Using animals in research and to test the safety of products has been a topic of heated debate for decades. According to data collected by F. Barbara Orlans for her book, In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation, sixty percent of all animals used in testing are used in biomedical research and product-safety testing (62). People have different feelings for animals; many look upon animals as companions while others view animals as a means for advancing medical techniques or furthering experimental research. However individuals perceive animals, the fact remains that animals are being exploited by research facilities and cosmetics companies all across the country and all around the world. Although humans often benefit from successful animal research, the pain, the suffering, and the deaths of animals are not worth the possible human benefits. Therefore, animals should not be used in research or to test the safety of products.
First, animals' rights are violated when they are used in research. Tom Regan, a philosophy professor at North Carolina State University, states: "Animals have a basic moral right to respectful treatment. . . .This inherent value is not respected when animals are reduced to being mere tools in a scientific experiment" (qtd. in Orlans 26). Animals and people are alike in many ways; they both feel, think, behave, and experience pain. Thus, animals should be treated with the same respect as humans. Yet animals' rights are violated when they are used in research because they are not given a choice. Animals are subjected to tests that are often painful or cause permanent damage or death, and they are never given the option of not participating in the experiment. Regan further says, for example, that "animal [experimentation] is morally wrong no matter how much humans may benefit because the animal's basic right has been infringed. Risks are not morally transferable to those who do not choose to take them" (qtd. in Orlans 26). Animals do not willingly sacrifice themselves for the advancement of human welfare and new technology. Their decisions are made for them because they cannot vocalize their own preferences and choices. When humans decide the fate of animals in research environments, the animals' rights are taken away without any thought of their well-being or the quality of their lives. Therefore, animal experimentation should be stopped because it violates the rights of animals.
Next, the pain and suffering that experimental animals are subject to is not worth any possible benefits to humans. "The American Veterinary Medial Association defines animal pain as an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience perceived as arising from a specific region of the body and associated with actual or potential tissue damage" (Orlans 129). Animals feel pain in many of the same ways that humans do; in fact, their reactions to pain are virtually identical (both humans and animals scream, for example). When animals are used for product toxicity testing or laboratory research, they are subjected to painful and frequently deadly experiments. Two of the most commonly used toxicity tests are the Draize test and the LD50 test, both ofwhich are infamous for the intense pain and suffering they inflect upon experimental animals. In the Draize test the substance or product being tested is placed in the eyes of an animal (generally a rabbit is used for this test); then the animal is monitored for damage to the cornea and other tissues in and near the eye. This test is intensely painful for the animal, and blindness, scarring, and death are generally the end results. The Draize test has been criticized for being unreliable and a needless waste of animal life. The LD50 test is used to test the dosage of a substance that is necessary to cause death in fifty percent of the animal subjects within a certain amount of time. To perform this test, the researchers hook the animals up to tubes that pump huge amounts of the test product into their stomachs until they die. This test is extremely painful to the animals because death can take days or even weeks. According to Orlans, the animals suffer from "vomiting, diarrhea, paralysis, convulsion, and internal bleeding. Since death is the required endpoint, dying animals are not put out of their misery by euthanasia" (154). In his article entitled "Time to Reform Toxic Tests," Michael Balls, a professor of medial cell biology at the University of Nottingham and chairman of the trustees of FRAME (the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments), states that the LD50 test is "scientifically unjustifiable. The precision it purports to provide is an illusion because of uncontrollable biological variables" (31). The use of the Draize test and the LD50 test to examine product toxicity has decreased over the past few years, but these tests have not been eliminated completely. Thus, because animals are subjected to agonizing pain, suffering and death when they are used in laboratory and cosmetics testing, animal research must be stopped to prevent more waste of animal life.
Finally, the testing of products on animals is completely unnecessary because viable alternatives are available. Many cosmetic companies, for example, have sought better ways to test their products without the use of animal subjects. In Against Animal Testing, a pamphlet published by The Body Shop, a well-known cosmetics and bath-product company based in London, the development of products that "use natural ingredients, like bananas and Basil nut oil, as well as others with a long history of safe human usage" is advocated instead of testing on animals (3).Furthermore, the Draize test has become practically obsolete because of the development of a synthetic cellular tissue that closely resembles human skin. Researchers can test the potential damage that a product can do to the skin by using this artificial "skin" instead of testing on animals. Another alternative to this test is a product called Eyetex. This synthetic material turns opaque when a product damages it, closely resembling the way that a real eye reacts to harmful substances. Computers have also been used to simulate and estimate the potential damage that a product or chemical can cause, and human tissues and cells have been used to examine the effects of harmful substances. In another method, in vitro testing, cellular tests are done inside a test tube. All of these tests have been proven to be useful and reliable alternatives to testing products on live animals. Therefore, because effective means of product toxicity testing are available without the use of live animal specimens, testing potentially deadly substances on animals is unnecessary.
However, many people believe that animal testing is justified because the animals are sacrificed to make products safer for human use and consumption. The problem with thisreasoning is that the animals' safety, well-being, and quality of life is generally not a consideration. Experimental animals are virtually tortured to death, and all of these tests are done in the interest of human welfare, without any thought to how the animals are treated. Others respond that animals themselves benefit from animal research. Yet in an article entitled "Is Your Experiment Really Necessary?" Sheila Silcock, a research consultant for the RSPCA, states: "Animals may themselves be the beneficiaries of animal experiments. But the value we place on the quality of their lives is determined by their perceived value to humans" (34). Making human's lives better should not be justification for torturing and exploiting animals. The value that humans place on their own lives should be extended to the lives of animals as well.
