Animal Testing

By Ella Kang

As animal lovers have been increasing throughout the past, animal testing started to float up to the surface of the spotlight with attention and concern. Hence, numerous problems, such as abuse and violence, have been acknowledged by the critical thinkers and the animal rights organizations. This caused the justification of animal testing to become one of the most viral topics in society. To increase the efficiency and the accuracy of scientific experiments during the growth of human civilization, scientists often use animals as their experimental materials. In particular, they inject toxic substances or harmful gases to inhale into the body of animals as one of their methods of animal testing. These cruelties allow us to develop safe vaccines, makeup, medicine, etc., without worrying about the side effects, and even allow us to predict the causes of environmental problems. To achieve this, countless animals such as dogs, mice, rabbits, birds, rats, and monkeys have been used by humans for animal testing, starting from 2nd and 4th centuries BCE by Aristotle–scientific physician. Hence, it is strongly argumentative that animal testing cannot be justified for the reasons such as creation of new biological testing tactics without the use of animals, animal rights, and better effective price of non-animal testing. 

Animal testing cannot be justified since the new methods that were recently discovered have been certified to replace the use of innocent animals. According to The New York Times, the administrator of E.P.A–Environmental Protection Agency–announced that they are looking forward to “[reducing]  the amount of studies that involve” animals, despite the fact that “for decades,” they have been “testing on a variety of animals” (Proulx). He also included that they would “invest $4.5 million in projects,” which refers to the investment in “alternate ways of testing chemicals that do not involve animals”(Proulx). For this, it shows that the termination of animal testing is meaningful enough and isn't a problem to the scientific and experimental societies, since one of the biggest environmental agencies in the nation have stated their end of the animal testing after nearly 50 years of a huge progress from it. This also shows that they have specified the investment in the “project,” which refers to the birth of new methods of experiment such as replacement of cells instead of actual animals, etc. Moreover, the administrator of N.I.H.–National Institute of Health–reported that they have received a recommendation of “alternative methods” from animal testing, and accepted it (When Are Alternatives to Animals Used in Research). These techniques include practices such as “testing cells and tissues in test tubes or cell cultures, 3D tissue culture, Computational and mathematical models, Stem cell research, etc” (When Are Alternatives to Animals Used in Research). This shows that the newly invented practices of experiments highly support the cessation of the involvement of animals, for none of them includes the process of any interaction with animals. Additionally, as these techniques are gradually confirmed and on the way to its usage by the official medical research agency of the nation, it is proven that the engagement of animals is not necessary anymore. Hence, animal testing can be replaced by one of the numerous, beneficial methods such as the method that uses the partial cell of the animal (testing cells and tissues in test tubes or cell cultures), or which predicts the result by studying the root of where each species of animal comes from (stem cell research). All of these mentioned different types of methods are highly recommended for living-experimental-tool-requiring [L.E.T.R] experiments, since it gives nearly identical results as the L.E.T.R experiments, however, they ask for less effort, time, and money. Thus, it is shown that the new tactics of scientific experiments without the necessity of the involvement of the animals. 

Besides, it is highly argued that animal testing is animal abuse as it violates animal rights: moral rights in which animals should live with their own freedom. As stated in Cruelty-Free International, the laboratories where animal testing happens are mostly “indoor environments” where “animals are forced to live [in] cages ” (What is animal testing, n.d.). Throughout their captivity in these laboratories, they are forced to“inhale toxic gases,” and are subjected to “frightening situations” that “create anxiety and depression,” or have their “organs or tissues” removed, most likely leading to their death (What is animal testing, n.d.). This shows that the animals are mistreated and brutally abused by the humans not only by the captivity, but also through the enforcement of life-threatening surgeries and ingestion of deadly chemicals involved in animal testing. Through this, it is revealed that animals are tortured by unnecessary and painful experiments only for human benefits, subsequent to humans knowing that the animals would never have agreed for themselves going through these torments. Hence, this defines the violation of animal rights by humans forcing the animals to sacrifice themselves by suffering without freedom.  Furthermore, according to The New York Times, “E.P.A. has for decades required animal testing on [a] variety of animals” to indicate the harmfulness and toxicity of the substances (Proulx). This shows that even one of the most significant agencies in the nation [E.P.A]  has been going against animal rights for previous years. However, as they are setting a transformation as a “non-animal testing agency,” it shows that they have learned the erroneousness of the animal testing for their torment of animals, and are on their way of recovery. Additionally, by proudly forbidding animal testing, it advertises the idea that this action is highly meaningful and realistic to other animal-testing agencies. This support of E.P.A not only shows the significance of the new methods, yet also shows the moral reasons of the injustice of animal testing, such as the guilt of abusing animals.  As to be shown, animal testing cannot be justified for the contravention of animal rights, which leads to savage abuse of living creatures. 

While some argue that animal testing cannot be justified, others claim that it can be because animal testing enables higher accuracy. As indicated in the New York Times, the senior council of N.R.D.C.– Natural Resources Defense council–was heavily opposing the non-animal testing methods by arguing, “cells in a petri dish” would never be enough to “replace the whole living system” (Proulx). Followingly, she supported this argument by adding that the focus “isn’t in speed, it’s getting it right” (Proulx). This shows that some people insist that the participation of animals should remain because alternative technologies are not completely accurate yet, and there should be a method that can guarantee safety , especially when it comes to human usage. Lacking accuracy particularly is a serious issue, since it can cause casualties and harm humans who are supposed to use it. This might cause safety problems such as humans getting influenced by toxic chemicals and gas, or misleading facts or information. To prevent this, agencies often insert multiple types of unknown chemicals into animal bodies or force them into horrifying or extremely sad moments to see the endurance to gouge the toxicity before their usage by humans. However, despite all these benefits, animal testing still cannot be justified because the accuracy of the non-animal testing methods will increase as its frequency increases, with new discoveries and adjustments in complications. This is a well-predicted result as due to the high cost of animal testing, there will be more focus on alternative methods, allowing improvements that can increase its accuracy. In The New York Times, the administrator of E.P.A. said that the new methods of non-animal testing method will “protect human health and environment” at once by using one of the new methods, “cutting-edge” which “efficiently and cost-effectively evaluates potential effects without animal testing,” (Proulx). Thus, as it is said that the new methods have more productive cost than the testing that includes actual animals, it is most likely for the scientific–and biological–agencies to apply these methods into their experiments. Through this, the new-method-using-agencies will be able to find the problems of it, and as these issues are discovered by their frequent usage, the way to repair these problems would also be discovered and be applied. Therefore, since lower and more productive costs of non-animal testing will improve the accuracy of the new methods rapidly, animal testing cannot be justified.

Overall, it is proved that animal testing cannot be justified for the creation of new biological testing tactics without the use of animals, threatening animal rights, and the better effective price of non-animal testing. The new methods of biological experiments such as using their cells and tissues or studying their roots of genetics are replaceable enough. Not only this, it violates animal rights, which is the right for animals to have their own freedom and protect their safety, and even requires a lower and more effective price compared to using live animals in experiments. Hence, for these numerous reasons, it is shown that it is important to provide more attention and support the arguments on unjustification of animal testing. 

By Ella Kang