Barnett 1

Shania Barnett

Prof Cassel

Eng 1201

7 July 2019

Animal Testing

What would you do to protect those who cannot protect themselves? Imagine

walking through a music festival enjoying yourself, when someone walks up to you and

hands you a brochure about animal testing. You open it to see vulgar images of the

animal subjects in experiments across the United States. The images of the mangled,

furless, and bloodied animals absolutely has an impact on you. At first, I believed this

only to be false rhetoric being pushed in order to achieve an emotional reaction.

However, I was horrified when I did my own research and found out that their depictions

were one-hundred-percent real. This is exactly how my advocacy for animals began.

Most people are unaware that there are thousands of animals being tortured

unnecessarily across the world. These animals are suffering for no practical reason.

Animal research, also called animal experimentation, is completely outdated and

unethical. For these reasons alone, animal testing should be abolished.

 Barnett 2

Example of a bunny suffering horribly in a lab (Buyer).

In his article, Nuno Fransco, explains the background to animal testing. Traveling

back in time, this type of research has been used throughout much of world history.

Animal testing first began in the 6th and 5th century B.C.E. (Nuno). Ancient Greek

physicians believed dissecting humans was immoral and instead dissected animals to

learn more about the anatomy of humans (Nuno). With an increased amount of

knowledge being gained and more people coming to realize the dreadful conditions

these innocent animals are living in, the controversy surrounding animal testing is

growing rapidly. Since the current animal testing is based upon experiments from

thousands of years ago, it is clearly outdated and needs replaced.

Animals in these types of situations are subject to horrible mistreatment and are

placed in dilapidated living conditions. A prime example of this was recently uncovered.

The Huffington Post article describes exactly what kind of trauma these animal subjects
 Barnett 3

were being put through. This experiment was uncovered in Michigan by the Humane

Society. The investigation found that many beagle puppies were given pesticides to see

their effects (Golgowski). Researchers had no remorse while shoving the vile into the

puppy’s mouths while they whence in pain. Puppies that were recovered from the facility

had incisions all across their tiny bodies. The researchers believed that these animals

were not even worth having a name and instead referred to each of them by a number.

As if any of this malicious treatment was not enough, Beagles that survived through the

pesticide, which was believed to be a very slim number, were to be euthanized after the

completion of the experiment (Golgowski). Looking back on horrific times in history, the

animal experimentation is comparable to the Tuskegee syphilis study and the ruthless

scientific experimentation done by Josef Mengele. These few vile treatments are

comparable. No living thing deserves the treatment those humans went through then

and what animals are going through now.

 Barnett 4

Researchers performing unethical experiments on Beagles (Golgowski).

Another reason animal testing should be outlawed is that it is no longer

necessary and is not very useful. There is a massive amount of examples that have

proven that animal experimentation is not helpful in the medical industry. In an NPR

article, the failures of animal testing were discussed. It is obvious that humans and

animals are very distinctive. Our biology is different; it is that simple. Vaccinations and

medications that work in animals, might not work in humans. This leaves all efforts by

researchers, and all suffering by animals, rendered to be useless. Another article,

“Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation”, discusses the failure further.

Diseases that are given to animals in experiments are different than those naturally

occurring in humans (Akhtar). The animals are healthy until they are artificially altered to

become ill or injured. Alongside this some animals do not naturally get the same

illnesses as humans. For example, primates do not contract aids and mice have

different genes that leave them immune to certain human diseases. Animals do not heal

the way humans do either. Cures that have worked for animals but have failed in

humans include the cure for cancer, sclerosis, serious brain injuries, Alzheimer’s

disease, and inflammatory diseases (Akhtar). Over three-hundred vaccinations that

have worked in animals, have failed in human trials (Akhtar). Ninety-two percent of

drugs that pass the animal testing, have failed when they were given to humans

(Akhtar). A current example that proves that animal testing is unneccessary is the

treatment for the medical condition of atopic dermatitis. The treatment for this medical

issue was first founded by animal testing. However, as clinical researchers put in their

article, “Alternatives to animal testing in basic and preclinical research of atopic

 Barnett 5

dermatitis”, there are many other types of testing that would suffice in discovering a

treatment (Schneider).

Additionally, there are variations in certain facilities that might corrupt the data

recovered by animal research. The NPR article, previously mentioned, examines this

possibility a little bit further. Across all experimentation labs, there could be slight

differences in the animal’s living conditions, their diet, and the species being used in the

experiment (Harris). This makes it difficult to get any comparable and note-worthy data.

