arthritis drug Vioxx showed that it

had a protective effect on the hearts of mice, yet the drug went on to cause more than 27,000

heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market"(ProCon.org). In a

more current study, this drug had led to fatal injuries after being approved with positive

outcomes in animals. Again, this attests to the lack of similarities between the human body and

the bodies of the animals being tested on. Across the board, animal testing has led to many false

positives within the medical field.

One consistent perk of continuing to test on animals is the lack of ethical question. The

best alternative to testing on animals for humans safety is to experiment on human subjects. This

leads to a large question of the ethical backing of this process. As stated in Animal Testing –

Pros & Cons written by ProCon.org, "It would be unethical to perform invasive experimental
 Russell 7

procedures on human beings before the methods have been tested on animals, and some

experiments involve genetic manipulation that would be unacceptable to impose on human

subjects before animal testing" (ProCon.org). To test the safety of products and medications for

humans, there needs to be a proceeding test. Later in the article written by ProCon.org, it says,

"The World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki states that human trials should be

preceded by tests on animals"(ProCon.org). This organization questioned the ethical standpoint

of testing products and the safety of subjects in experiments. Although it is unethical to test on

humans, there is an underlying concern of animal rights. Many opposers of animal testing

question why it is ethical to test on animals but not humans. In the New York Times article titled,

When Is Animal Testing Justified?, written by Micheal Gonchar, testing on chimpanzees is

viewed from both sides of the article. Gonchar states that after animal testing is ended"Efforts to

develop and deploy vaccines against Ebola and other infectious diseases ravaging these animals

could grind to a halt"(Gonchar 11). Although this concern is very impressionable, many

scientists are working towards ingestible vaccines for all animals whether they are tested or not.

Again, this method questions the ethical factor of continuing or ending animal testing. Therefore,

animal testing brings major questions to the morality of animal testing.

Considering the ethical question of animal testing, many well-researched alternatives

may lead to a termination of this process. To preface the alternatives to animal testing, Animal

Testing by NAVS describes various reasons to turn to alternatives. In the article, NAVS adds,

"Animal testing is not always predictive of human health effects. The best tests for human

toxicity would be conducted using humans, which is unethical... The animal testing methods are

slow and expensive, and safety testing using existing methods cannot keep up with the
 Russell 8

demand...New test methods may not be cheaper initially but should be less expensive over the

long term"(NAVS). As explained in this article, the two main factors that impact animal testing

are cost and efficiency. When testing on animals first became prominent, this was the best

method to test the safety of products. Now, these tests have lost their efficiency factor which will

eventually lead to the downfall of this process. The new alternatives may increase the cost, but

will overall be superior to testing on animals. One heavily developed substitute for this process is

described in Alternatives to Animal Testing in Basic and Preclinical Research of Atopic

Dermatitis written by Anna Löwa, Marijana Jevtić, Frida Gorreja, and Sarah Hentrich. This

replacement is a skin model that contains many similarities to human skin. To test this skin

disease, the scientist needed to make a model similar to the skin on the human body. One

example is when looking at figure one, human skin contains 16-18 epidermal layers whereas the

model contains 10-15. This is very comparable to human skin comparing the human with the

rat's skin. Considering the 16-18 layers, rat skin only contains 2-5 layers. This is significantly

smaller than the number of epidermal layers on the human body. This further proves the

efficiency and clarity of the alternatives to animal testing.

Animal testing, the infamous topic debated from many angles. First, there is the question

of the morality of testing on animals. The conditions of the subjects in these experiments are

sadistic and alarming. Next, the developments that animal testing has allowed. The unregulated

experimentation by scientists has led to many cures but at the expense of the animals involved.

Uniquely, the distinct differences between the human body and animals bodies. After

considerable research, many researchers can conclude that current animal models are very

contrasting to the true function of the human body. Additionally, many scientists are

experimenting with non-animal substitutes to testing on animals. Alternatively, some, more

 Russell 9

regulated animals, are similar to the human body, but due to strict rules, many companies do not

use these animals to experiment. Animal testing should be further regulated or ended because

although there are many positives to this process, there are many alternatives and the negatives

of improper research and more lead to animal testing being brutal and vicious.

These images further justify two main points on animal testing. The first image is a chart

which shows the various animals affected by animal testing. Also, in this image, it explains what

medicines are tested on these animals. The second image is a poll on if animals should be used in

medical testing. This poll takes place in the UK. Based on the second image, it is clear that the
 Russell 10

majority of people do not support animal testing and that animals testing is most popularly

supported when no other alternatives are accessible.

Works Cited

“Animal Testing - Pros & Cons.” ProCon.org, 9 May 2019, animal-testing.procon.org/.

“Animal Testing.” National Anti-Vivisection Society, www.navs.org/what-we-do/keep-you-

informed/science-corner/areas-of-science-that-use-animals/animals-in-

testing/#.XQ6vtC-ZPfY.

Gonchar, Michael. “When Is Animal Testing Justified?” The New York Times, The New

York Times, 20 Nov. 2015, learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/when-is-animal-

testing-justified/.

Löwa, Anna, et al. “Alternatives to Animal Testing in Basic and Preclinical Research of

Atopic Dermatitis - Löwa - 2018 - Experimental Dermatology - Wiley Online

Library.” Experimental Dermatology, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (10.1111), 19 Feb.

2018, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/exd.13498.
 Russell 11

Naturewatch Foundation. Should Animals Be Used in Medical Research in the UK?

Pyroft, Laurie, and Helen Marston. “Is Animal Testing Necessary to Advance Medical

Research?” Sinclair College Off-Campus Authentication Form, 2011,

https://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=115c4209-32c1-417b-897d-

fe743b6f8e07%40sdc-v-

sessmgr02&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=62091081&db=f5h.

Rayburn, Elizabeth R., et al, editors. “Figure 3—Source Data 1. Source Data for Plots in

Panels 3a, 3b, 3d, 3e, 3f.” FDA-Approved Drugs That Are Spermatotoxic in Animals

and the Utility of Animal Testing for Human Risk Prediction, vol. 35, no. 2, Feb.

2018, pp. 191–212., doi:10.7554/elife.26414.009.

SCIFC. Animals Used in the Process of Medical Development.

“What Is Animal Testing?” Cruelty Free International,

www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/why-we-do-it/what-animal-testing.