First, animal experimentation is an abusive method. Insufficient regulation about procedures that can be done to animals allows for abusive experiments. Abuse can be defined as excessive cruelty (willfully subjecting others to pain and suffering) or habitual violence. Abuse is allowed in research because “the only U.S. law that governs the use of animals in laboratories—the Animal Welfare Act—allows animals to be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged” (“Animal Testing is Bad Science” [1]). These methods are undeniably abusive and cruel, because the suffering is intentional. In Practical Ethics, Peter Singer, an Australian philosopher and professor on the ethics faculties of both Princeton University and University of Melbourne, alludes to British philosopher Jeremy Bentham who famously proposed that “‘the question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but Can they suffer?’” (57). Singer follows up on this question by stating that “defenders of experiments on animals do not deny that animals suffer. They cannot deny the animals’ suffering because they need to stress the similarities between humans and other animals in order to claim that their experiments may have some relevance for human purposes” (Singer, Animal Liberation 40). Singer also points out that United States military “experiments were designed so that many animals would suffer and die without any certainty that this suffering and death would save a single human life, or benefit humans in any way at all” (29). The fact that these experiments would have no benefit to humans certainly qualifies them as excessive, therefore abusive. Possibly the ultimate example of the cruelty of animal experimentation methods is that of the decompression chamber. As Singer notes, decompression chambers were researched in Nazi Germany on other humans. Sadly, later, the experiments were repeated in England on pigs. “All suffered decompression sickness, and some died from these attacks’” (Animal Liberation 83-84). This research was abusive because it caused excessive suffering. When the research has already been documented, even unethically, there is absolutely no excuse to repeat it for curiosity’s sake. As the saying goes, two wrongs do not make a right.
Insufficient regulation about treatment of animals in testing allows for abusive handling. According to Matt Rossell, who formerly worked for Eliot Spindel, a medical researcher in the field of the effects of consumption of nicotine, pregnant monkeys were “subjected to multiple surgeries to implant nicotine pumps in their backs. . . and their babies are cut out of their wombs. . . to dissect their lungs (“Help End,” [1]). If that isn’t bad enough, Rossell continued by saying that he “‘witnessed some of the mothers post-surgery with the same signs of clinical depression that women suffer from after going through the emotional tragedy of losing a stillborn baby’" (“Help End,” [1]). Again, willingly forcing distress and pain on another being who is capable of feeling pain is cruel. The experiments were not even intended to study maternal depression, so forcing the animal mothers to experience excessive suffering is abusive. Spindel’s experiments are just one example of cruel treatment of animals in testing. Even more generally, “no experiment, no matter how painful or trivial, is prohibited [by the US government] – and pain-killers [sic] are not even required (“Animal Testing is Bad Science” [1]). Santa Clara University published an article which states that annually “An estimated eight million [animals] are used in painful experiments. Reports show that at least ten percent of these animals do not receive painkillers” (Andre, Velasquez [2]). Ten percent of eight million is a minimum of eight hundred-thousand animals who are not given painkillers during painful experiments, which is an excessive number.
Second, animal experimentation is an ineffective method. Animal tests are inaccurate because of differences between animals and humans. According to In Defense of Animals, an organization that seeks to protect animal welfare, “in the case of nicotine's effect on infants born to smoking mothers, it is clear that such information could be mined from human clinical studies—and would have direct relevance to humans” (“Help End” [2]). Animal testing was harmful to humans by failing to discourage the active harming of unborn children. The animal tests gave mothers a false sense of security and a wrong belief that their habits were not harmful to their babies, when in fact, the truth is exactly opposite. In fact, “Animal data is so unreliable, that for decades, the tobacco industry used it to ‘prove’ that nicotine is not harmful. It was only through human studies that the link between tobacco consumption and cancer, heart disease, and other pulmonary illnesses was proved” (“Help End” [2]). The use of animal testing in this regard was unhelpful to humans because it failed to show the link between nicotine consumption and disease, thus failing to accurately warn people of potential health dangers. Sadly, these examples are not the only instance of failure of the results of animal tests to accurately translate for human biology. In fact, “The Food & Drug Administration tells us that 92% of drugs tested safe and effective in animals fail in human trials” says John J. Pippin, M.D., who is on the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. He continues with the example of Vioxx, a medicine developed for treating arthritis which “killed more Americans than died in the Vietnam War, yet it was deemed safe in eight studies using six animal species. Many drugs have had severe and even lethal effects in people after demonstrating safety in animal tests” ([1]). This lack of direct correlation is not news. According to Peter Singer, it is common knowledge “that extrapolation from one species to another is a highly risky venture. . . . As well as exposing people to harm, testing on animals may lead us to miss out on valuable products that are dangerous to animals, but not to human beings.” Singer continues to mention the examples of insulin, morphine, and penicillin (Animal Liberation 57). Pippin adds aspirin and acetaminophen to the list ([1]). In this lose-lose situation, animal experimentation is an inaccurate predictor of the effectiveness of medications. The evidence seems to suggest that any benefit from animal experimentation in this regard is marginal at best.