Still other people think that animal testing is acceptable because animals are lower species than humans and therefore have no rights. These individuals feel that animals have no rights because they lack the capacity to understand or to knowingly exercise these rights. However, animal experimentation in medical research and cosmetics testing cannot be justified on the basis that animals are lower on the evolutionary chart than humans since animals resemble humans in so many ways. Many animals, especially the higher mammalian species, possess internal systems and organs that are identical to the structures and functions of human internal organs. Also, animals have feelings, thoughts, goals, needs, and desires that are similar to human functions and capacities, and these similarities should be respected, not exploited, because of the selfishness of humans. Tom Regan asserts that "animals are subjects of a life just as human beings are, and a subject of a life has inherent value. They are . . . ends in themselves" (qtd. in Orlans 26). Therefore, animals' lives should be respected because they have an inherent right to be treated with dignity. The harm that is committed against animals should not be minimized because they are not considered to be "human."
In conclusion, animal testing should be eliminated because it violates animals' rights, it causes pain and suffering to the experimental animals, and other means of testing product toxicity are available. Humans cannot justify making life better for themselves by randomly torturing and executing thousands of animals per year to perform laboratory experiments or to test products. Animals should be treated with respect and dignity, and this right to decent treatment is not upheld when animals are exploited for selfish human gain. After all, humans are animals too.
Against Animal Testing. The Body Shop, 1993.
Balls, Michael. "Time to Reform Toxic Tests." New Scientist 134 (1992):31-33.
Orlans, F. Barbara. In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation. New York: Oxford UP, 1993.
Silcock, Sheila. "Is Your Experiment Really Necessary?" New Scientist 134 (1992): 32-34.
Launch Teen Ink Chat
Chat with other Teen Ink's chat is available to Teen Ink members only. If you're aged 13-19, please sign up or log in.
Teen Ink members
Should Animal Testing Be Banned?
March 8, 2012
I think animal testing is cruelty more than science. Animals are not treated well and are often abused by their handlers. Small animals share a shoe box sized cage with at least eight other small animals. That’s no way to live. Imagine stuffing eight human beings into a regular sized bedroom. Where are you all going to sleep or get dressed? Not easy right? Animals will be held down by metal bands or locked in small cages with a hole cut out for the animals head to be trapped into, so they can not move around and be a hassle while being tested on. An ats lab in North Carolina stuffs monkeys in tubes.
Another harsh thing handlers do is take out dog’s vocal chords so they don’t disturb the lab workers. As for death to an animal; the experimenters will euthanize the animal after being tested on or will use the animal again for further testing until they are dead or useless. If you don’t believe the cruel ways animals are treated, go on youtube and search for: PLRS: undercover at a product- testing lab.
Animals are not just objects. They have feelings and can think, just like us humans do. Rene Descartes, a French philosopher and scientist, said people have the right to use animals just as if they were machines. The more similar the animal is to a human the more intelligent and sentient the animal is, so the more immoral and wrong it is to use the animal as a biological object. Descartes also believed only humans have feelings and could think. If this were true animals wouldn’t flinch and whimper when needles are injected in them or when testers put drops of cologne in the animals’ eye.
Scientists use animals for testing products to make humans lives better right? That’s what I thought too. Well, many experiments that were approved to be available to human beings have later been recalled for safety issues or harmful side affects. Is animal testing very reliable? If products have to be withdrawn from stores and human use, then that in it self should say something. Can we trust that animals will have the same reactions to a product as a human would? Not at all, if we get shampoo in our eyes we immediately know to rinse it out and we’re fine. Animals don’t know that and are not used to such products. Therefore animals will have different reactions to things we can easily fix. A mouse and a human being are not the same and will react differently to different things. We don’t expect a human to live in a cage its whole life. We don’t expect a mouse to brush its teeth and know not to swallow the toothpaste. Many everyday products like toothpaste and soap do not have to be tested for. Companies that make those products and cosmetics however do use animals for testing and it’s completely unnecessary.
There are other ways to test without animals. One process is called the Neutral Red Uptake Assay in which jelly like substances called cultures are put into a glass case then human cells are placed in the culture. Chemicals that are being tested are added to the dish. The human cells will either live or die. The cells react by changing a different color. Researches analyze the color with a computer. The computer can calculate how likely a chemical is to kill human cells. There are also artificial organs, eyes, and skin that react just like the real thing would. Plants and bacteria can be used as well. Doctors can also analyze humans without hurting them by examining what they do on a daily bases. In 1951 Britain doctors showed a link between smoking and lung cancer by examining people who smoke compared to people who don’t. No animals or humans are harmed or killed during any of these tests.
Many people argue that testing on animals is the most efficient way to know that our products are safe. They argue that animals produce much faster then humans do so why not take a few of the animals? Those animals are less important and valuable then human beings anyways right? Wrong. Author Peter Singer says “Humans are animals too, and we must respect other species.” And I agree fully. Other arguments are that using animals is the cheapest way; the other experiments are not as accurate as animals and that using animals have been beneficial to human life. Now I’m not going to say that it hasn’t been helpful but there could have been other alternatives.
After what I have read, yes I am very against animal testing. Yes, animal testing is cruelty and in a lot of cases not necessary. I do use stuff that probably has been tested on animals but did it really have to be? Like perfume, in a test, called the Draize Eye test, scientists spray perfume into a rabbit’s eye. Rabbit’s eyes do not easily wash away irritating substances unlike humans eyes do. Animals are not use to the everyday stuff human’s use, so of course animals will react much differently than humans will. Animals are not meant to use perfume, soap or any other everyday object human’s use, so why test on them? This to me and many others is very cruel and wrong. Save America’s animals before it’s too late.