Jesus A.

Dominguez

Professor Briones

ENGL 1302 228

22 February, 2024

Literature review Draft 1

Today's world has seen a large number of growing controversies; animal testing is no

exception. Throughout history, the use of animals for experimental, medical, nutritional, and

cosmetic reasons has been very prominent, but recently, there has been a large shift in opinions

trying to combat this norm. Studies have been published across the web to help shed light on

animal testing. The contributions of researchers and experts have helped increase the knowledge

pool regarding this topic. The main arguments involving animal testing involve animal rights,

ethics, and public opinion. The justifications people use in favor of these practices include the

breakthroughs in fields such as medicine, nutrition, education, and even economics. Animal

testing has played a crucial role in shaping and advancing our society. Humanity continues to use

animals for experiments, which clashes with all the people who are trying to regulate it. Experts

worldwide publish articles about animal testing that argue the following: animal rights, ethics,

scientific advancement, and life.

Animal rights are typically brought up when discussing the topic of the use of animals in

tests. Many people argue that animals don't have rights and are not equal. Dr. Stanley Norton

Gershoff, a pioneer in the nutrition community, argues that "A fundamental belief of animal

rights extremists is that animals have rights similar to those of people. I do not believe that

animals have rights… I also believe that all animals are not equal." (98) He is known to be in
favor of the use of animal testing for many medical and nutritional reasons because of the

potential lives it can save. On the other hand, Researcher Ryan De Villiers ran a study that

sampled 100 anonymous life science and natural science teachers in South African universities

and surveyed them regarding the use of vivisections in research and education. His findings

found that about 90% of these professors were pro-animal rights. Words from these professors

include "We need to protect our animals," "the abusing of animals is morally wrong," and "they

should be treated with respect[.]" (94). The study includes a multitude of other reasons these

professors come up with, but it ultimately argues that a majority of these professors believe in

animal rights. Another author dives into the topic of animal testing, focusing on the cosmetic

industry. They jump from many topics, one major point being animal rights. They state that

"After analysing the arguments of both the supporters and opponents involved in the

controversial subject of animal testing, it is difficult to determine which direction is right or

wrong." (Kabene S., et al. 9). They ultimately agree that animal suffering should always be

minimized and that alternatives to animal testing should be sought, but they make a great point

regarding the difficulty of deciding who is right or wrong. The extent to which animal rights

should be reached has always been argued, and it is very commonly seen in topics revolving

around animal testing.

The topic of ethics is always brought up in arguments, and it plays a big role in deciding

what side of the argument to choose. Professor Rakhee Goyal published an article about the

importance of testing throughout history. She lists important historical events that innovated the

use of anesthesia. She highlights the developments of these tests and the making of regulations in

the past, ultimately saying, "Some considered it as a contribution to scientific discoveries while

the others accused it as cruelty to animals. Animal experiments have contributed immensely
towards scientific progression… it is pertinent not to forget that all efforts should always be

thoughtful, well-judged, and lawful. The immeasurable contribution of animal research to the

science of anesthesiology must be truly acknowledged." (151) Goyal is aware of the importance

of past animal research, but understands that we need to be more humane in our practices

involving animals. Adrian Smith from Laboratory Animal Research believes that better planning,

preparation, and improvements in animal testing facilities can help improve results and the

animal's experience overall. He states, "In addition to the legal and scientific incentives, there are

good ethical reasons for aiming for the highest possible quality of animal-based research and

testing." (2) He explains that "Animals that are in harmony with their surroundings will provide

more reliable scientific data in an experiment because the parameters measured will reflect the

treatment they are given, rather than being affected by stress." A majority of experts and

researchers agree that if an animal can suffer less when being experimented on, it should be

done, especially if the incentive of yielding better results is at hand. A set of authors also

discussed the ethics behind animal testing, and they found nearly similar results. They argue that

"Animal testing can be made more morally and ethically acceptable, by trusting animal welfare

to the extensive regulations governing animal tests." (Nagendrababu, V., et al. 1253) And that

"Today, there can be no ethical justification to publish articles where there was a lack of pain

monitoring, and where the pain relief measures appeared to be inadequate, to prevent avoidable

animal suffering." (Nagendrababu, V., et al. 1253) Ultimately finding that finding that animal

studies with lackluster quality are also not reliable.

