Amponsah 1

Emmanuel Amponsah

English 1102

Dr. King

7/10/13

Animal Testing

Throughout history, the use of animals to test products that

range from dish detergents, mouthwash, and medication has been

part of human society since WWI and WWII (Greaves 226). Animals

used in experimentation are generally used in three main areas of

study (Ranganatha 28). They are used in biomedical research,

product screening, and education (Ranganatha 28). Animals used

for testing are purposely euthanized in some occasions. Half of

the animals used for testing in the United States are used to

test for things such as medication and the other half is used to

test general products (Ranganatha 28). Animal rights activists

constantly pressure government agencies to pass laws that place

regulations on animal research (Hajar 42). Nevertheless, the

regulations that animal rights activists want the government to

place are accompanied with increasing distress on how it will

Amponsah 2

dramatically affect scientific progression, and how it will

affect the world as a whole (Stokes 18).

In this world, animals are used to test products that range

from lipstick, shampoos, to new cancer treatment drugs

(Ranganatha 28). “Every product that is released to the public

for human trial is tested on an animal first” (Brooks 14). At the

moment, many questions are emerging that surrounds the ethics of

animal testing (Stokes 17). Consequently, regulations have been

established by governments in order to evaluate and direct the

animals that are used for test experiments. The regulations that

have been established are aimed to ensure that the animals used

in experiments are treated in a humane manner (Ranganatha 29).

Even though some regulations have been established, animal

testing is still a subject that is hard to accept, and leads to a

lot of heated debate (Hajar 42). The use of animals in

experimentation is considered deadly and unsafe, but people

understand that it is necessary in order for medical research to

continue (Ranganatha 28). We as human beings need to find new

methods that will, over time, eliminate the harmful process of

Amponsah 3

using animals as test subjects; sadly, we have yet to discover

such methods, so all we can do now is continue with our research

(Ferdosian 2). Supporters of the issue are adamant in their

belief that animal testing is an important asset to human

progress.

People who support animal testing argue that if animals were

removed from experimentation, then biological and medical

research will cease to exist (Burnet 35). Supporters of animal

testing states that animal testing is a justifiable practice,

because it assists in new discoveries that help people and other

organisms (Garner 128). Surgical procedures using animals have

helped with the development of organ transplantation and major

medical breakthroughs like open-heart surgery (National Research

Council 1). The use of animals in research has assisted in

developing vaccines that fights disease like measles, and

rubella. Methods such as in vitro fertilization, and hormone

replacement therapy would have not been invented if animals were

not used in research (Hartung, 233). Supporters argue that

current testing techniques that are available today are simply

not advanced enough; they want the government to provide them

Amponsah 4

with more funding, which will in effect raise product development

(Little Funding To Develop Non-Animal Testing 273). Advancements

in medical research procedures have been developed because of

animal experimentation (National Research Council 1).

Medical research would have never progressed if animals were

not used in experimentation. Medical procedures that involve

checking blood pressure and open heart surgery were performed on

animals prior to being released for trial to humans (Stokes 17).

Surgical techniques that involve the mending and elimination of

bone diseases were created from experiments conducted with the

use of animal test models (Leppänen 1623). Animal experimentation

not only benefits humanity as a whole, but it also helps other

animals as well. Medicines, like heart worm medication were

created by testing animals (National Research Council 14). This

medicine has assisted countless dogs that have suffered from

heart worms. Those who agree with using animals in research argue

that society is obligated to take certain actions that will lower

the risk of fatal injuries and maximize the benefits that we as

human beings are entitled to. Animal testing supporters argue

Amponsah 5

that the replacement of animals in research will never be

possible (Caminiti 147).

Contestants of animal testing argue that if animal testing

was to be banned then society would never evolve, it will remain

unchanged, and devoid of its full potential (Caminiti 147).

Scientists are not evil people, their primary goal is to minimize

pain to every extent, but for now all we have to sacrifice are

animals in order to achieve results in human prosperity. People

who are against the practice portray medical researchers, and

scientists of any kind, as being crazy and cruel. Nevertheless,

when one is given painkillers or a dose of anesthesia, one should

ask themselves where did these innovations come from, and what

their purpose is. Those in favor of animal testing base their

arguments on the grounds of facts.

Individuals that support animal testing argue with their

facts that the advantages that animal testing has given to

mankind is greater than the costs in terms of the suffering that

the animals used in experiments had to endure (Garner 126). They

believe that society is obligated to increase their use of

Amponsah 6

animals in research so that more opportunities and medical

discoveries are found even if it is at the cost of subjecting

animals to agonizing pain and stress. Additionally, some argue

that the lives of the animals used in experimentation to a

certain degree is worthy of admiration, but the value of an

animal's life is not equal to the life of a human being (Garner

126). In the eyes of an advocate of animal testing, animals lack

true emotions.

