Home > Health essays > History of animal testing and arguments for/against

Essay: History of animal testing and arguments for/against

Essay details and download:

  • Subject area(s): Health essays
  • Reading time: 9 minutes
  • Price: Free download
  • Published: 27 July 2024*
  • Last Modified: 1 August 2024
  • File format: Text
  • Words: 2,410 (approx)
  • Number of pages: 10 (approx)
  • Tags: Animal testing essays

Text preview of this essay:

This page of the essay has 2,410 words.

Animal testing has been a topic of concern among the public for the past two centuries. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, animal testing began to become significant to scientific research and commemorated the beginning of experimental physiology, neuroscience and the antivivisection movement that we know of today (Zurlo et al., 1994). Vivisection has been defined by Merriam Webster as, ‘the cutting of or operation on a living animal usually for physiological or pathological investigation.’

The first recorded experimentation on live animals was carried out by Erasistratus in Alexandria in the third century B.C. for the study of body humors. Animal testing continued using animals such as pigs, monkeys, deer and goats which were used to make extraordinarily accurate anatomical drawings up until 1761. Then from the late seventeenth century to the eighteenth, a firm practice began in England and France of animal experimentation, built on the theory that animals were unable to feel pain. This notion lead the way for the philosopher Descartes who said, “The greatest of all the prejudices we have retained from our infancy is that of believing that the beasts think” (Descartes, 1989). He compared animals to machines and likened the cries of animals to the ticking of a clock. Subsequently, this belief was carried on by Christians who maintained that animals had no soul and were therefore less significant (Vivisection, 2002). It wasn’t until the nineteenth century during which the slave trade in Britain was eradicated that the antivivisection movement really began as they gained support and were able to record and therefore expose the infliction of animal pain that was beyond the limits of public tolerance. However, experimental scientists were able to win support from the public by demonstrating that these experiments were justified due to their scientific value. This lead up to the first legislation in the world to regulate the use of animals in research; the 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act in England.
Currently animal testing is an accepted and used method of scientific research as you can see in figure 1 below. Worldwide more and more scientists are dedicated to helping patients through scientific research involving animal experimentation. Simultaneously public concern for animals not only during experimentation but also meat-eating, hunting and the wearing of luxury furs and the growing social popularity of ‘veganism’ is leading to a mounting amount of pressure surrounding this topic. This is emphasised by the increasing amount of media coverage, books, documentaries surrounding animal cruelty which is boosting the animal rights and animal welfare movements (Singer, 2016).
Figure 1.

Animal Welfare is the belief that humane care and standards of use should be implemented among research, teaching, testing and exhibition. This is based off the idea that animals can provide a benefit to humans by providing food, work, companionship, education or research and therefore humans should hold respect for these animals and provide for the well-being of them. Examples of these organisations include WAP (World Animal Protection) and RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). On the other hand, Animal Rights is based on the opinion that animals have comparable or the same rights as humans do. They believe that there is no dissimilarity between humans and animals and that it is irrelevant as to how humane or fairly an animal is treated. They believe that all animal is for exploitation and there all animal use by humans should be banned. The extends to not only animal research but also to anyone that “owns” animals. Examples of organisations who share these beliefs are PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and ALS (Animal Liberation Front) (PETA, 2019).

Arguments For

Animal testing, also known as in vivo testing, takes place during Phase 0 or pre-clinical stages of research according to the law, which has been monitored by regulatory agencies worldwide under the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) since 1966. It states that any new drugs that want to be introduced commercially must be tested on at least two different species of live mammal including one that is a large non-rodent (BBC, 2014). The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) is an example of a regulatory body that requires the testing of any cosmetic with medicinal uses or any products containing an active pharmaceutical agent to measure its pharmacological effect regarding safety and toxicity; and determine its pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, pharmacogenomic properties and their drug profile (Ciociola et al., 2014). This explains why these laws are in place, as to allow new drugs or products to be trialed before being used on humans to ensure their safety as it would be ethically wrong to put human life in danger unnecessarily. These regulations are also in place to ensure that the animals are protected to an extent; such as their right to a vet having to be present and that researchers are only permitted the use of animals of there is no other alternative (Festing, 2007).