Depending on where the animals were obtained also has an effect on the outcome of

the drug trials. Certain rats from one supplier reacted positively to the medical advance

while others that came from a different supplier had the exact opposite reaction

(Akhtar). This leaves the conundrum of deciding which data, or which rat, is the most

accurate representation of the drug affects. The conditions of the animals in these

facilities may alter their susceptibility to certain treatments. It is obvious that animals

living in these conditions would be under a lot of stress. The stress alone affects major

aspects of an animal’s vitals such as rapid heartbeat, high blood pressure, and

adrenaline levels (Akhtar). All of these leave the data collected to be misleading. It is not

easy to see whether the drugs created these symptoms or the animal’s stress response

created them.

Technology has come a long way with new advances appearing daily. Humans

absolutely have the means to complete valid and comprehensible research without the

use of animals. All of these impressive scientific accomplishments could easily be used

to test new medications, vaccines, make up, et cetera. The researchers, including

doctors, veterinarians, and dermatology specialists are all involved in the atopic
 Barnett 6

dermatitis study previously listed agree that cell cultures could replace animal research

as an equal form of testing (Schneider). A scientist in the Animals Austrailia article

discusses cell cultures further. Scientists can conduct experiments using blood cells,

kidney cells, stomach cells or skin tissue to determine the effects of a drug (Australia).

The researchers also agree that 3D skin models could be useful as well (Schneider).

Human trials are another replacement for animal testing. People suffering from these

diseases may volunteer to take experimental drugs. This would be more effective due to

it being human testing, and the human is already suffering the disease that needs to be

cured. Computer simulation may suffice in medical teachings, or experiments in drugs

as well. There are many other examples of different experimental tools that have shown

animal testing can be replaced and still receive an equal result. All of these options

would be cheaper and require less of a moral cost as well.

The animal experimentation is enormously expensive and is blindly funded.

Animal experimentation is a big business. Those within the business want it to continue

so they can continue getting massive paychecks. In addition to people lining their

pockets with immoral cash, the way these research methods are funded fall into a

sketchy, predatory realm. Most people do not realize that their financial donations to

charities are actually funding something they do not want to support (Australia). The

avvo article also mentions more covert ways of obtaining funding. Taxpayer’s money

has also been known to contribute to animal testing (Emily). The daily caller article

states that the amount of taxpayer money being used is upwards of fourteen billion

dollars (Bastasch). Colleges have even been known to use tuition payments to donate

to animal experimentation companies (Emily). All of these lead people to unknowingly

 Barnett 7

pay for the unfortunate mistreatment of animals.

Many different species of animals are subject to testing (US).

Every year, more than one-hundred-million animals are killed in the U.S. alone

(Emily). More than six million animals are used each year in Australia and New Zealand

(Australia). Imagine what the actual number of animal victims across the world is.

Something needs to be done to save these innocent creatures. Animals used in

experiments include mice, rats, frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs,

monkeys, fish, and birds. It is a little ironic that some of these animals subject to such

atrocious treatment are praised in zoos. Primates are a major example of this; people

love to see monkeys when they visit the zoo, but monkeys also account for some of the

animals used and murdered during experiments. Scientists conduct experiments to

 Barnett 8

research for cosmetics, drugs, food, chemical testing, curiosity, or biology lessons for

students. During these experiments animals are fed chemicals, physically injured by

having body parts removed, broken, or chunks cut out or are subjected to a makeover

that leaves them covered in blisters and rashes.

Supporters of animal testing believe animals to be the “gold standard” in

experimentation (Schneider). In his article, David Weber states that animals’ biology is

similar to humans, and since animals live only a short time, it is easier to see the effects

of a new medical innovation in a “life-span” (Animals). This statement has already been

rebutted since very few experiments involving animals have actually led to new

treatments in humans. The FDA made a statement saying nine out of ten drugs fail

because it is difficult to predict in humans based on lab results from animals (Akhtar).

Roughly ten percent of all experimental findings are useful to humans. Researchers are

advocating to watch over these animals for years and making their short life-span

miserable without any major helpful result. With such a big moral cost coming along with

these experiments, which lead to only a small amount of success, make it not close to

being worth the suffering the animals are subjected to. They also state that it would be

unethical to use humans in such research, however, research can be done without

human or animal subjects being implemented (Animals). With all of the technology

available, there is no need for any living thing to have to go through the experimental

process. Weber also states that there is no acceptable or reliable alternative, which is

completely inaccurate. As previously listed, the atopic dermatitis treatment has now

been found through ways outside of animal research. The media often depicts the need

for animal research, pressing false rhetoric. This along with the media brushing off the
 Barnett 9

actuality of the treatment animals are facing leave many people in the dark. Their

naiveness leads them to believe that animal research is not harmful and is necessary

for human survival. Hopefully through advocacy, accurate information can be released

through the media and inform the public of the inaccuracies of animal research.

