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.