Damilig, Marvin E.

Written Work #2: Writing a Position Paper

De Jesus, Jesner December 8, 2021
Javier, Giana T.

12 STEM G - St. Gertrude

"Put the 'kind' back in 'mankind': End Animal Testing Now.”

Did you know that the cosmetics you are using are most likely tested on animals first before being
sold to the market? Using animals as test subjects in laboratory experiments still raises several
controversies over the past decades (Hajar, 2011). Animal testing refers to the procedures conducted on
living creatures for biomedical research and product-safety testing of what we consume or utilize daily, such
as medicines, food additives, cosmetics, and household cleaners (Humane Society International, 2012).
The Philippines is among the 41 countries that ban animal testing. But unfortunately, some of the largest
countries are still conducting animal testing, such as China, Japan, the United States, Canada, Brazil,
Germany, and France (Cruelty-Free International, n.d.). According to the statistics presented by PETA, an
estimate of 110 million animals are used as test subjects worldwide in laboratories annually. Common
animals used in laboratory experiments include various mammals, amphibians, birds, and fishes (Humane
Society International, 2012). These animals undergo physical and psychological torture that can cause
suffering and distress since they are deprived of their natural habitat. Some are poisoned with toxic fumes,
crippled, having their spinal cords crushed, have their skulls drilled, and even burn their skin off. In addition,
they are socially isolated in cages and psychologically traumatized (PETA, n.d.). People have different
perspectives on animals. Some consider them companions, while others treat them like disposable
laboratory equipment used in medical advancements and experimental research (Lonestar College, n.d.).
Regardless of how individuals perceive animals, the reality remains that experimental research facilities
worldwide are exploiting animals. Animals should not be used as test subjects in product-safety testing and
biomedical experiments because it violates their rights, causes them sufferings that outweigh the potential
benefits to humans, and is entirely unnecessary with the presence of more humane alternatives.

On the contrary, several people believe that animal testing and research are beneficial to humanity
and have always played a vital role in developing significant medical advances. It has helped humankind
create life-changing discoveries and innovations such as vaccines, anesthetics, transplant procedures, and
blood transfusions. As a result of these biomedical experiments, millions of lives have been saved and
improved (Balkwill, 2011). Total elimination of animal testing will significantly set back the development of
essential medical devices, medicines, and treatments (Hajar, 2011). In contrast, animal experiments only
benefit humans if their results are valid and safe for humans to use. Studies show that 92 percent of
experimental drugs said to be safe and effective in animals fail in human clinical trials because they are too
dangerous for humans to utilize (Overton, 2006). Akhtar (2015) stated that the lack of compatibility between
human illness and animal models is another factor that affects the products' efficacy and reliability.
Therefore, animal experiments do not significantly benefit humans. Even if an animal experiment's design
and execution are excellent and standardized, the results' translation in clinical trials may fail due to
differences between the experimental animal model and the human state.
 Animal testing is unethical because it violates animals’ rights. The Humane League (2020) defined
animal rights as moral principles grounded in the belief that animals deserve the ability to live as they wish,
without being subjected to the desires of human beings. Animals have inherent legal and moral rights to
respectful treatments, just as humans do. However, when animals are seen as test subjects and treated
like disposable laboratory equipment, their rights are not valued and respected (Orlans, 1993). Animals do
not have the chance to choose between options; that is why humans assume and make decisions for these
animals since they cannot verbalize their feelings and choices. Regan (2004) said that "animal
experimentation is morally wrong no matter how much humans may benefit because the animal's basic
right has been infringed." According to Fernandes and Pedroso (2017), we must consider the cost-benefit
ratio of this type of scientific study since animals are sentient beings and should not be used unnecessarily.
It's time to stop harming helpless animals and wasting healthcare funds; humans should instead focus on
saving lives by embracing proven technologies (Overton, 2006). Animals do not voluntarily sacrifice their
lives to innovate medicines and advance humanity. "When humans decide the fate of animals in research
environments, the animals' rights are taken away without any thought of their well-being or the quality of
their lives" (Lonestar College, n.d.). Therefore, scientists must conduct possible alternative methods and be
held accountable for watching over the welfare of these laboratory animals.

Next, the effects of animal testing are damaging to the lives of animals since the physical and
psychological suffering that they experience outweighs the possible benefits of animal testing to humanity.
Animals process and feel pain in the same ways as humans do. The only difference is people can express
their sufferings, but animals sometimes have a more challenging time doing that. According to Marc Bekoff,
an evolutionary biologist, mammals experience pain because we all share similar neurochemicals later
translated into perceptions and emotions by the nervous system. Scientists have developed grimace scales
to observe the indicators of pain displayed by animals. Unlike mammals, facial expressions can't indicate
pain in amphibians, reptiles, and fishes, but that doesn't mean they don't hurt; they use their neuroanatomy
instead to perceive pain (Langley, 2016). Animals undergo physical and psychological sufferings and
deadly experiments in laboratories, one of which is the Draize test that can lead to scarring, blindness, and
even death. In addition, animals also suffer from paralysis, convulsions, and internal bleeding. According to
Orlans (1993), the worst part is that dying animals are not subjected to euthanasia, further prolonging their
misery. Existing benefits can't be used to defend all forms of experimentation since some forms of suffering
are probably impossible to justify, even if the benefits are valuable to humanity (BBC UK, n.d.).