Human beings are considered living things that have the

capacity to love, to feel, to laugh, and cry, an animal is seen

to lack these emotions (Jarymowicz 10). For instance, if an

individual was placed in a situation that involved saving a

little boy and his pet monkey stuck in a burning apartment, who

do you think the individual would save first, the monkey or the

little boy? Basic human instinct would guide us to save the

little boy first with little regard to the safety of his pet.

Humans carry with them the mindset that they are superior to all

other living things in this world, they see the lives of animals

as being inferior to them, and they refuse to see animals as

their equals or moral equivalents (Garner 125). In hindsight, an

Amponsah 7

animal is characterized as ‘any group of multicellular eukaryotic

organism,” which includes plants, and fungi (Animals 1). To some

degree, humans contradict themselves when they lower the value of

another creature's life, and use them in experimentation (Garner

125). We as human beings hold a sense of responsibility when it

comes to the well-being of another living creature’s life (Garner

126).

Mankind holds a sense of responsibility in preventing any

animal from experiencing pain and suffering (Garner 126). On the

other hand, when the issue of animal testing is brought to mind,

we are challenged with the moral predicament of choosing between

the well-being of humans and the well-being of animals (Garner

126). People in favor of animal testing debate that only mankind

is responsible for moral rights, and the principles of justice

(Philosophies of Law). Morality, “is there a moral duty to obey

the law even when it does not embody morality, and, if so, are

there any limits to this duty” (Philosophies of Law)? In the

society we live in today, morality is considered to be a man-made

concept that is not associated with animals. Man is limited when

it comes to “how far and in what sense should the law of a

Amponsah 8

community seek to give effect to its morality “(Philosophies of

law). The concept of morality is typically found in communities.

It’s a concept that is forged by the people within it; animals

are excluded from this moral community. People who do not support

animal experimentation usually base their arguments on the

grounds of morality.

Activists of animal experimentation post their arguments on

the grounds of morality. The people who are against using animals

for research often times question the necessity or the validity

of the procedures conducted on the animals; they question whether

the tests conducted on the animals are actually needed in order

to provide us with any useful information (Garner 125).

Supporters of animal rights are quick to say that animals used in

research have the rights to live a peaceful life; a life that is

devoid of human interactions (Garner 125). The deaths that are

involved in animal research is considered unnecessary and

considered no different from murder. The direct dissection and

use of animals in research is regarded as misleading (Burnet 34).

The belief that the animals used in experimentation is misleading

usually generates two different arguments.

Amponsah 9

The arguments against animal experimentation generate two

different arguments. Individuals may believe that the purpose of

this type of testing is not significant. For example,

purposefully blinding an animal in order to generate a new kind

of eye medication have yet to be justified (Alternative Methods

to Animal Tests). Other animal rights supporters argue that the

reaction exhibited by an animal to a certain drug is no different

from a human being (Garner 126). Animals are used to test things

like cleaning products more than being used to test for medical

and surgical products (National Research Council 5). The major

drawback of animal testing explained by John Frazier and Alan

Goldberg of CAAT, are animal distress and casualty, genus-

analysis complications and enormous time and upkeep (Lien 764).

The primary concern of animal rights activists when the issue of

testing is involved is the environmental conditions that the

animals are kept in.

The environment of animal test subjects is a major concern

to activists. Animals that are involved in experiments are held

in captivity, the animals in captivity often die as a result of

the experiments conducted on them, or euthanasia is administered

Amponsah 10

(Ranganatha 27). Researchers that are involved in the practice

see animals as tools, creatures that are devoid of consciousness

and emotion. In the typical laboratory environment, an animal is

susceptible to be poisoned, and lethally injected with toxic

chemical compounds (Ranganatha 27). This is one of the reasons

why animal activists see animal testing as being vicious and

inessential.

Activists argue “that the use of animals for testing

purposes is vicious and inessential; they have a strong belief

that animals share genetic, neuroanatomical, and physiological

similarities with humans” (Ferdowsian 1). They believe that the

use of animals for testing drugs is not a plausible form of

information (Garner 125). Human beings are considerably different

from other animals found on earth, so the results that emerge

from animal testing may not be applicable to humans (Garner 126).

