Is Animal Testing Justifiable

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Animal testing is a term that most people are aware of but perhaps unsure of what it entails. Animal testing or experimentation, also sometimes referred to as in vivo testing is the use of animals in experiments and development projects usually to determine toxicity, dosing and efficacy of test drugs and cosmetics before proceeding to human clinical trials, while also aiming to understand further how the human body may work. Supporters of animal testing argue it is a necessity, that without animals, the revolutionary advances in medicine that people and animals have benefitted from today may not have happened. For example, antibiotics, vaccines, anaesthetics that are now taken for granted. It is argued that the development in understanding and control of conditions such as diabetes, asthma and high blood pressure would not have progressed, which in turn would have caused much more suffering and claimed the lives of many innocent people. Animal testing is said to play a vital role in the evolution of medicine. Those opposed to the practice believe it involves the torture and unnecessary pain and suffering of animals and is never an absolute representation of result in humans. An example in history being the use of Thalidomide in pregnant women to reduce the effects of morning sickness, the drug was marketed as a mild sleeping pill safe for even pregnant women. However, the effects of this animal tested ‘safe’ drug caused thousands of babies worldwide to be born with malformations, especially aesthetically. The damage caused by Thalidomide was revealed by 1962 but unfortunately, too late. Overall, this essay will examine the arguments for and against animal testing to determine as to whether animal testing in its entirety is justifiable in any case.

The human benefits vs. costs

It can be argued that animal testing can be justifiable when considering the advantages to humankind that it has accomplished over the past few centuries; however, the extent to which non-human animals were entirely necessary in accomplishing these medical feats is somewhat debatable.

Animals are used in medical research when there is a distinct requirement to discover the inner workings and science of humans. For example, in the attempt to find a cure for cancer; in order to ascertain how cancer forms and how it can be treated in the human body, a representation of a human body must be used in a scientific experimental approach, in other words; trial and error. This method of research into conquering significant hindrances in the contemporary world is difficult, and in most cases, simply not yet possible to replace the use of living non-human animals with alternative methods. The use of animals in understanding human anatomy can be justified with certain examples supporting the argument that humans and animals share hundreds of illnesses; and as a result animals can act as a reasonable model for the study of human illness. [1] 

Diseases such as emphysema, atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries) and birth defects such as spina bifida can all be seen to occur in rabbits, which leads to the conclusion that research into rabbits may result in the illumination of a solution or cure to these illnesses in not only rabbits, but humans as well.

Dogs are known to suffer from cancer, diabetes, cataracts, ulcers, and bleeding disorders such as haemophilia, all of which are well known to be contracted by humans as well. As well as this, cats suffer from some of the same visual impairments as humans which as a result, make them sensible candidates for research into these medical disorders. From using the non-human animal as a model, we are able to learn how disease affects the body, and gain much more insight into many different illnesses.

The advances to medicine via the use of animal research can be clearly illustrated within the following health timeline [2] :

Pre 20th cent –vaccine for smallpox/ anthrax/rabies/ typhoid/cholera/plague + early anaesthetics

1910s – blood transfusion

1920s – insulin

1930s – diphtheria/tetanus vaccine

1940s – penicillin, kidney dialysis, heart-lung machine for open heart surgery

1950s – polio vaccine, hip replacement, kidney transplant, pacemakers, high blood pressure medicines

1960s – heart transplants, coronary bypass surgery, MMR vaccine, antidepressants and antipsychotics

1970s – chemotherapy for leukaemia

1980s – life support systems, MRI scanning

1990s – combined therapy for HIV, meningitis vaccines, medicine for type 2 diabetes and breast/prostate cancer, better medicines for depression

2000s – deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s, monoclonal antibodies for cancers, cervical cancer vaccine

2010  - stem cells for spinal, heart and vision repair, inhibitors for cancer, gene therapy for muscular dystrophy

The fight against cancer has been a long and continuing struggle throughout the world, with an estimate of around 320,500 new cases of cancer (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer) diagnosed in the UK in 2009 with more than 1 in 3 people developing some form of cancer during their lifetime.

