Written by: Arathi Vinod | Edited by: Sameer Rajesh and Nicole Xu

The Ethics of Animal Testing

From developing vaccines to ensuring acceptable health standards for household products, there is one step in the scientific testing process that is as vital as it is controversial: animal testing. Animal testing is not a new thing; using animals for the sake of medical research has been around since the time of ancient Greek philosophers and scientists (Hajar). However, a deeper analysis into the flaws and benefits of animal testing did not occur until quite recently. With an overall rise in humanitarian efforts like women’s rights and anti-slavery movements, the 1800s also spurred on movements against animal cruelty, leading to the rise of organizations like SPCA in England and America (Walls). On the other hand, recent events have also highlighted the other side of the debate on animal testing. In 1937, a medication called Elixir Sulfanilamide caused over one hundred deaths due to a toxic solvent used in it called diethylene glycol (DEG). Having done no animal testing before selling the drug, pharceutical companies were forced to face the angry public, and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was promptly passed, mandating animal testing on drugs to ensure safety for human usage (Hajar). Today, there are still two distinct sides to the animal testing debate, and it is worth exploring the principle arguments of both.

Downsides of Animal Testing

When discussing the topic of animal testing, perhaps the most evident downside is the cruelty with which animals are treated in medical labs. Common lab procedures include surgically interfering with the biological systems of animals, knocking down particular genes to see their effects on the animal, and injecting or otherwise exposing animals to chemicals that can physiologically harm them. Even for research methods that do not require direct harm on the animals, procedures like forcefully restraining animals and clipping their tails for identification purposes cause physiological and psychological pain for the animals being tested on (“About Animal Testing”). By regarding human life as more worthy of protecting and morally superior to animal life, experimenters are arguably displaying speciesism, or prejudice against nonhuman species (Liou).

Those against animal testing point out that not all drugs that go through animal testing produce safe results for humans. For instance, in addition to the poisonous DEG-containing Elixir Sulfanilamide, another drug that incited more emphasis on animal testing was thalidomide, a painkiller drug of the 1960s that caused deformities in children of pregnant users (Hajar). Upon insistence from the outraged public, thalidomide was tested on pregnant animals to observe the results. However, surprisingly, it was found that the offspring of these animals were not affected in the same way human children were (Greek et al.). Thus, animal testing is not always as effective as it is often made out to be.

Benefits of Animal Testing

Supporters of animal testing primarily argue that the advantages for humans far outweigh the disadvantages for animals being tested on. In opposition to the speciesism argument of animal rights activists, those who defend animal testing claim that humans and animals cannot be considered on the same moral ground. The reason for this is that nonhuman species do not practice autonomy and independent judgment like humans do. Therefore, from a philosophical perspective, testing on animals cannot be perceived with the same lens as testing on humans because humans and animals do not belong in the same moral community (Liou). Furthermore, so many of the last centuries’ most remarkable medical advancements were made possible due to animal testing. The medical field owes animal research for significant developments such as anesthetics, the polio vaccine, and antibiotics (Fisher). These momentous breakthroughs in medicine put into perspective the vast impact that animal research has had on human civilization.

Animal testing advocates go on to note that the disadvantages of animal testing are outweighed not only by the advantages to humans, but also the advantages to other animals. The medical cures and treatment techniques derived from animal research are not limited to human use, and many animal-tested remedies have been beneficial to animals. For example, Siberian polecats were used to test the efficacy and safety of the distemper vaccine, but this vaccine proved vital in saving the black-footed ferret from extinction (“Animal Research”). Such instances are not uncommon, and many dwindling animal populations have been rescued from potential extinction through treatments that ultimately utilized animal testing techniques.

The debate still stands as to whether testing on animals is worth the cruelty it imposes. In the meantime, several alternative methods that minimize animal usage are being looked into, including computer models that simulate human biology, in vitro cell screenings, and stricter regulations mandating humane treatment of animals in research labs (“About Animal Testing”).

Bibliography

“About Animal Testing.” Humane Society International, 27 May 2020, www.hsi.org/news-media/about/. 

“Animal Research.” American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, AALAS, 2020, www.aalas.org/public-outreach/animal-research-faq. 

Fisher, Elizabeth. “Why We Should Accept Animal Testing.” Huffington Post, 17 July 2013, www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/professor-elizabeth-fisher/why-we-should-accept-anim_b_3608923.html. 

Greek, Ray, et al. “The History and Implications of Testing Thalidomide on Animals.” The Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law, vol. 11, no. 3, 2011, pp. 1–32., doi:10.5840/jpsl20111133. 

Hajar, Rachel. “Animal Testing and Medicine.” Heart Views, vol. 12, no. 1, 2011, p. 42., doi:10.4103/1995-705x.81548. 

Liou, Stephanie. “The Ethics of Animal Experimentation.” HOPES Huntington’s Disease Information, Stanford University, 26 July 2017, hopes.stanford.edu/animal-research/. 

Walls, David. “Animal Rights Movement.” Sonoma State University, 2015, web.sonoma.edu/users/w/wallsd/animal-rights-movement.shtml.