Student Highlight: Amber Clark
Although animal testing dates back to ancient Greek and Roman times, the prevalence of vivisection, which is the dissection of live animals, fueled public awareness in the 19th century of the moral dilemma inherent in animal testing and experimentation. One of the most notorious examples of this cruelty was François Magendie’s public dissection of a dog’s facial nerves, in which he left the live dog nailed by each paw without anesthesia until it was dissected again the next day. As awareness of this sort of brutality became publicized, general opposition towards animal testing also grew, first as anti-vivisection sentiments in the 19th century and then spreading to counter all forms of animal testing (Stamm). Although the majority of Americans oppose animal testing today, scientists continue to justify animal testing as the best way to develop new drugs, products, and treatments for human use (Pew Research Center). Unfortunately, animal testing has become so prevalent that it is the cause of over 110 million animal deaths each year (“Animal Testing Facts and Statistics”). Yet, modern technologies have developed several compelling testing alternatives to animal testing such as in vitro testing and computer-based modeling. Given the differences between humans and animals, the cruelty of animal testing, and it’s unreliability, scientific research should use modern alternative testing methods unless the need for animal testing is so extraordinarily compelling that there is no feasible alternative.
The differences in anatomy, physiology, and genetics between animals and humans, as well as the differences in how diseases impact them, make animal testing results unreliable predictors for humans and cannot justify the inhumane suffering of animals in the process. Another significant difference between animals and humans is their drug metabolism response. According to the NIH, drugs are metabolized differently by humans and animals given the different pharmacokinetics of varying species, especially relating to the biochemical parameters and protein binding for each species (Lin). Beyond the lack of predictability of animal drug research, a Cambridge study reported that in 2004, a staggering 92% of drugs with pre-clinical FDA approval ultimately failed, for which “the main causes of failure are lack of effectiveness and safety problems that were not predicted by animal tests.” Although animal testing was expected to become more predictive with technological advancements, the same Cambridge study found that in 2015, over a decade later, the drug failure rate had “actually increased and is now closer to 96 percent”, proving that animal testing was neither a reliable metric nor a justifiable reason for the death of over 100 million animals each year (Akhtar). This study goes even further and argues that not only is animal testing not helpful to humans, but it has also actually proven to be harmful to humans in some instances since it resulted in clinical trials of substances dangerous to humans that initially seemed safe based on animal testing.
Animal testing is cruel and inhumane, and more Americans oppose than favor animal testing outright ("Attitudes and Beliefs on Use of Animals in Scientific Research."). Often, the tests are cruel and cause unnecessary pain -- the images of cruel animal testing online are shocking and prevalent. There are certain laws protecting the rights of animals used in testing, but these laws are extremely limited, as 99% of animals used in laboratories are entirely exempted from the minor protections given by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). Close to 800 U.S. laboratories are mostly unregulated and completely exempt from federal laws and inspections since they only test on rodents and other unregulated animals. According to PETA, even when the laboratory facilities follow all regulations and laws, animals that are protected by federal law can still be “burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged”. Furthermore, “no procedures or experiments, regardless of how trivial or painful they may be, are prohibited by federal law” (“Animal Testing Facts and Statistics”).
Alternative methods to animal testing exist and are more effective, and now, more than ever, there is an increasing demand for cruelty-free products. As of 2023, “at least 37 countries have banned or restricted the sale of cosmetics with ingredients tested on animals” (ProCon.org). A recent global study further found that “the vast majority of people worldwide --generally at least 70% -- want an end to animal testing” and the highest majorities consistently support outright bans on animal testing for cosmetics (Rose). New studies on in vitro testing show that there are other compelling alternatives to animal testing and that mutilating animals is unnecessary since the in vitro methods are genetically human, are less expensive, and can provide more reliable, accurate results. In vitro testing simply refers to a test performed outside of a living organism or ones conducted “in the glass”. A recent study performed by the Humane Society International has shown that out of all of the cases they studied, testing on animals was consistently more expensive than testing in vitro (ProCon.org). In addition to in vitro testing methods, new technological advancements in 3D design and printing have also allowed for the creation of tissue bioprinting, such as the recent technology that bio-printed a liver in order to test the toxicity of a drug. There are many other similar examples, such as testing with newly developed artificial human skin products like EpiDerm or ThinCert, which was enabled more effective testing results than animal skin testing (ProCon.org). Unfortunately, even when “valid non-animal research methods are available, no federal law requires experimenters to use such methods instead of animals” (“Animal Testing Facts and Statistics”).
Although animal testing has historically led to the discovery of treatments, vaccines and medical advancements for humans and for animals themselves, animal testing is cruel, unreliable and unnecessary given the many new technologies now available as reliable testing alternatives. The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), which oversees the ethical and moral parameters of projects that receive federal funding, uses “the Three Rs of animal research”: Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement as a guide to minimize the potential harm to animals in medical research but also qualify the justification of the research. This framework proposes a compelling compromise - given that there may be certain scenarios in which animal testing may be justifiable in extreme cases, having a methodical system with which to assess the necessity and merit of a potential animal testing situation is useful. The 3 Rs could also demonstrate that animal testing for petty reasons, such as makeup products, is unjustifiable and should be minimized (National Institutes of Health).
As new scientific advancements are uncovered every day, animal testing continues to grow as a significant subject of debate and controversy given the concerns about the ethicality of their treatment, the validity and reliability of testing results, and the development of alternative testing methods. With the availability of alternative testing methods like in vitro testing and computer-based modeling, the justification to continue using live animals must be extraordinary and can be evaluated using a concrete system like the Three Rs for consistency and validity (National Institutes of Health). Given that animals are not biologically identical to humans and animal testing kills over 100 million sentient animals a year, all scientific research should transition to relying on non-invasive, modern alternative testing methods unless the need for testing is so compelling and there is no other viable alternative.