Statistics show that a year later, there were around 157,000 deaths to cancer in the UK, with more than 1 in 4 (28%) of all deaths in the UK attributed to cancer. [3] 

It can be argued that animal testing has brought the battle against cancer very far in favour of people. Advances in fields of genomics and molecular biology have allowed scientists to understand specifically what makes a cell malignant. Decades of animal research has led to the survival rate doubling in the last 40 years. An example of a medical development that would not have been established without the aid of animal research is the breast cancer drug Tamoxifen, which can be argued to be one of the most important cancer drugs of all time, without this discovery, many people may have died from breast cancer. Almost three-quarters of children are now cured of their disease, compared with around a quarter in the late 1960s. [4] These facts alone can easily argue and quite justly support the advantages for animal testing when used to fight human illness, and can spark quite an emotive response from many considering the statistics that it is highly likely that 1 in 3 of us will develop cancer at least once in our lifetime and it is almost indubitable that all of us will be affected in some way by cancer in the duration of our lives. It is said that around 325,000 people were diagnosed with cancer in 2010 in the UK, equating to around 890 every people every day. The deaths from cancer were more than 157,000 in 2010, with around 430 people dying every day, or one person every four minutes. [5] These hard-hitting facts support a clear argument that animal research can and does save and improve the lives of many every day and that without it, millions of people would die annually. It can therefore be reasonably argued that animal research can be justifiable in the case of debilitating illnesses as it can be proven to improve the lives of many sufferers along with their relatives and friends, the stance can be taken that if animal research has improved millions of lives and saved millions of lives, then it is on permissible grounds.

Although it is clearly evident that animal research can and does save and improve the lives of many humans, it can also be argued that it is not without its disadvantages. When discussing the advantages and disadvantages to animal testing in order to weigh up its justifiability, the question to be asked is ‘how helpful have animals actually been in the understanding and treatment of human illness?’ There are obvious but also subtle differences between humans and animals in terms of our physiology, anatomy, and metabolism which, as a result, it difficult to apply data derived from animal studies to human conditions. It can be argued that although animals and human share some similarities on a gross level, i.e. humans and many animals both share eyes, ears, noses etc...But the more detailed the study is, the greater and more consequential the differences between humans and animals will arise. Many examples are evident to support the argument that humans and animals share little similarities when researching on a molecular level; Acetaminophen, more commonly known as Paracetamol, is poisonous to cats but therapeutic in humans. Penicillin, considered one of the most invaluable tools in human medicine is in fact, toxic in guinea pigs. [6] Even within the same species, similar disparities can be found among different sexes, breeds, ages, weight ranges and ethnicities, therefore this evidence concurs that it is reasonable to suggest that while humans and animals share some connections, the sheer uncertainty of this method of scientific research is not only inappropriate but hazardous.

It can be reasonably be suggested that animal testing is a dangerous and ineffective system of determining the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of a medication, this argument can be supported by many studies comparing animal data with human experience. Reasons to bring about this conclusion include the facts that; many illnesses are undetectable in animals, for example, animals cannot explain if they are feeling suicidal, suffering blurred vision, or aching joints, or they simply may not be capable of developing a condition that a human can suffer from. For example, a drug that may damage the spleen of a human will never be proven in medical tests on a rat, as a rat does not have a spleen. The long term effects of medication, and chronic conditions that affect humans cannot be found in a laboratory experiment considering the fact that most test animals have a lifespan of a year, at most, with attempts to overcome this problem by giving a higher dose over a shorter period of time is simply not effect, nor reliable. However, perhaps the biggest hindrance that faces the reliability of animal research is the fact that animals react in a different way to many stimuli than humans do. An example of this fact occurs in the form of a study that looked at side effects that were detectable in animals. The undetectable side effects, such as hearing damage and depression were ignored. Over half (54%) of the side effects were not detected by the animal tests. [7] When considering this statistic, similarities can be made with unscientific methods; flipping a coin would only be 50% effective, yet when animal research can only be as much as 46% effective, why is it used as such an advanced method of human science and healthcare? Finally, when considering differences in animals and humans, one must realise that animals identify many false side effects which do not occur in humans. A study by animal researchers found that of the side effects of certain drugs found to be apparent in animals, 75% are meaningless to humans. [8] The following evidence has been found to sustain the argument that animal testing is an inadequate method of scientific research which establishes dangerous scientific conclusions that can and does bring harm to many people. According to a study in the ‘Journal of the American Medical Association’ (JAMA), the United States sees around 106,000 deaths annually due to correctly prescribed and correctly taken medications taken by patients. This equates to around 290 deaths each day, or one every five minutes, which is almost synonymous with the death rate for cancer in the UK. This same study also considered patients who were injured badly by medications, so much so that they needed to be hospitalised. These were calculated to be 2,250,000 hospital admissions each year, equating to over 6,000 admissions every day, or one every 14 seconds. [9] 

