Pros And Cons Of Animal Testing

“If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit non-humans?” (Singer) According to the New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS), figures show that over 25 million animals are used annually in lab testing, whether it is cosmetic, pharmaceutical, medical, or psychological. Since not every animal is thoroughly accounted for (i.e. the thousands of lab rats and mice used in various experiments), this estimate is more likely to be around 100 million animals used annually. Animals have been proven to show suffering just like humans, and the grounds of the “Animal Rights Movement” should be treated with the same respect as things such as the various Civil Rights movements have.

Although there are laws that protect certain animals from harsh testing, there are still animals being used in labs that are not covered by any lawful regulations.

Many people and scientists alike don’t realize that there are several alternatives to this cruel and unusual punishment that can also be beneficial, considering that the majority of procedures that are used in these labs just end up proving common knowledge, or things that cannot be applied to the field that they are being tested for. Animal testing in laboratories, whether it is medical or cosmetic, is unnecessary and should be banned.

Almost a century ago in the 1930’s, a drug called thalidomide that was used as a treatment of morning sickness for pregnant women resulted in over 100,000 newborns to be born with birth defects, leading the government to mandate animal testing as a “…supposed

guarantee of drug safety” (Safer Medicines). Since then, pharmaceutical companies require the lab testing of animals as a liability protection in court, even though the testing itself has been proven to be “scientifically worthless” (Safer Medicines). The only law that has ever been put forth by the U.S. federal government to protect these animals has been the Animal Welfare Act. This law regulates the care and use of animals in lab testing, but only provides little protection of certain animals while others get excluded. The AWA excludes various animals such as rats, mice, reptiles, fish, birds, and even farm animals used in laboratories – almost 95% of the animals that are used. Even the animals that are covered by these regulations still have almost pathetic standards set for housing, feeding, care, and well-being (NEAVS). This law acts as basically a pacifier for animal rights supporters, creating an illusion that these animals are “safe”. Because of this, animal experimentation is an extremely harmful, deceiving, and abusive way of testing. Insufficient regulation on these procedures that are done to animals paves the way for flat out cruel experiments. Abuse can be defined as “excessive cruelty (willfully subjecting others to pain and suffering) or habitual violence.” At this point, I consider the suffering as abusive because the suffering is blatantly intentional.
“In the United States, 75% of voters say that they would feel safer, or as safe, if non-animal methods were used to test the safety of a cosmetic instead of animal testing” (Cruelty Free Kitty) According to Peter Singer in his book Animal Liberation, 1988 British lab testing on animals resulted in 588,997 procedures being done to test drugs and other materials. Out of this already large number, 281,358 of these experiments weren’t even related to the testing of medical or even veterinary products (52). Since 2009, 27 countries in the European Union have banned the sale of cosmetics developed from animal-based experiments, and since have asked for their trading partners to do the same. This ban has yet to affect the economic, social, or scientific development of Europe, and Europeans are still able to wear safe, good quality makeup, which goes to prove that animal testing isn’t absolutely dire and necessary for a functioning society. Along with Europe, Australia and Japan have also set bans against animal testing in their medical research labs. (Kantamneni, “One Green Planet”) At the end of the day, animal tests are still going to be inaccurate because of the undeniable anatomical differences between animals and humans, so why use them? Animal tests are also ineffective and inaccurate because the testing environment impacts the results. An important part of conducting a reliable and ethical experiment is for only one variable to be tested. However, the environment the animals are placed in itself is a variable that isn’t included in the test results because it shows just how cruel these laboratories can be. According to NEAVS, “Stress, routinely experienced by animals in labs, negatively influences the reliability of animal research data. Stress influences heart rate, pulse, blood pressure, muscular activity, and hormone levels and can modify the normal values of these variables significantly.” Therefore, the animals’ physical and mental reactions to a drug and/or a cosmetic shouldn’t be considered factual. Companies really aren’t required to use any type of alternative to these methods, so they have little to no incentive to change the way they test their products since animal use has become so familiar. Litigation and liability purposes also influence companies to not make any changes in their systems, so animal testing is continuously used as the most “reliable” resource. The Anti-Vivisection Society writes that “…[Scientists] continue to rely on traditional animal testing methods because they view them as the safest and most secure route to FDA approval … not because they are the best or even good science.” Alternatives exist, but laboratories would just prefer not to use them. The use of animals in laboratories and the procedures preformed show that a lot of effort has been put into “…telling us in scientific jargon what we knew all along, and what we could have found out in less harmful ways with a little more thought…” (Singer 49)
In Robert Baird’s book Animal Experimentation: the Moral Issues, he expresses that “…Hens can suffer, but lettuces cannot…suffering, whether human or non-human, is ethically significant that we must welcome new insights into the existence, and degree, of that suffering” (64). Animals are judged for their rights based on their degrees of anatomy and intelligence, but would we say that a human deserves fewer rights based on these criteria? Baird states “…Does our discovery about [a] species really make any difference as to how [it] should be treated? To say that it does is to make the mistake made by racists who think that blacks should be treated as inferiors.” (59) Animals have scientifically shown that they are capable of processing and understanding suffering, as well as psychological damage in species such as chimpanzees. As stated by Singer, “…avoidance of pain is a characteristic of all sentient creatures; that is, organisms that are responsive to or conscious of sense impressions…all sentient beings should be considered as equals with respect to infliction of pain.” (4) These lab animals are continuously being subjected to experiments that leave them physically and emotionally scarred, or even as far as severe injury or death. Because of this morally wrong system, animals are now viewed as a “resource”, used for surgical manipulation, exploited for money or liability, or just plain eaten.
The theory of inherent value is “the bridge between the plausible claim that all normal, mature mammals – human or otherwise – are subject to life and basic rights.” In another quote by Baird, he states “What could be the basis of our having more inherent value than animals? Their lack of reason, or anatomy, or intellect? Only if we are willing to make the same judgment in the case of humans who are similarly deficient” (Animal Experimentation 86). There is no reason to judge any being based on its non-similarity to humans. Just because one person is smarter than you or, in the case of physical or mental disability is more capable than you, doesn’t mean they deserve more rights than you do. According to Baird, “…the theory that rationally grounds the rights of animals also grounds the rights of humans. Thus those involved in the animal rights movement are partners in the struggle to secure respect for human rights… the animal rights movement is cut from the same moral cloth as these” (Animal Experimentation 87). Going back to what Baird said about racism relating to this movement: is there really a difference between discriminating against someone’s rights because they’re of a different race than you, and discriminating against an animal’s rights to not suffer based on it being thought of as a lesser being than humans?
Although animals in lab experimentation seem like the worst-case scenario, the reasons behind animal testing coming into existence aren’t completely unethical. A former CEO of the Medical Research Council stated that "[primates] are used only when no other species and no alternative approach can provide the answers to questions about such conditions as Alzheimer’s, stroke, Parkinson's, spinal injury, hormone disorders, and vaccines for HIV.” Taking some of the statistics into perspective, animal research has played a vital part in almost every medical discovery within the last decade. Both surgical procedures and medications have furthered in research and have improved the cures and survival rates of diseases such as cancer, AIDS, polio, and meningitis. Some of these improvements would not have been accessible if it had not been for animal research.

Singer has famously stated, “We have to speak up on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves.” Society believes that animal testing is supposedly “safe” and “cruelty-free”, showing that some people still continue to choose ignorance over factual knowledge. The cruel, unnecessary punishments are hidden behind supposed human “safety” that is rarely even reliable. Because animal experimentation is blatantly harmful, almost barbaric, and unnecessary, in my opinion, it isn’t morally justified.