There have been some steps towards the direction of animal testing being a

thing of the past. With more technological advances and legislation being enacted,

animal testing has been slowly dwindling. An article written by Hilary Hanson discusses

the triumphant passing of a bill in California. This bill outlaws the sale of any newly

created cosmetic product that is using animal testing in California (Hanson). This law is

only a small step towards the eradication of animal testing. This bill goes into effect on

January 1, 2020, and only punishes companies that animal test after that date.

Companies can still sell products that were created with the help of animal testing, as

long as the testing had ended prior to that date (Hanson). Despite all of the

technological advances, there are still many companies who are still using animal

testing for their research. A compilation of some of these companies was released in an

article by Suzana Rose. These companies include many household names such as

Windex, Tide, Pantene, and Loreal (Rose). Unfortunately, some of these companies will

not budge without more policy creation. With no law requiring indication of animal

testing used to create a product on these products, many consumers are left in the dark

about their purchases.

That moment at the music festival, when I was handed the PETA pamphlet,

changed my life forever. Those pictures of the animals suffering are ingrained in my

mind, and I will not be able to forget them any time soon. These animals cannot
 Barnett 10

advocate for themselves. They need humans to speak up for them and demand that

animal testing should be outlawed. People can give a voice to those who are silent

through their advocacy. Animals should not be subject to the curious whims of humans.

It is immoral and unethical for these experiments to be conducted. Together we can

make a change that will impact the world for years to come. It is imperative that this type

of research to be abolished as soon as possible.

 Barnett 11

Works Cited

Akhtar, Aysha. “The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation.”

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics : CQ : the International Journal of Healthcare

Ethics Committees, Cambridge University Press, Oct. 2015,

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4594046/.

"Animals and Medical Science: A Vision of a New Era." Medicine, Health, and

Bioethics: Essential Primary Sources, edited by K. Lee Lerner and Brenda Wilmoth

Lerner, Gale, 2006, pp. 49-54. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

http://link.galegroup.com.sinclair.ohionet.org/apps/doc/CX3456500031/OVIC?u=dayt30

401&sid=OVIC&xid=2adb01dc. Accessed 28 July 2019.

Australia, Animals. “Animal Experimentation.” Animals Australia, 11 Oct. 2018,

animalsaustralia.org/issues/animal_experimentation.php.

Bastasch, Michael. “Feds Spend up to $14.5 Billion Annually on Animal Testing.”

The Daily Caller, The Daily Caller, 6 Oct. 2013, dailycaller.com/2013/10/05/feds-spend-

up-to-14-5-billion-annually-on-animal-testing/.

“Buyer Beware! Companies Misleading Consumers on Animal Testing.” PETA,

20 Apr. 2018, www.peta.org/blog/buyer-beware-animal-testing/.

Emily. “Animal Testing and How You're Funding It.” AvvoStories, 17 Jan. 2016,

stories.avvo.com/rights/animal-testing-and-how-youre-funding-it.html.

Golgowski, Nina. “Investigation Finds Dozens Of Beagles Force-Fed Pesticides

In Lab Test.” HuffPost, HuffPost, 14 Mar. 2019, www.huffpost.com/entry/beagles-fed-

 Barnett 12

fungicides-corteva-agriscience-humane-society-

investigation_n_5c8a4f8de4b038892f4af274.

Hanson, Hilary. “California Just Officially Banned The Sale Of Animal-Tested

Cosmetics.” HuffPost, HuffPost, 28 Sept. 2018, www.huffpost.com/entry/california-just-

officially-banned-the-sale-of-animal-tested-cosmetics_n_5b913ac6e4b0cf7b003d5c09.

Harris, Richard. “Drugs That Work In Mice Often Fail When Tried In People.”

NPR, NPR, 10 Apr. 2017, www.npr.org/sections/health-

shots/2017/04/10/522775456/drugs-that-work-in-mice-often-fail-when-tried-in-people.

Nuno Henrique Franco. “Animal Experiments in Biomedical Research: A

Historical Perspective.” Animals, no. 1, 2013, p. 238. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.3390/ani3010238.

Rose, Suzana. “Companies That Test On Animals - 2019.” Cruelty, 12 Apr. 2019,

www.crueltyfreekitty.com/companies-that-test-on-animals/.

Schneider, Marlon R., et al. “Alternatives to Animal Testing in Basic and

Preclinical Research of Atopic Dermatitis.” Experimental Dermatology, no. 5, 2018, p.

476. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/exd.13498.

“US Statistics.” Speaking of Research, 27 Nov. 2018,

speakingofresearch.com/facts/statistics/.