Animal tests are inaccurate because the testing environment skews the results. An essential part of conducting a viable experiment is to allow for only one variable. However, the testing environment is in and of itself a variable not accounted for. According to the New England Anti-Vivisection Society, “stress, routinely experienced by animals in labs, negatively influences the reliability of animal research data. Stress influences heart rate, pulse, blood pressure, muscular activity, and hormone levels and can modify the normal values of these variables significantly” (“Limitations” [1]). The research environment is therefore interfering with the animals’ normal body functions. If normality cannot be established, then a change from the normal state cannot be quantified either. Stress is not the only affected factor. “In one study, researchers discovered that not only is stress a common factor for mice in labs—just having a researcher present can alter a mouse’s behavior—but they also experience ‘sympathy pains’ for the mice surrounding them. ‘In other words, seeing another mouse in distress elevates the amount of distress the onlooker displays’” (“Limitations” [1]). The research environment makes the mice actively behave differently than they would whether they are by themselves or with other mice.
Finally, animal experimentation is an outdated method. Much of the developed world has deemed animal testing unnecessary. For example, “a complete ban on the sale of cosmetics developed through animal testing has taken effect in the European Union. The ban applies to all new cosmetics and their ingredients sold in the EU, regardless of where in the world testing on animals was carried out. The 27 EU countries have had a ban on such tests in place since 2009. But the EU Commission is now asking the EU's trading partners to do the same” (“EU Bans” [1]). Essentially, the vast majority of Europeans deemed animal testing unnecessary and undesirable. As of yet, the ban enacted in 2009 has not hindered the continual development of Europe, and European women can still wear safe, good-quality makeup if they so choose. Transitioning from the cosmetic industry to the medical industry, “Australia, Japan, and the E.U. have already banned or limited experiments on great apes in medical research” (Biba 14). Additionally, because other methods have been deemed better, “the National Institutes of Health announced that it is phasing out experiments on chimpanzees” (Biba 14). These changes, presently limited to great apes, seem to point in the direction that the medical field will go.
Many viable alternatives to animal testing exist. Much of the world is abandoning the use of animal experimentation, but the discontinued use of this method of research and testing will not leave the medical and scientific realm without ways to discover new data or verify data and safety of products. “Effective, affordable, and humane research methods include sophisticated in vitro, genomic, and computer-modeling techniques as well as studies of human populations, volunteers, and patients“ (“Alternatives” [1]). According to Popular Science article “From Chimp to Chip,” by Erin Biba, institutions have created, or are developing, tissue and organ models on chips that effectively model human reactions (14). Additionally, alternative methods of research tend to be cheaper than animal experimentation because they don’t require purchasing, housing, feeding, and maintaining living creatures. The existence of these methods makes any need for animal testing obsolete.
As Bishop Desmond Tutu once famously said, "There's nothing more difficult than waking someone who is only pretending to be asleep." Although the world is still only beginning to realize the moral indefensibility of animal testing, some simply do not want to know. As has been evidenced, ignorance is certainly not bliss, especially for the animals being researched on. There is however, a brighter, more ethical future in sight for research and discovery. Because animal experimentation is clearly unnecessary, it is no longer morally justified.
Works Cited
Andre, Claire and Manuel Velasquez. “Of Cures and Creatures Great and Small.” Issues in Ethics. V. 1, N. 3 (1988) Web. 10 Nov. 2013.
“Alternatives to Animal Testing.” PETA. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.
“Animal Testing Is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint.” PETA. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.
Biba, Erin. “From Chimp to Chip.” Popular Science Dec. 2013: 14, Print.
“EU Bans Sale of All Animal-tested Cosmetics.” BBC News. 11 March 2013. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.
“Help End Nicotine Experiments on Monkeys at OHSU.” Vivisectioninfo.org. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.
“Limitations and Dangers.” NEAVS. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.
Pippin, John. “Put Animal Testing to Sleep: Pro: Misleading Conclusions, Wasted Money.” Bloomberg Business Week. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.
Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. 1975. New York: HarperCollins, 2009. Print.
---. Practical Ethics. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge UP. 1993. Print.