Activists argue that the way certain species behave to a drug or

chemical compound in a distinct way does not really lead to other

species reacting in the same way (Alternative Methods to Animal

Tests). Peitro Croce, an Italian professor has contended against

animal testing for several years (Croce). Croce argues that the

Amponsah 11

results received through animal testing is misleading and have no

correlation when applied to humans. The plant parsley is

considered a baneful poison for certain species of parrots, yet

we use it as a type relish for our food; the compound arsenic is

poisonous to humans, but is not harmful to sheep. A rhino can

ingest large amounts of opium in one sitting, but a human cannot.

The compound morphine is considered a type of anesthetic that

human beings use, but if it is given to a dog, cat, or mouse it

generates a state of convulsive activity (Morphine 1). Methods

like the 3R system were developed to alleviate the pain, stress,

and psychological torment that the animals go through (Ferdosian

1).

Alternative methods have been created over the years in an

attempt to test products without harming animals. Methods such

as the 3R principle have been developed to establish new ways for

testing products. The three Rs stand for replacement, reduction,

and refinement (Ranganatha, 28). This alternative method was

classified as building blocks, or stepping stones required to

establish new methods for animal testing (Ferdosian 1). The basis

around this idea was not to get rid of the use of animals in

Amponsah 12

testing all together, but to create methods of experiments that

are notably more humane for the animals used in experiments

(Ranganatha 27). A new method that emerged in the past is the

use of computers in order to cut down the number of animals used

in testing.

The use of computers was created in order to lower the

amount of animal test subjects used in experimentation.

“Computers make it possible to observe, manipulate physiological

processes to an extent that might be possible or financially

viable in a living animal or in animal parts” (Biever 1). The use

of computer models can display the anatomy in humans. Computers

can display “lungs, musculoskeletal system, digestive system,

skin, kidney, lymphatic system and the brain” (Biever 1). Those

against animal testing see this method as an ideal way to address

the three main areas of study that requires the use of animals as

testing models. Although using computers as an alternative for

animal experimentation looks promising, scientist and supporters

of animal experimentation argue that this method does not produce

efficient results. Scientist and supporters that are involved in

Amponsah 13

animal experimentation are aware that using animals to study is

somewhat immoral, but they understand that it is for a greater

cause, a greater cause that oftentimes stirs the emotions between

both sides of the issue.

Numerous studies and experiments have been conducted by

supporters and activists of animal testing in order to determine

emotions exhibited by each of the opposing sides. “In Britain

alone, it is estimated that some 3 million animals, from fruit

flies to mice to nonhuman primates are used annually in

experiments, and may be subsequently euthanized” (Swami, 269).

This is a shockingly high number, a number that consequently

results in heated debates by activists of the practice. In an

experiment, “185 British and 43 American undergraduates completed

a battery of tests that measured attitudes toward animal testing

and various individual difference variables” (Swami, 278). The

results of the tests yielded into two sections.

The test conducted by British and American undergraduates

yielded varying results. The sections included “general attitudes

Amponsah 14

toward animal testing, animal welfare, and conditions of testing”

(Swami, 269). “Results showed that there was encouragement for

animal experimentation under the right conditions, although there

was also concern for the welfare and conditions of testing”

(Swami, 268). Americans in the study were more acquiescent about

the testing of animals and less acquiescent about the welfare of

the animals. Women were more on the negative side of animal

testing; they seemed to hate the whole concept of using animals

as testing models (Swami 48). There were individuals that had

indifferent attitudes as well (Swami 268). The use of animals is

a controversial issue; the opposing sides are always debating

with one another in an attempt to justify their beliefs.

The argument that is presented by supporters and activists

of animal testing is an issue that will continue for a long time.

Professor R.G. Frey, an activists of animal testing argues that

the direct use of lab animals should be illegalized on the spot

(Frey 202). Nevertheless, a person may argue by stating that if

animals were to be completely removed from research, it will lead

to the prevention in the development of basic medical research,

and production of vaccines. New medicines would not be available

Amponsah 15

for the general public, and patients in hospitals would be at

risk. However, a supporter of animal testing may state that

mankind has always profited from health care advancements that

solely depends on the achievements of animal research. On the

other hand, some argue that testing for cosmetic items like

lotion, lipstick, and household goods is not an acceptable amount

of data to accumulate support for this controversy. The pain that

the animals have to endure during testing is unimaginable;

therefore, the basis for animal testing cannot be supported (Frey

202). However, all animal testing cannot be removed right away

because it is the only way that mankind can develop medicines and

cures (National Research Council 5). Even though alternative

methods to animal testing has been created over the years, the

biases that exist on both sides of the issue still exist, animal

testing is an issue that still to this day has yet to be solved

(Ranganatha 27).