Lastly, animal testing is entirely unnecessary since reliable and effective alternatives are available.
The 3Rs campaign was developed by doctors Rex Burch and William Russell to avoid unethical procedures
in laboratories and overcome some of the disadvantages of animal experiments. The 3Rs stand for
reduction, refinement, and replacement; this concept is considered an effective and responsible strategy in
animal testing. Reduction is defined as the methods practiced to decrease the number of animals used per
experiment. Kimber et al. (2001) stated that choosing the correct study design and statistical support can
produce meaningful scientific results and minimize further animal testing. Doke and Dhawale (2013) also
said that sharing discovered data in drug tests avoids the necessity of more animal studies. Replacement
pertains to the approaches or technologies that incorporate non-animal methods in experiments. Balls
(2002) mentioned various alternatives, including cell cultures, in vitro models, computer models, and
imaging techniques. Refinement refers to methods that reduce pain, distress, suffering, or lasting harm that
research animals experience. Barley (2005) said that an obvious way to improve animal welfare is to
provide an environment that meets the animals' specific needs. Doke and Dhawale (2013) stated that
refining the animal facility and enriching the cage environment would decrease stress and discomfort that
may cause an imbalance in animals' hormone levels, leading to inaccurate results. Thus, employing the
3Rs enhances not only the quality of science but also the life of every animal used in research.

In conclusion, findings from credible research articles support the fact that animal testing violates
animal rights, causes them sufferings that outweigh the potential benefits to humans, and is entirely
unnecessary with the presence of viable alternatives. Therefore, animals should not be used in
product-safety testing and biomedical experiments. As a plan of action to end animal testing, experimental
researchers are encouraged to practice the concept reduction, refinement, and replacement. In addition,
they should also strictly implement the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) in all laboratory experiments to provide
minimum standards of care and treatment to the animals. Let us never forget that animals are also living
creatures, and just like us humans, they also need to be respected and treated with compassion and
kindness. We do not have the right to use them for experiments and abuse them for entertainment, for they
do not belong to us. As Mahatma Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be
judged by the way its animals are treated."
References:

3Rs alternatives: Technologies and approaches.(n.d.). USDA National Agricultural Library.

https://www.nal.usda.gov/legacy/awic/3rs-alternatives-technologies-and-approaches

About animal testing. (2012). Humane Society International. https://www.hsi.org/news-media/about/

Akhtar, A. (2015). The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation. Cambridge Quarterly of
Healthcare Ethics, 24(4),407- 419. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000079

Animal rights: Definitions, issues, and examples. (2017). The Humane League.
https://thehumaneleague.org/article/animal-rights#:~:text=Animal%20rights%20are%20moral%20p
rinciples,another%20way%20of%20saying%20choice.

Animal welfare and the 3Rs. (n.d.). Speaking of Research.

https://speakingofresearch.com/facts/animal-welfare-the-3rs/

Balkwill, F. (2011). Cited in animal research benefits us – and animals too. Understanding Animal
Research.https://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/media-library/download/document/ani
mal-research-has-benefits-for-us-all-and-animals-too.pdf

Balls, M. (2002). Future improvements: replacement in vitro methods.

ILAR Journal,43(1),69-73.https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.43.Suppl_1.S69

Barley, J. (2005). Balancing the needs of animals and science. School Science Review, 87(319),
105-110.https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Balancing-the-needs-of-animals-and-science-Barle
y/fcc7798a67f8af50fbeac2803aa72b5b8c8304ea

Doke, S., & Dhawale,S. (2013). Alternatives to animal testing: A review. Alternatives to animal testing: A
review. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, 23(3), 223-229.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsps.2013.11.002

Experimenting on animals. (n.d.). BBC UK.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/using/experiments_1.shtml

Facts and figures on animal testing. (n.d.). Cruelty-Free International

https://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/why-we-do-it/facts-and-figures-animal-testing
Facts and statistics about animal testing. (n.d.). PETA.
https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-used-experimentation-facts
heets/animal-experiments-overview/
Fernandes, M., & Pedroso, A. (2017). Animal experimentation: A look into ethics, welfare and alternative
methods. Rev. Assoc. Med. Bras, 63(11). https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.63.11.923

Hajar, R. (2011). Animal testing and medicine. Heart Views,12(1), 42.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51469847_Animal_Testing_and_Medicine

Kimber, I., Pichowski, J., Betts, C., Cumberbatch, M., Basketter,D., & Dearman, R.J. (2001).
Alternative approaches to the identi-fication and characterization of chemical allergens. Toxicol
InVitro,15(4), 307–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0887-2333(01)00027-3

Langley, L. (2016). The surprisingly humanlike ways animals feel pain. National Geographic.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/animals-science-medical-pain
Orlans, F.B. (1993). In the name of science: Issues in responsible animal experimentation. Oxford
University Press.

Regan, T. (2004). The case for animal rights. National Humanities Center.
https://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/on-the-human/2011/05/regan-preface/

Save the animals: Stop animal testing.(n.d.). Lonestar College.

https://www.lonestar.edu/stopanimaltesting.htm