Ting 1

Yi Yuen - Janelle Ting

Nkenna Onwuzuruoha
English 1010
13 April 2015
Animal Testing: Good, Bad, or Ugly?
Over the years, as science in the medical and consumer field progress, the production of
new products is also on rise. The increase in the number of products correlates to the need to test
on animals, causing the controversy surrounding the issue of animal testing to become everprevalent. But one may ask, why animals? Animals are easy to over power, are readily available,
and is not another human being - who will suffer the potentially permanent or even lethal side
effects; therefore no lawsuit. Correspondingly, it leads me to address this compelling and trivial
query, "Is it an ethical and necessary to be performed on animals?"
Some of us might begin to ask, "Is sacrificing a few lives worth it for the greater good of
humanity?" Because for some institutions, particularly in medicine, animal research is a vital
component progress. They believe that animal-based research is essential for obtaining the
results needed for conducting studies and experiments. For instance, insulin was discovered
when dogs had their pancreases removed, critical to saving the lives of diabetics (Nobel
Media). Testing on animals has also helped perfect the formula for the polio vaccine, which has
drastically reduced the global occurrence of the disease from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 223 cases
in 2012 (World Health Organization). Chris Abee, Director of the University of Texas M.D.
Anderson Cancer Center's animal research facility, claimed that "we wouldn't have a vaccine for
hepatitis B without chimpanzees," and also added that the use of chimpanzees is "our best hope"
for finding a vaccine for Hepatitis C, a disease that kills 15,000 people every year in the United

Ting 2
States. Aside from those, it has contributed to major breakthroughs in understanding and treating
conditions such as breast cancer, brain injury, childhood leukemia, cystic fibrosis, malaria,
multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis, and was instrumental in the development of pacemakers, cardiac
valve substitutes, and anesthetics (AnimalResearch.info, Elizabeth Fisher,
SpeakingOfResearch.com, American Association for Laboratory Animal Science). As for
consumer products such as cosmetic and healthcare products, it is imperative that they are to
ensure the safety and quality of the product before it is released for commercial use. To do so,
researchers need to sample the product on a living organism in order to determine how it may
react on a person.
For researches, merely testing on cell cultures in a petri dish or tissue samples do not
produce results as adequate as a whole, functioning body system does. Furthermore, the
information in computer models is gleaned from the data gathered from animal research;
however, " even the most powerful supercomputers are unable to accurately simulate the
workings of complex organs" (SpeakingOfResearch.com). Most importantly, "[w]hen testing
medicines for potential toxicity, the lives of human volunteers should not be put in danger
unnecessarily. It would be unethical to perform invasive experimental procedures ... and some
experiments involve genetic manipulation that would be unacceptable to impose..."
(SpeakingOfResearch.com). As opposed to the amount of livestock we consume, far less animals
pay the price for advancing science, according to Tom Holder.
As demonstrated and assured by Texas Biomedical Research Institute, as long as the
animals do not suffer through harm and stress, the experiments performed on them are regulated,
and they are well cared for, it is okay to use them for research purposes. They have a full-time

Ting 3
team of "dedicated staffs" at National Southwest Primate Research Center to provide "humane
care and treatment" for the primate subjects. They stand by two principles: to ensure " that
animals deserve high-quality care and state-of-the-art preventive medicine; and second, that
high-quality scientific data can be derived only from animals that are treated humanely and
provided with proper care." By complying with all federal regulations and national guidelines
from organizations like the United States Department of Agriculture and Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, the wellbeing of the animals are protected. "Animal research is highly
regulated, with laws in place to protect animals from mistreatment. In addition to local and state
laws and guidelines, animal research has been regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act ...
requir[ing] regular inspections from veterinarians." (Animal Welfare Act).
Aside from humans, animals also benefit from the findings. If it was not for the
development of vaccines which resulted from animal specimens, populations of animals would
easily be susceptible and die from rabies, distemper, feline leukemia, infectious hepatitis virus,
tetanus, anthrax, and canine parvo virus (California Biomedical Research Association). In
addition, the treatments developed include pacemakers for heart disease, as well as remedies for
glaucoma and hip dysplasia. The koala, a species that is threatened by extinction, was ravaged by
an epidemic of sexually transmitted chlamydia (Beaumont). In an effort to delay the animal's
disappearance, chlamydia vaccines that are in the making are being tested on them (Wright,
Cole, Kazdin).
Nonetheless, not many are aware of the atrocities that result from animal research that
goes on behind closed doors as they procedures they are subject to and their living conditions are
not transparent to the public. "It is estimated that at least 500 million animals suffer in labs