The use of animals in research is a controversial subject;

the biases that abide on both sides can throw off balance the

concrete annotation of the practice. Those against the practice

would reply that animal testing creates distress and agony. Those

Amponsah 16

who support animal testing may denominate it as an analysis that

avails animals to aid in the prosperity of humans, where it

emancipates the longevity of men, women, and children, and

provide medical treatment (National Research Council 5). Numerous

debates have been held in regards to animal testing for

centuries, but sadly no concrete solution has been established

that will satisfy both supporters and activists of animal testing

(Hajar 42).

Amponsah 17

Work Cited

“Alternative Methods to Animal Tests." domain-b. 347 words.

LexisNexis Academic. (2012): Web. 28 June. 2013

“Animal.” Encyclopedia Britannica online. Encyclopedia Britannica. 2013.

Web. 03 Jul. 2013.

Biever, Celeste. "Can Computer Models Replace Animal

Testing." New Scientist 190.2551 (2006): 7. Academic Search

Complete. Web. 30 June 2013.

Brooks, Michael. "The Truth about Animal Testing." New

Statesman Jul 23 2012: 14. Research Library Web. 3 July 2013 .

Burnett, Cynthia. "Should Animals Continue to be used in Research

Experiments?" Issues 03 2009: 34-9. Research Complete. Web. 10

July 2013.

Amponsah 18

Caminiti, Roberto. "Replacement Of Animals In Research Will Never

Be Possible." Nature 457.7226 (2009): 147. Academic Search

Complete. Web. 10 July 2013.

Croce, Pietro. Vivisection or Science?: An Investigation into Testing

Drugs and Safeguarding Health. London: Zed in Association with

Doctors and Lawyers for Responsible Medicine, 1999. Print.

Ferdowsian, Hope R., and Nancy Beck. "Ethical and Scientific

Considerations Regarding Animal Testing and Research." Plos

ONE 6.9 (2011): 1-4. Academic Search Complete. Web. 28 June

2013.

GARNER, ROBERT. "Animals, Ethics And Public Policy." Political

Quarterly 81.1 (2010): 123-130. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10

July 2013.

Greaves, Peter, Andrew Williams, and Malcolm Eve. "First Dose Of

Potential New Medicines To Humans: How Animals Help." Nature

Reviews Drug Discovery 3.3 (2004): 226-236. Academic Search

Complete. Web. 28 June 2013.

Amponsah 19

Hajar, Rachel. "Animal Testing And Medicine." Heart Views 12.1

(2011): 42. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 July 2013.

Hartung, Thomas, and George Daston. "Are In Vitro Tests Suitable

For Regulatory Use?" Toxicological Sciences 111.2 (2009):

233-237. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 July 2013.

Jarymowicz, Maria. "Understanding Human Emotions." Journal Of Russian

& East European Psychology 50.3 (2012): 9-25. Academic Search

Complete. Web. 10 July 2013.

Lein, Pamela, Paul Locke, and Alan Goldberg. "Meeting Report:

Alternatives For Developmental Neurotoxicity

Testing." Environmental Health Perspectives115.5 (2007): 764-

768. Academic Search Complete. Web. 8 July 2013.

Leppänen, Olli V., Harri Sievänen, and Teppo L. N. Järvinen.

"Biomechanical Testing in Experimental Bone Interventions--

may the Power be with You." Journal of Biomechanics 41.8 (2008):

1623-31. ProQuest. Web. 10 July 2013.

“Little Funding To Develop Non-Animal Testing." Nature 418.6895

(2002): 273. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 July 2013.

Amponsah 20

“Morphine." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica

Inc., 2013. Web. 10 Jul. 2013.

National Research Council. Science, Medicine, and Animals . Washington,

DC: The National Academies Press, 1991

“Philosophy of Law.” Encyclopedia Britannica online. Encyclopedia

Britannica. 2013. Web. 03 Jul. 2013.

R. G. Frey and D. Thomas Journal of Medical Ethics , Vol. 31, No. 4

(Apr., 2005), pp. 202-204

Ranganatha, N., and I. J. Kuppast. "A Review on Alternatives to

Animal Testing Methods in Drug Development." International

Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences 4. (2012): 28-

32. Academic Search Complete. Web. 28 June 2013.

Stokes, William S. “Best Practices for The Use of Animals In

Toxicological Research and Testing.” Annals of the New York

Academy of Sciences 1245.1 (2011): 17-20. Academic Search

Complete. Web. 28 June 2013.

Amponsah 21

Swami, Viren, Adrian Furnham, and Andrew N. Christopher. "Free

The Animals? Investigating Attitudes toward Animal Testing

In Britain and the United States." Scandinavian Journal of

Psychology 49.3 (2008): 269-276. Academic Search Complete. Web.

28 June 2013.