In a letter published in The Time UK 1881, Charles Darwin stated, “I know that physiology cannot possibly progress except by means of experiments on living animals, and I feel the deepest conviction that he who retards the progress of physiology commits a crime against mankind.” (10). Rather evidently, the immense extent to which animal testing has contributed to evolutionary developments overrides ethical dilemmas that entail such experiments, forming the basis of being a necessary evil. For centuries, animals have been used for biomedical research.
However, in recent years, animal testing has come under severe criticism by animal rights and protection activists, often challenging the morality of animal testing. Many have pushed for its ban on the grounds of ethical arguments, spurring rampant debates on animal rights and why it should or should not be banned. This is despite laws in many countries to minimise cruelty against laboratory animals. While some may argue for the use of alternatives and criticise the mere formalities of regulations with moral and ethical reasoning, alternative methods of testing have yet to match animal testing in efficiency and its track record of proving to be successful.
Though the past few decades have seen a rise in the innovation of alternative testing methods, none have been able to fully replicate the depth and complexity of a living, breathing and feeling organism. Alternatives such as in-vitro cell cultures, computer simulations and non-invasive imaging are growing in popularity. They are indisputably pertinent and powerful techniques, however, it is undeniable that due to the biological makeups of animals, they serve as relevant models for mankind or other species (Sharif and Irshad 15200).
127 our experts are availableright now
Although animal models do not perfectly encapsulate every aspect of the human body, the differences are sufficiently small that animals who share similar diseases and disorders become the most suitable subjects for testing drugs, products or medical procedures. Similar to humans, rabbits suffer from heart conditions, lung diseases and birth defects, and dogs and primates are also susceptible to cancer and diabetes. The list is non-exhaustive. Hence, many of these animals become excellent models for the study of human diseases. Such studies aid in understanding how disease may affect the human body by observing the response of the immune system, the magnitude and characteristics of those affected, and many more.
A drug might work fine in a test tube when directly injected into a cell, but will it work in the intricate system of a living organism? Other anatomical processes like absorption, transport, distribution, metabolism and excretion as well as response to drugs must all be considered (Garattini and Grigaschi 33). More importantly, unlike in-vitro methods, testing on animals can monitor the mental and behavioural side effects, a limitation of many non-living alternatives. Unless an alternative that can match the efficacy of animal testing can be proposed, experimentation on animals proves to be a boon to humanity and is not likely to be replaced.
Furthermore, research and experiments done with animals have a track record of proving to be effective, with nearly every medical and scientific breakthrough involving some form of animal testing and research. It has led to the invention of successful drugs and procedures, benefitting millions of people and saving more lives than it has taken. Among the 216 Nobel Prizes in Medicine and Physiology award recipients since 1901, 180 have used animal models in their research (“Nobel Prizes in Medicine”). Major medical breakthroughs, like the discovery of insulin and the mechanism of diabetes, would not have been possible without testing on dogs, rabbits and fish. Experiments on mice and monkeys have also been instrumental in developing vaccines to eradicate rabies and polio (Nuffield Council on Bioethics 115). Diagnostic techniques tested on animals have led to pioneering technologies such as Computed Axial Tomography CT Scan, organ transplant procedures and In-Vitro Fertilisation IVF (“Nobel Prizes in Medicine”).
Thus, animal testing is imperative for the advancement and direct development of biomedical research. If animal testing were to be banned, doctors will have to find other ways of testing drugs and might seek human test subjects as the closest alternative. Those most likely to be tested on are terminally ill individuals or individuals in a vegetative state, raising significant moral and ethical questions on human dignity and rights.
However, since the prevalence of having human test subjects are improbable, banning animal testing will drastically impede the development of effective interventions and new treatments to those whose health desperately depends on. Admittedly because, the greater part of humanity values a human life more than an animal’s, it would be justifiable to allow animals to be subjected to experimentation to expedite the achievement of material gains for humanity.
While it is true that cruelty induced from animal testing is indeed a valid ethical concern, strict laws and guidelines are already in place to provide necessary regulations for the practice. The 3Rs campaign, Replace, Reduce and Refine, advocates the search “for the replacement of animals with non-living models”, “reduction in the use of animals” and “refinement of animal use practices” (Hajar 42). It is internationally recognised and accepted as the basis of the care and use of animals for scientific purposes.
Extensive guidelines regarding housing facilities, environmental factors, food and water and handling methods ensure that the welfare and safety of the animal is protected. As such, animal testing is often done with great caution and care. Animal testing is purposeful; it is not pointless cruelty or sick attempts from the scientific community to inflict unnecessary pain. Animal testing enables us to comprehend things and functions that humans cannot understand otherwise. According to Fenwick et al., the 3Rs framework achieves a balance between the needs of sciences and the needs of animals, managing the expectations of scientists and welfare requirements of the animals. (525)
Therefore, these guidelines ensure the ‘humane’ and ethical treatment of animals and corroborate the redundancy for the need to ban animal testing. In hindsight, the immensity of animals killed each year for human consumption far supersedes the number of animals ever used for scientific research. The paradoxical nature of this argument against animal testing appears hypocritical and insincere. Moreover, the assertion that animal testing is unethical and inhumane is largely based on philosophical arguments of ethics and morals which can differ from person to person. Ultimately this argument boils down to a matter of relative morality, to save the life of a loved one or spare the life of an animal?
In all, animal testing remains an indispensable method for medical research, unlikely to be substituted by in-vitro methods as effective alternatives, at least at the present moment. As much as experimentation on animals should be reduced and minimised by adopting the 3Rs guidelines when appropriate, one cannot disregard the fact that alternatives are fundamentally derived from biomedical knowledge obtained through animal testing and research. To put it succinctly, humans are intrinsically selfish by nature and feel innately superior to animals. Inevitably, we do what benefits us the most at the expense and sacrifice of others.
Though non-animal testing alternatives will help to reduce the number of animals required for research, the need for animals in the use of research and experimentation still prevails. Both animal testing and alternatives are complementary methods required for optimal efficacy, thus one cannot replace the other. As such the complete ban of animal testing will be detrimental to the progress of humanity and science, and hence should not be banned. This battle of practicality versus morality is complicated and multi-faceted, and will likely remain as an ongoing debate. But as of now, fighting for the ban of animal testing will be a futile pursuit.
