Amelia Izzo

English 123-16: College Compostition

Professor Eileen Abrahams
4/2/15

Animal Testing: Torturing Americas Furriest Friends

Today many forms of torture are used all over the United States, and
many other countries, to punish one for acts which are not viewed as right
in that society. The Oxford English Dictionary Online defines torture in three
specific ways. Torture is the act of inflicting pain upon a subject. It also
includes severe suffering and confusion on the body and mind. It can be
defined as continuously tormenting a subject to get desired results to
support evidence and information. From this one can conclude that animal
testing is torture; but what is at stake isnt the English definition, but the
legal definition of torture.
Cornell University Law School defines the legal definition of torture as
an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically
intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon another
person within his custody or physical control. (Cornell University Law
School, n.d.) In the legal system animals have no rights, they are not
persons, and the only laws that apply to them are euthanasia upon certain
circumstances of violence towards humans. This definition of torture can lead
one to believe that animal testing cannot fall in the category of torture
because animals are not people. Though if you consider Peter Singers Essay

Speciesism Moral Status, and his view on a non-humans moral status, it is

clear that a non-human animals moral status is comparable to some
humans.
Singer argues that people believe they have a superior status to nonhuman animals, due to the superior cognitive capacity of humans, or in
simpler words, their level of intellegence. He provides a few examples of the
cognitive capacity of certain animals that have been proved through tests
and experiments. Apes have proved their ability to learn human sign
language and develop comprehension. One Ape in particular, KoKo, scored a
range of 75-90 on an IQ test. K-9s have proven to recognize human
language, also comprehending various words and learning commands. Also
Singer includes studies done on Grey Parrots, showing that they can not only
learn words and respond with the same human language, but answer novel
questions when asked or quizzed.
What Singers argument comes down to is this: if humans dont
consider certain animals with the ability to talk and comprehend to have a
higher moral value, then do we classify someone with cognitive disabilities in
the same category. He says moral philosophy can and ought to challenge
how we think about people with cognitive disabilities and about the value of
human life. (Singer, 2009) He takes an interesting approach to comparing
non-human animals to people with cognitive disabilities, or mental
retardation. Mental retardation is determined by inability to speak, an IQ
score lower than 25, lack of academic skills, and a few other traits. He proves

that, though most humans do, not all have superior cognitive ability above
non-human animals. In other words, there are certain animals with a higher
intelligence level than certain humans. Singers essay can lead one to
believe that, yes, animals have equal moral status humans. (Singer, 2009)
The United States government has used torture techniques for years
on criminals, terrorists, and suspects in America, Guantanamo bay, and
Afghanistan. In Guantanamo Bay, the government has tortured its captures
by beatings, sexual harassment, and deprivation of medical treatment. This
causes the subject to suffer from physical and psychological pain and effects.
Also in Guantanamo Bay, they use short-shackling as a torture technique. By
short-shackling, ones arms and legs are bound together and they are forced
to lay on a cement floor for hours, or even days. Holding these positions for
long periods of time are un comfortable and can lead to broken bones and
muscle and joint problems. Sleep deprivation and exposure to extreme
temperatures are torture tactics that can cause confusion, resulting in
anxiety, depression, and other psychological problems. These tactics cause
pain and confusion, threatening ones life until the day they die.
In the United States, over 100 million animals-- including dogs, cats,
mice, and monkeys-- are test subjects in laboratories used for drug,
cosmetic, and experimental testing. Animals that are commonly known as
household pets are forced to live their lives in these labs, which leads to their
painful deaths, still in these labs. The basis of animal testing is that animals
are pricked and prodded at by scientists to test the toxicity of products and