Aside from experts and researchers, the public, along with governments across the world,

have their own opinions on animal testing. Regulations, restrictions, and laws have been cracking

down on animal testing in some parts of the world, while others make it mandatory. In New
Zealand, a study was conducted that interviewed a large number of citizens, asking them how

they felt about animal testing. Results found that "A majority of respondents agreed that the use

of animals for teaching (72%) and research and testing (68%) purposes was acceptable as long as

there was no unnecessary suffering by the animals." (Williams, V. M., I. T. Dacre, and M. Elliott.

61) This shows that a majority of New Zealand citizens are in favor of animal testing under

certain conditions. Public opinion affects how animal testing is conducted, but government

regulation has one of the biggest effects on it. A group of authors wrote an article describing

different countries and the rules they have on different cosmetic items. Most importantly, it

describes what stance each major country holds on animal testing based on regulations and laws.

Examples include The EU with "a ban on animal testing" (Ferreira, Mariana, et al. 11) or the

United States having "eight states…passed laws banning cosmetic animal testing" (Ferreira,

Mariana, et al. 11) and lastly Canada with "no ban on animal testing for cosmetic products."

(Ferreira, Mariana, et al. 11) The article also lists Japan, China, and Brazil who all hold differing

regulations. Both political leaders and the masses contribute to the major decisions involving

animal testing; they are some of the most important factors in this topic.

These articles give effective arguments on their stances involving animal testing. This

topic covers vast areas that can all be expanded into their own separate arguments. Some articles

mention animal rights and focus on that as their main theme. Others use the even larger topic of

animal ethics to back up their claims. Lastly, some articles discuss public opinion through

surveys and government regulation. The ever-growing debate on animal testing is full of experts

who use credible sources, expert opinions, statistics, facts, and surveys to back up their claims.
 Work Cited

De Villiers, Rian. "The animal experimentation controversy: ethical views of prospective

teachers." Perspectives in Education, vol. 30, no. 3, 2012, pp. 88-97,127. ProQuest,

https://go.openathens.net/redirector/tamiu.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-

journals/animal-experimentation-controversy-ethical-views/docview/1566312616/se-2.

Gershoff, Stanley N. "Animal Experimentation--a Personal View." Nutrition Reviews, vol. 67,

no. 2, 2009, pp. 95-99. ProQuest, https://go.openathens.net/redirector/tamiu.edu?

url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/animal-experimentation-personal-

view/docview/66865184/se-2, doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2008.00144.x.

Goyal, Rakhee. "Animal Testing in the History of Anesthesia: Now and then, some Stories, some

Facts." Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 31, no. 2, 2015, pp. 149-

151. ProQuest,

https://go.openathens.net/redirector/tamiu.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-

journals/animal-testing-history-anesthesia-now-then-some/docview/1680185747/se-2,

doi:https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-9185.155139.

Ferreira, Mariana, et al. "Overview of Cosmetic Regulatory Frameworks Around the

World." Cosmetics, vol. 9, no. 4, 2022, pp. 72. ProQuest,

https://go.openathens.net/redirector/tamiu.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-

journals/overview-cosmetic-regulatory-frameworks-around/docview/2706128440/se-2,

doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/cosmetics9040072.

Kabene, Stefane, and Said Baadel. "Bioethics: a look at animal testing in medicine and cosmetics

in the UK." Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, vol. 12, 2019. ProQuest,
 https://go.openathens.net/redirector/tamiu.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-

journals/bioethics-look-at-animal-testing-medicine/docview/2352706980/se-2,

doi:https://doi.org/10.18502/jmehm.v12i15.1875.

Nagendrababu, V., et al. Animal Testing: A Re-Evaluation of what it Means to

Endodontology. vol. 52, , 2019. ProQuest,

https://go.openathens.net/redirector/tamiu.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/other-

sources/animal-testing-re-evaluation-what-means/docview/2272733778/se-2,

doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13137.

Smith, Adrian J. "Guidelines for planning and conducting high-quality research and testing on

animals." Laboratory Animal Research, vol. 36, 2020, pp. 1-6. ProQuest,

https://go.openathens.net/redirector/tamiu.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-

journals/guidelines-planning-conducting-high-quality/docview/2546908253/se-2,

doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s42826-020-00054-0.

Williams, V. M., I. T. Dacre, and M. Elliott. "Public Attitudes in New Zealand Towards the use of

Animals for Research, Testing and Teaching Purposes." New Zealand Veterinary Journal,

vol. 55, no. 2, 2007, pp. 61-68. ProQuest, https://go.openathens.net/redirector/tamiu.edu?

url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/public-attitudes-new-zealand-towards-

use-animals/docview/70358895/se-2.