In relation to the UK, it has been estimated by the British Medical Journal, one of the most respected medical journals for the UK, that 10,000 people are killed each year by medical drugs. This calculates to 27 people every day or one person every 5 minutes.

When considering the UK’s miserable economy, it may be startling to realise that the cost of this inadequacy at the hands of animal research is estimated at £466,000,000 per year, or nearly £900 every minute. This has been calculated as the equivalent of using seven 800 bed hospitals to deal with nothing other than the effects of adverse reactions to medical drugs. [10] 

Taking into account the aims of animal research; to relieve and cure the world of all diseases and ailments, it is difficult to understand the undesirable effects such as the fact that 5,600 hospital beds are occupied by people that have been affected by ‘safe’ drugs that the inaccuracy of animal testing has resulted in.

An estimate of Pfizer’s expenses in 2004 calculated that the pharmaceutical company wasted more than $2 billion over past decade (1994- 2004) on drugs that "failed in advanced human testing or, in a few instances were forced off the market, because of liver toxicity problems" The poor outcomes of animal research have also been brought up in not only a medical arena, but a political arena too, with Earl Baldwin of Bewdley noting to the House of Lords that in the UK, a survey in 1998 found adverse drug reactions to be third in the list of causes of death – after heart attacks and strokes but ahead of cancer. Earl Baldwin also commented, "Consider the savings to be made in the hard-pressed NHS budgets in not having to deal with the aftermath of treatments" [11] I feel this statement supports the argument that animal testing bears many disadvantages and therefore is unable to be justifiable in any medical sense as it has been noted by not only many substantial medical journals worldwide, but also key political figures in our society.

A notorious example supporting the failure of animal research to correctly determine safety of drugs in humans is the Vioxx ‘disaster’. It is reported that in the UK alone, thousands died and many more were injured. "I would have no hesitation at saying 10,000 people in Britain could have been affected" [12] wrote a medical expert, Dr David Graham.

It had been estimated that 88,000 to 139,000 Americans had heart attacks and strokes as a result of taking the safety assured Vioxx, as many as 55,000 of them were fatal. [13] 

Vioxx was marketed at arthritic patients as it worked by reducing substances that cause inflammation, pain, and fever in the body. However, even after years of animal research indicating it was entirely safe for human consumption; it had to be withdrawn from the market in 2004. This example can be used as clear evidence for the dispute that there are vital differences between animals and humans which make animals an unreliable model for study. A reputable journal published a paper explaining the drug was beneficial to mice in respect of their hearts, and concluded that it could even be used to treat atherosclerosis. [14] 

It can be argued that the manufacturers of Vioxx, and many other failed drugs, do not have the interests of human health in mind, but instead are working in the interests of their own financial benefit. This theory can be further sustained by a study involving African green monkeys in which the manufacturers of Vioxx used to support claims that the drug was in fact safe as well as the fact that although human clinical trials in 2001 showed Vioxx to pose a significantly greater risk of heart attack than naproxen, an over-the-counter anti-inflammatory. However, animal results were preferred to human evidence until September 2004 when it was withdrawn from the market. [15] 

It can be somewhat alarming to now understand that while the risks of heart attacks and general heart diseases were apparent in humans in 2001; other animal research after 2001 was favoured by the manufacturer as it indicated that Vioxx could protect the heart. "...these findings have raised the possibility that COX-2 inhibitors could actually decrease the incidence of acute thrombotic events..." [16] 

The inaccuracy of animal research can be said to warp the scientific field in certain areas in order for specific manufacturers to gain in profit at the expense of human health. An American doctor’s group, ‘Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine’ explained:

"Nine of 11 studies on mice and rats had shown Vioxx or other COX-2 inhibitors to be safe for animal hearts and blood vessels. In fact, six different animal studies—in four different species—showed Vioxx was actually protective against heart attacks and vascular disease. One researcher went so far as to suggest that Vioxx be considered a treatment for human cardiovascular disease, based on these animal tests." [17] 

When determining the adequacy of the use of animal research in establishing a safe and reliable treatment or cure to a human illness, it is difficult to conclude whether the benefits of animal testing outweigh the costs or vice versa. On one hand, it has the distinct ability to improve thousands of people’s lives, yet on the other hand, it is an extremely risky practice that can never be 100% accurate.