Ting 4
throughout the United States. 75 million "excess" mice, alone, are destroyed without even being
used by researchers per year." (Massachusetts Animal Rights Coalition). Very often, the tests
performed causes the animal unimaginable pain and suffering. For instance, animals are burned,
cut, maimed, addicted to drugs, starved, restrained, forced fed, given fatal diseases, not
administered anesthesia (Massachusetts Animal Rights Coalition). The animals are subjected to
spend their whole life in cages, only to be taken out when they are to be tempered with by the
research scientists. As if they been through enough already, they are also purposely deprived of
their basic needs, isolated, tortured, and endure painful and cruel lab procedures over an
extended period of time until they eventually succumb to the lifetime of suffering.
As an illustration, there are three main animal tests used on millions of animals. One of
them is the Eye Irritancy Testing which is also called the Draize test, used by cosmetics
companies to evaluate irritation caused by shampoos and other products. It involves fully
conscious rabbits being incapacitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes
for multiple days, so they cannot blink away the products (Scientific American). The extreme
pain often causes them to struggle so severely that they break their own backs-dying in needless
agony (Costa). Secondly is the Skin Irritancy Testing, which places corrosive chemicals onto the
shaved/raw skin of rabbits and guinea pigs. The caustic nature of these substances causes severe
injuries to the animals. Gaping wounds and bleeding are common. And the Oral Toxicity Testing,
the LD50, force-feeds strong chemicals to fully conscious animals to find out which dose of a
chemical will kill 50% of the animals, which could take as long as 14 to 28 days (Kamrin,
Montgomery). The agonizing pain and death they suffer from these savage acts are
unfathomable, no living creature deserves this sort of treatment.

Ting 5
Even the appraised Animal Welfare Act has an ominous loophole, where a staggering
95% of animals used in experiments are not regarded, because the Act does not cover rats, mice,
fish and birds, which comprise around 95% of the animals used in research (The Hastings
Center). Moreover, the information resulting from animal tests are inapplicable to humans
because " the anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make
animals poor models for human beings" (New England Anti-Vivisection Society). Sometimes,
drugs that pass the animal tests are not even necessarily guaranteed safe, potentially causing
humans to suffer its adverse side effects (Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine). For
example, animal tests on the arthritis drug Vioxx showed that it had a protective effect on the
hearts of mice, yet the drug went on to cause more than 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac
deaths (NBC News). Or it could happen the other way round and lead doctors astray from ever
finding the cure: Aspirin, and Fk-506 (tacrolimus) - used to lower the risk of organ transplant
rejection, are dangerous for some animal species, and were "almost shelved" because of animal
test results, according to neurologist Aysha Akhtar. In the end, the animals suffer and die in vain.
Fortunately for the animals, researchers have discovered modern and alternative methods.
One of them is called In Vitro testing, where the sophisticated tests involve using human cells
and tissues (Kara Rogers). Compared to the alternative tests, animal tests are more expensive and
are a waste of government research dollars. A "rat uterotrophic assay" costs $29,600, while the
corresponding in vitro test is a relatively lower cost of $7,200 (US National Institutes of Health).
As opposed to dilly-dallying, wasting time and money to configure results of animal tests,
studying on the human patient could quickly and directly identify the cause and solution.
Comparative studies of human populations helped doctors and scientists to discover the root
causes of human diseases and disorders like the relationship between smoking and lung cancer,

Ting 6
so that preventive action can be taken (Anderegg). Micro-dosing can provide information on the
safety of an experimental drug and how it is metabolized in the body by administering an
extremely small one-time dose that is well below the threshold necessary for any potential
pharmacologic effect to take place (Center for Drug Evaluation and Research).
Next, what is referred to as computer modeling, or In Silico models, use advanced
computer-modeling techniques that incorporates data gathered from studies with human
volunteers. It allows comprehensive, virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures,
which can predict the toxicity of substances without invasive experiments (Geoff Watts). Studies
have determined that students who use these computer programs have scored equal, if not better
results compared to the students who performed dissection (Balcombe). Even prominent
medical schools like Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, have replaced their use of live with humane
and effective non-animal teaching methods, including observation of actual human cardiac
bypass surgery, patient simulators, cadavers, sophisticated computer program. No longer
hindered by the differences between species, these revised and cutting-edge methods collectively
save time, as well as resources.
At this day and age, there has to be another better way right? PETA exclaimed that there
are indeed alternatives available, and they are supposedly even more efficient and reliable
compared to the "crude, archaic animal tests, non-animal methods usually take less time to
complete, cost only a fraction of what the animal experiments that they replace cost, and are not
plagued with species differences that make extrapolation difficult or impossible." (PETA).
Animals suffer unnecessarily when there are already better solutions available. Given this new

Ting 7
knowledge, we should do our part by making smarter choices in the future by supporting crueltyfree brands and companies.
Just like you and I, animals are living creatures with the ability to be conscious and feel. I
believe that it is only human to treat them with respect and regard them as you would with
another fellow human being. Very often, in the eyes of entitled and ignorant human beings, an
animal's life is not valued; they do not deserve humane treatment, basic rights, and are powerless.
How would you like to be put in the same position?