chemicals developed year round, to ensure safe and proper use for humans.
Three major U.S. Regulatory Agencies that require animal testing on their
products are the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), and the Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC). (National Anti-Vivisection Society, 2015)
The truth behind animal testing is this: animal subjects are forced to
live a sheltered life, never seeing the light of day. They have no control over
when they want to eat, sleep, or even walk or roam any surrounding area.
According to PETAs official website, the following examples show what really
happens behind closed doors of animal testing laboratories. Not only are
animals deprived of light, food, and freedom, but they are also forced to be
subjects of painful experiments. Animals are shocked, poisoned, and braindamaged by undergoing constant surgeries, being force-fed chemicals, and
by having their bones crushed while undergoing tests. After these painful
procedures animals do not receive pain killers, and are forced back into their
wired cages until it is their turn again to be tested on. These tests have brain
washed lab animals to fear people and view them as enemies. Video footage
from inside the laboratories support this, showing animals who cower in fear
when approached by humans. (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,
2015)
Two popular tests performed on animals are the Draize Rabbit Eye Test
and the Draize Skin Test (National Anti-Vivisection Society, 2015). The
purpose of the Draize Rabbit Eye Test is to determine whether chemicals in

products effect the human eye. It measures the reversible and non-reversible
irritations that a specific chemical brings to a rabbits eye. The procedure
tests a group of usually 3-6 rabbits. Scientists place a small amount of a
chemical substance on each eye of the rabbits. The animals are observed
over a period of 21 days, causing them to suffer pain and blindness in their
eyes. The second test is the Draize Test for skin. This is a test conducted on
many different animals, not just rabbits. To prepare for the test scientists
strip an animals skin by applying an adhesive tape and quickly removing it,
repeating the process several times. The procedure is used to measure the
inflammatory response when a substance is applied to the animals skin. This
is painful, causing itching and burning sensations. (National Anti-Vivisection
Society, 2015) The third common test is the LTD50 test. This is the
application of the lethal dose of a subject that is given to 50 percent of the
test animal population. Animals are force fed chemicals for 14-28 days at a
time or often until they die. This test is used to determine the overall toxicity
of a substance. (National Anti-Vivisection Society, 2015)
John Ericson wrote the article Killing to Stay Alive explaining the
importance of animal testing in the medical field. He covers the precautions
that scientists face if prohibition of animal testing ever came about. In his
article, Ericson quotes Frankie Tull, a science advocate and president of the
Foundation for Biochemical Research (FBR) who claims: An immediate end
to animal research in the U.S. would be a death sentence for millions of
people around the world. She argues that any American citizen that has

taken any form of medication, vaccine, chemotherapy, and many other

medical procedures are beneficiaries of animal testing. Ericsons argument is
clear: animal testing is essential for medical advancements and without it
people around the world will suffer medical consequences. An example
Ericson gives is the Alzheimers disease. Scientists currently are working to
find a cure and a prohibition on animal testing will be the cause of losing all
achievements made, and deter any future discoveries. (Ericson, 2014)
Though his argument questions the value of animal testing, this possible
form of rebuttal can sway one towards the idea that animal testing is not
torture due to its necessity for medical advancements.
Today many forms of torture are recognizable. Criminals and terrorists
are recognized as acceptable subjects to torture, tormented to receive
desired information to support evidence needed in court cases and many
other things. To include animal testing as a form of torture, moral value and
moral beliefs must be considered. Today we do not consider animals human,
but it is clear they sustain some moral value if you compare them to those
with cognitive disabilities. If we dont consider the morality of animal life
when they exceed the intelligence level of a mentally retarded person, then
do we even consider the morality of that disabled human? Though animal
testing is viewed in the scientific world as an important part of discoveries, it
is commonly ignored that the well-being of animals is affected. Every day
millions of animals suffer from severe pain inflicted upon them by scientists.
They are tormented by being forced to be subjects of 21 day long tests and

being fed chemicals that could potentially harm or even kill them. Lab
animals suffer brain damage and are brain washed to believe humans are
enemies, not friends.

Citation Page
Cornell University Law School. (n.d.). Legal Institution Institute. Retrieved from
Cornell University Law School:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2340
Ericson, J. (2014). Killing To Stay Alive. Newsweek Global, 3.
National Anti-Vivisection Society. (2015). Animals In Science. Retrieved from NAVS:
http://www.navs.org/science/animals-in-product-testing
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. (2015). Cruelty to Animals in
Labratories. Retrieved from PETA: http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-usedfor-experimentation/animals-laboratories/
Singer, P. (2009, July). Specimism and Moral Status. Retrieved from
http://www.oswego.edu/~delancey/Singer.pdf