The animal benefits vs. costs

When considering the benefits to animals when carrying out animal research, it seems quite farfetched to regard experimentation on animals to also be in the interests of animals. However, it can be argued that many animals in various situations are able to live longer, more comfortable, and healthier lives as an outcome of animal research. This can be argued to be true for the fact that while vaccines, antibiotics, anaesthetics, surgical procedures, and other approaches were initially developed in animals for human use, they are also now commonly employed throughout veterinary medicine.

Although many treatments have been developed for humans, many have been specifically developed for animals, this includes; vaccines for rabies, canine parvovirus, distemper, and feline leukaemia virus which has, in turn, prevented many animals from contracting these terminal diseases. As well as this, treatments for painful and sometimes fatal illnesses have been established via use of animal research, these include; treatments for heartworm infestation, therapies for cholera in hogs, and diagnostic and preventive techniques for brucellosis and tuberculosis in cattle. [18] According to Americans for Medical Progress, a well known and reputable charity advocating the use of animal research, ‘millions of dogs, cats, birds, and farm animals would be dead from more than 200 diseases – of which almost all of these diseases are preventable as a result of developments in animal research.’ [19] 

When establishing just how beneficial animal testing is to animals themselves, it is clear to note that while it can be argued that thousands of animals suffer every year at the hands of experimenters; thousands more are able to survive and prosper with the help of animal research. Not only has it been useful to livestock, pets, and animals in zoos; animal research plays a vital role in the preservation of many endangered species. When researching into the biology of animals for the medical gain of humans, scientists cannot help but gather a greater insight into the science behind animal health; therefore they are capable of finding treatments to medicate or even eliminate parasitism, treat certain illnesses that impede progress of endangered species, use anaesthetic procedures, and also develop and promote breeding programs. Breeding techniques such as those implemented for panda bears in captivity, for instance, artificial insemination and embryo transfer help endangered species to thrive in the wild where it may not have been possible before, and so, this subsequently improves the survival and wellbeing of many wild species. [20] When determining how many people agree with this opinion, it is important to consider the quote by Jon Klingborg, DVM, president of the California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA); "These animals are heroes. Their contribution to discovering life-saving advancements in medicine and science – for both pets and humans – is enormous. Thanks to the last century of animal research, we have achieved life-saving treatments for people and animals. As veterinarians, we are able to treat more ailments and prevent more diseases, and that allows us to keep our pets living longer and healthier."

When considering the negative aspects to animal testing, it may be easy to note at least a few. It has been estimated that over ten and a quarter million animals are killed in UK laboratories alone, this equates to 28,100 per day or one animal every three seconds. [21] 

According to Home Office statistics on animal research, the total number of procedures was a third (33% or 905,000) higher in 2009 that in 2000, mostly accounted for by breeding to produce GM (genetically modified) and HM (harmful mutation) animals (834,000 higher, of which 734,000 were mice). Excluding such breeding, the total was slightly higher than in 2000 (3% or 70,000) higher. [22] Animal use in 2011 totalled at 3,792,857 animals, 10,931 a day or one every 8.3 seconds. The UK is therefore responsible for at least 35% of animals used in experimentation in the EU.

While there are strict rules imposed to maintain a high welfare standard for test animals, the extent to which these regulations are actually enforced is debatable. There is a widely accepted ethical framework for conducting scientific experiments using animals humanely, known as the 3R’s; replacement, reduction, and refinement. Replacement refers to the idea that methods should avoid or replace the use of animals defined as ‘protected’ under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) in an area where they would otherwise have been used. Protected animals include all living vertebrates (excluding humans), and including some immature forms, and cephalopods (e.g. octopus, squid, cuttlefish). Replacement methods include; not involving any animals at all via computer modelling, human volunteers, in vitro methodologies, such as human or animal cell lines, animal cells, tissues and organs from animals killed by a human method, e.g. abattoir material.