In addition to this, animals are ideal subjects for research as they are similar to humans in numerous ways, for example, mice are 98% genetically similar to humans and dogs have a cardiovascular system that is similar to man (California Biomedical Research Association, 2013). Another more specific example is the use of albino rabbits to test for eye irritancy, they have minimised tear flow which is beneficial for the Draize test in conjunction with their lack of eye pigment which is especially advantageous for cosmetic testing as the product or reaction is easier to observe (Murnaghan, 2018).

Another major argument for the use of animal testing is that it has contributed to countless life-saving cures and treatments. According to the California Biomedical Research Association, almost every medical discovery in the last 100 years is a direct result of research utilising animals. Examples of this include experiments during which dogs had their pancreases removed, resulting in the discovery of insulin, vital to saving the lives of diabetics and the discovery of the polio vaccine that decreased the worldwide incidence in 1988 from 350,000 cases to 27 cases in 2016 (World Health Organisation, 2013). Additional benefits of animal experimentation include major advances in understanding and treating conditions such as cystic fibrosis, tuberculosis, breast cancer and brain injuries alongside being fundamental in the development of pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes and anaesthetics (Fisher, 2013).

Arguments Against

Those who oppose animal research include animal-rights extremists and anti-vivisectionist groups who believe that animal testing is pitiless and avoidable, irrespective of its purpose or value. There is no compromising with these groups; they want the instantaneous and complete eradication of all animal research (Festing, 2013). To highlight the radicalism of these groups, Chris DeRose, animal rights extremist once said, “If the death of one rat cured all diseases, it wouldn’t make any difference to me.” (NAIA, 2012). Critics of animal testing may also be against it because they don’t agree that animal experiments provide the most reliable or viable data. They question whether research involving animals truly informs human health care practice and claim that this method has its limitations as although certain animals are used due to their similar anatomical systems to that of humans; comparability has been refuted as similarity does not mean the same (Croswell, 2013).

Another huge argument is that animal experimentation is cruel and inhumane. Humane Society International state that the animals used for research can be subject to; water and food deprivation, forced inhalation and feeding and extended periods of physical restraint. Furthermore, as animals do not share the same conditions as humans, diseases may have to be induced in an attempt to mimic human diseases such as HIV, heart disease, Parkinson’s and types of cancer. This induction of disease may inflict pain upon the animal. Additionally, as previously mentioned, the Draize eye test used largely by cosmetic companies comprises of the rabbits being incapacitated in cages with their eyelids prised open by clips, on occasion for days a time (Costa et al., 2011).

A further argument against is that even when a drug passes through these animal tests, this does not mean that they are entirely safe for humans. A notorious example of this was Thalidomide which was prescribed to pregnant women in the 1950’s as a mild sleeping pill. This medication was tested on animals prior to its release however it still resulted in approximately 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities (Greek et al., 2011).

Evaluation/conclusion

To evaluate both sides of the arguments, you must ask the question, “is animal experimentation ethical?” Animals do not have the same rights that humans have, however, does this give us the supremacy to exploit them? One could argue that animal experimentation shouldn’t be so controversial when so many choose to consume them. As a matter of fact, over three hundred times more fish is consumed in the UK annually than the total amount of all the animals that are used in medical experimentation and more chickens are eaten annually than the total sum of all the animals used for testing within the previous two centuries (Understandinganimalresearch.org.uk, 2016). However, the agricultural industry can be viewed as equally, if not crueller than research partly due to their living conditions, how they are killed and the vast number of animals that are wasted if they aren’t viewed as ‘useful’ e.g. male chicks get disposed of (Gray, 2016).

