1

The Harms of Animal Testing

Alexis Cox

Baker College
 2

The Harms of Animal Testing

Among the world, there is a large conflict on the subject of animal testing. Animal testing

consists of scientists and researchers using animals to conduct experiments that may cause severe

damage to an animal’s physical health. Many people who have pets of their own believe animals

should not be put through something so inhumane while others, such as scientists, believe animal

experimentation is vital to finding cures for deadly diseases. Companies may decide that animal

testing is necessary to assure the safety of a product or ingredient. In 2009, Partners in Research

(PIR), a national charity to educate the public about the history and accomplishments of health

research, wrote an article called, “Animal Experimentation Is Necessary to Ensure Product

Safety”. The article focuses on the necessity for animal testing in order to accomplish the

treatment and cure of disease in humans. The PIR charity argues that human biology is too

complicated to disregard animal experimentation. They also argue that the only way to continue

to receive beneficial and harmless treatment is through animal testing, to ensure the safety of

products. While the PIR charity argues that “the complexity of human biology makes it

impossible at present to eliminate animal testing” (Partners in Research [PIR], 2009, para. 1),

animal experimentation is inhumane and should not be conducted on any animal.

One of the first claims made by the PIR is that “the scientific community has been

successful in reducing the number of animals used in safety testing, as well as in refining test

methods to reduce any pain or distress these animals may experience” (PIR, 2009, para. 8).

Many might think this is a large step in health research, but it is simply not the truth. In fact,

more and more animals are used on a daily basis as test subjects and some are restricted from

movement and inflicted with pain by scientists and researchers. According to People for the

Ethical Treatment of Animals (2020), “Each year, more than 100 million animals—including
 3

mice, rats, frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, monkeys, fish, and birds—are killed

in U.S. laboratories for biology lessons, medical training, curiosity-driven experimentation, and

chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics testing” (para. 1). Millions of animals continue to be killed

for research and the numbers do not seem to be dropping. Instead, these numbers are

continuously rising around the world as more helpless animals are used for experimental

purposes. The PIR charity never gives way to the actual statistics behind the number of animals

that are used as test subjects every year. Along with rising numbers of animals used as

experiments, animals also typically experience a large amount of pain or distress before their

death. “Some are forced to inhale toxic fumes, others are immobilized in restraint devices for

hours, some have holes drilled into their skulls, and others have their skin burned off or their

spinal cords crushed” (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 2020, para. 1). Animals that

are used for experiments are often deprived of everything that is natural to them. They may be

locked in cages and strapped to experiment tables. Animals experience an array of torture when

used as test subjects which creates concern from society. Animals should not be used as

experiments due to the inhumane torture that they experience throughout testing.

Contrary to PIR’s claims, verifying the safety of products does not need to be tested

through the use of animals. Animals have been the primary source of use for scientists when it

comes to new research but have not actually been proven the most effective way to test new

products and drugs. The article argues that other forms of testing are inaccurate and that they

cannot reveal the effects of a substance on a complex living organism and that “in the end, the

validity of such tests must be verified by testing on an appropriate intact living organism” (PIR,

2009, para. 11). While the charity argues that animals are needed in order to verify products,

some scientists and researchers have proven them wrong. Certain scientists argue that there are
 4

too many errors that arise from using animals as test subjects and that they do not provide an

accurate representation of how human bodies will react. “The high clinical failure rate in drug

development across all disease categories is based, at least in part, on the inability to adequately

model human diseases in animals and the poor predictability of animal models” (Akhtar, 2015, p.

410). Akhtar argues that animals are unable to provide scientists with accurate information on

how humans will react to medications. This is because animals may not experience the same

effects that humans do when containing a disease. When researchers inject a modified version of

human disease into an animal, it could potentially create a completely different reaction among

the animal versus the human. Therefore, animals cannot be used for an accurate representation of

human bodies and human biology and cannot test the safety of products for humans.

The PIR charity feels that there are no new methods that can replace animal testing. They

add a statement in the article from the HPB [Health Protection Branch of Health Canada] stating

that “new methods can never totally replace testing in an appropriate animal model” (PIR, 2009,

para. 13). The charity tries to inform the audience that animal testing is the only way to continue

to have successful verified products. They also believe that animal testing will never be replaced

because they are living, complex organisms and we cannot test on humans. Animal testing is not

as efficient as the PIR charity makes it sound. According to the Humane Society International

(2012), “animal tests are time- and resource-intensive, restrictive in the number of substances

that can be tested, provide little understanding of how chemicals behave in the body, and in

many cases do not correctly predict real-world human reactions” (para. 5). Testing on animals is

not as effective as scientists say. These tests are time intensive and use a large amount of

resources, creating a large sum of money being used. Not only are these tests expensive, they are

also being looked at for being unreliable. Health scientists have recently been questioning the
 5

relevance of research aimed at “modeling” human diseases in the laboratory by artificially

creating the disease and symptoms in animals. Trying to mirror these specific diseases and

symptoms is not effective and has several limitations that cannot be overcome. It has been found

that often times, the symptoms and responses for potential treatments vary drastically between

humans and animal species. Therefore, animal testing does not correctly predict human reactions

to a potential treatment or product. While the PIR continues on in the article about no other

options besides animal testing, the Human Society of The United States proves them wrong.

They state that “modern methods combine human cell-based tests and sophisticated computer

models to deliver human-relevant results at less cost and in less time than animal tests” (Humane

Society of The United States, 2020, para. 2). This information could help society and scientists

open up to new ideas and research. With more knowledge on the subject of product and drug

testing, there could be more and more methods developed over time that will eliminate animal

testing completely. It is important to eliminate animal experimentation because of the millions of

tortured animals that are killed each year.

Opposing the PIR charity’s claims in their article, “Animal Experimentation is Necessary

to Ensure Product Safety”, animal testing should not be conducted because it is inhumane and

new research should focus on alternative options to save animals lives. Articles like PIR’s will

give people the wrong information and make them believe that there is no other way to protect

the lives of humans and ensure product safety. However, product safety can be accomplished in a

significant amount of ways that some scientists are strongly focused on to ensure that animals

will no longer be used for testing. All it takes in society is more education and knowledge on the

subject of animal testing and new alternatives. In order to stop the killing of millions of animals

every year, society and researchers need to overcome and accept change in scientific methods.
 6

References

Akhtar, A. (2015). The flaws & human harms of animal experimentation. Cambridge Quarterly

of Healthcare Ethics, 24, 407-419. Retrieved from <ProQuest>.

Humane Society International. (2012). About animal testing. Retrieved from

<https://www.hsi.org/news-media/about/>.

Partners in Research. (2009). Animal experimentation is necessary to ensure product safety.

Retrieved from <Gale>.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. (2020). Experiments on animals: Overview.

Retrieved from < https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-

used-experimentation-factsheets/animal-experiments-overview/>.

The Humane Society of The United States. (2020). Ending cosmetics animal testing. Retrieved

from < https://www.humanesociety.org/all-our-fights/ending-cosmetics-animal-testing>.