Reduction involves the methods which minimise or reduce animal use while still enabling researchers to obtain comparable levels of information to previous methods of research. Reduction methods include; modern imaging techniques, as noted by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement, and Reduction of Animals in Research – "Non-invasive, whole body imaging of small animals using techniques such as X-ray, CT, SPECT, PET and MRI, is helping to reduce the number of animals used in basic research and drug development. The same animal can be imaged multiple times in order to monitor visually, often in real time, the progression or regression of infection or disease. This avoids the need to sequentially sacrifice animals at different time points, allowing significant reductions in the number of animals used per study."

Finally, refinement is the act of improving scientific procedures and husbandry to minimise actual or potential pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm and/or improve animal welfare in situations where the use of animals is unavoidable. Examples of refinement used in animal research include; non-invasive techniques, appropriate anaesthetic/analgesics for pain relief, training animals to voluntarily co-operate with procedures (e.g. blood sampling) so they are in greater control of the procedure and therefore are less stressed, and finally, accommodation and environmental enrichment to meet the animals’ physical and behavioural needs. [23] When examining the procedures implemented in animal experimentations, both the procedures that are compulsory and the real course of action that takes place may not necessarily be synonymous.

In order to refrain from explaining the extremely offensive practices [24] , [25] , [26] , [27] , [28] that occur daily during animal experimentations which clearly neglect the 3Rs; the example of the Draize Test shall be used. The Draize Test, a well known experiment, is an acute toxicity test to determine skin or eye irritancy of a specific drug or substance. During this test, immobilised rabbits in full-body restraints are subjected to a substance dripped or smeared into their eyes or onto shaved skin. Damage to the eyes is then recorded at specific intervals for hours or days. The scoring of damage caused by the Draize test is highly subjective and therefore different experiments yield different results and a clear conclusion cannot be drawn. In addition to this inaccuracy, rabbits’ eyes are different from humans both anatomically and physiologically. Rabbits are found to have stronger reactions to chemicals than humans’ – possibly due to their poor ability to produce tears. Studies of the Draize test have found it to "grossly over predict the effects that could be seen in the human eye" while another study concluded the test "does not reflect the eye irritation hazard for man." [29] Furthermore, other studies have been found to conclude that a clinical skin patch test conducted on human volunteers shows a skin-irritation data that is "inherently superior to that given by a surrogate model, such as the rabbit" [30] This example supports the argument that the pain and suffering subjected to animals is not justifiable, especially considering the fact that many experiments do not produce an accurate conclusion to support and guide humans.

Ethics

"Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are like us.' Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are not like us.' Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction."  

-- Professor Charles R. Magel

Conclusion

There is strong evidence to support both the argument that animal testing is both justifiable and also unnecessary. A strong viewpoint that as animal testing provides an improved health for many humans, developing treatments and cures for many illnesses, it is justifiable in that sense, as it is effect for the greater good of not only humans but animals as well. Without any doubt, it is clear to see that animal testing has brought medicine and science as a general a substantial distance when considering the advances in medicine that we take for granted each day. However, this argument can always be rebutted with the evidence that while in many cases, there have been great medical advancements; animal experimentation has caused serious negative effects in both the human world, i.e. the Vioxx ‘disaster’ and also in the animal kingdom – the pain and suffering caused to animals to no real avail. When considering if animal testing is or is not justifiable, all viewpoints have to be established and examined. On one hand, due to animal testing undoubtedly, millions of lives are saved each year. However, the inaccuracy and uncertainty of animal testing also causes injury and fatalities to thousands, if not millions each year. In my opinion, although it is reasonable to suggest animal experimentation offers a pathway to advance in almost all areas of science, I feel that animals in experimentations are merely used as a tool for human advantage, especially due to the fact that all cosmetics must be tested on animals before human use. I agree that when there is a high success rate for advances in medical techniques and treatments to support both humans and animals, animal testing can indeed be justified. But, in many cases due to the poor success rate and inaccuracy of animal tests, animal testing cannot be justified as it can be argued that it provides more harm than protection to humans and animals alike.

EVALUATE EACH SOURCE IN PRESENTATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!