Moreover, if animal experimentation could be escaped, countless companies would do so. Animal testing comes with time and expenses, using the same example of the Draize rabbit eye test; It costs approximately $1800 for each test along with the necessity for the company to acquire three licenses from the ASPA before they are allowed to test on animals. The alternatives that companies have to animal testing include; in human, in vitro (using products on human cell and tissue cultures in petri dishes) or in silica (computer models and simulations using patient-drug databases and mimicking drug trials virtually). According to HIS (Humane Society International), the price of the Draize test would drop to $500 if carried out in vitro (HSI.org, 2019). However, the real issue that companies face is that by law, it is a requirement that drugs, and products are tested on animals before they reach human trials. So theoretically animal rights activists should be targeting government, not the scientists themselves.

Some ask the question how come the same laws and regulations don’t apply for pets, farm animals and animals that are used in research? Who has the right to decide that one animal is more superior over another? The Animal Welfare Act introduced in 2006 created harsher penalties for neglect and cruelty to animals, of which fines up to £20,000, maximum jail time of fifty-one weeks and on occasion, a lifetime ban on owning a pet was included. In addition to this, welfare offenses were introduced for the first time. This means that there is now a duty of care for pet owners to supply to their animals’ basic needs including food, water, veterinary treatment and a suitable environment for them to live in. Prior to this, the duty of care only applied to agricultural instances (BBC, 2010). This opinion is particularly true considering 3847 dogs and 198 cats in the UK were used in experimental research in 2007, which are common pets, and could be assumed that these animals received some form of cruelty or neglect (speakingofresearch.com, 2017). This could be likened to the experimentation Nazi’s carried out on Jews, the disabled and other people they perceived as inferior to the Aryan race. These subjects were however no different which is a comparable measure to dogs as pets and dogs used for testing. However, any organisation wishing to use animals for research must go through several stages before this is permitted involving licenses as mentioned above, and any pain, suffering or distress that could be inflicted, must be ethically justifiable as well as the regulation and control over the breeding and housing. In addition to this, the government is committed to a scheme referred to as the 3R’s that stands for replacement, reduction, and refinement referring to the use of animals in research. This means that in each proposal, where possible; animals must be replaced with a non-animal alternative, no more than the minimum number of animals needed are used and for those that are needed, suffering that would be endured through any procedure must be minimised (Barley, 2005). To enforce this, all research organisations must have an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) who review all on-going research to certify the 3R’s are being executed.

An additional reproach to animal testing is that existence of a crippling consumerist society lends itself to the rise of animal experimentation (Davis, 2016). Competition between major companies leads to the spending of millions for their drug or product to be successful. In addition, is the more recent phenomena that companies are releasing what is essentially the same product but with a slight dissimilarity such as the addition of inactive ingredients. One of these products is likely to be no more or less effective from the next, however, even though there are limited differences, the law still requires that it is tested on animals, giving to the rise in animal experimentation (Collection.plos.org, 2010). Essentially money is the driving force behind this trend, which could be interpreted into the belief that these companies are not concerned with the wellbeing of animals.

In conclusion, during my research into this topic, there seems to be the consensus that animal testing is necessary to further scientific discovery, but that animal welfare should always a concern. Currently, laws and regulations satisfy this following the 3R’s scheme. It doesn’t seem credible to apply animal rights, as most of the society do deem animals as inferior to humans, however, the recognition that animals can experience distress as a result of these practices is significant as it sanctioned the reduction of this wherever possible. It is a fact that animal experimentation has been central to modern medicine and has saved many people’s lives along the way. Therefore, there should be continued backing for animals testing but not for cosmetic testing as they do not benefit the health of society. It could be suggested that more resources should be invested into research for alternatives to reduce the use of animals however animal experimentation shouldn’t be entirely criticised. This debate is likely to last year’s due to the tenacious opposition from antivivisectionists, instigating the emphasis on the negatives with complete irrational disregard for the positives and for the progress made towards more humane practices.

2019-3-21-1553198839

Discover more:

About this essay:

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, History of animal testing and arguments for/against. Available from:<https://www.essaysauce.com/health-essays/60276/> [Accessed 06-02-25].

These Health essays have been submitted to us by students in order to help you with your studies.

* This essay may have been previously published on EssaySauce.com and/or Essay.uk.com at an earlier date than indicated.