Monica Long

11/22/14
Mrs. Freestone
Experimental Testing on Animals
Since 500 B.C., experimenting and researching on live animals has been done throughout
the world, and in many cultures. Today, about 26 million live animals are tested on each year in
the United States for uses of scientific and commercial testing. These varying types of animals
are used to develop medical treatments, determine the toxicity of medications, and check the
safety and products destined for human use, along with other biomedical, commercial, and health
care uses. While the usage of animal testing is beneficial in some ways, it is very inhumane and
detrimental to the lives of the animals being tested on. Not only that, but animal testing is often
very inaccurate and is not a reliable source to predict the same or similar results in human beings.
In addition to, there are several alternative methods that could result in more efficient and
relevant results than of animal testing.
The act of animal testing alone is a cruel and inhumane act. Not only is it ethically wrong
to experiment on these living creatures, but their conditions and well-beings in these testing labs
are also far from humane. According to the Humane Society International, animals that are
involved with scientific testing are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food
and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and wounds
in order to observe the healing process, and the infliction of pain to study certain effects and
remedies. Some other cruel acts used against these animals have to do with killing, by carbon
dioxide asphyxiation, neck breaking, decapitation, and other violent actions. There are hundreds
of different ways that certain companies and/or scientific programs experiment and test on these
animals- most of which are cruel and inhumane. For example; The Draize eye test which is used

Monica Long
11/22/14
Mrs. Freestone
by cosmetics companies to observe irritation caused by shampoos involves rabbits being
incapacitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, for up to multiple days at a time, so
they cannot blink away the products being tested on them. The very commonly used LD50
(lethal dose 50) test involves finding out which dose of a chemical will kill up to 50% of animals
being used for that specific experiment. The US department of Agriculture reported that in 2010,
97,123 animals suffered some sort of pain while used for testing while being given NO
anesthesia for relief. In addition to, the AWA (Animal Welfare Act) does not protect or cover rats,
mice, fish, birds, and so on, which makes up 95% of the animals used for researching. In 2010
the AWA only covered 1,134,693 animals used for testing that year, leaving around 25 million
plus animals not covered from the AWA by any means. In March of 2009, the Humane Society of
the United States found up to 338 possible violations of the Animal Welfare Act just at the New
Iberia Research Center in Louisiana. Some of the primates being used for experiments were
suffering from such severe psychological stress that they began to engage in self-mutilation;
tearing gaping wounds into their own arms and legs. Without the protection from the AWA, these
animals are especially vulnerable to mistreatment and abuse. From these specific examples, one
can see that testing on animals of any sort is inhumane and not right, because of the harshness
and cruelties done to them while being experimented on.
In addition to the inhumanities of animal testing, the animals used for testing differ
greatly from human beings, proving that they are not good test subjects to be used for human
benefit. To be specific, the anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences in humans and animals
make it clear that animals are not the best model structures for testing for human use. It is argued

Monica Long
11/22/14
Mrs. Freestone
by Paul Furlong, a professor of Clinical Neuroimaging at Aston University that, it is very hard
to create an animal model that even equates closely to what were trying to achieve in the
human. Proof of this is the evidence that drugs reacting a certain way in an animal may result in
an extremely harmful reaction to the human body. Take the 1950s sleeping pill, for example,
Thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities; the pill was tested
on animals prior to its commercial release. While the pill did not result in defects in new born
animals (rats, mice, guinea pigs, cats, and hamsters), it took a large toll on the defects of new
born human beings. Also, the testing of the arthritis drug Vioxx showed that it had a protective
cover on the hearts of mice, but caused 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths in human
beings before it was pulled from the market. It is also evident that while some tests and
chemicals are harmful to animals, they may prove to be valuable to human health, like Aspirin,
for example. Because of this, it is said that these chemicals which are harmful to animals may
mislead researchers to what could be potential cures and treatments since these drugs are shelved
away due to the fact that they arise problems in animals which may not be relevant to humans.
On top of it all, animal tests do not reliably predict the same or similar results in human beings.
About 94% of drugs that pass animal testing happen to fail in human clinical trials. According to
the neurologist, Aysha Akhtar, over 100 stroke drugs that were effective when tested on animals
were not effective when used on human beings, and over 85 HIV vaccines also failed in humans
after succeeding in human primates. A 2013 study published in Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America found that nearly 150 clinical trials (human
tests) of treatments to reduce the inflammation of critically ill patients have been undertaken, and

Monica Long
11/22/14
Mrs. Freestone
have failed each time, despite being successful while tested on animals. Because of this
evidence, it is a clear statement that animal testing is not fully necessary or useful for human
benefits; therefore it is more relevant to use substitute testing for human products.
There are several other ways to substitute human testing rather than using animals to do
so. Not only are there more efficient ways, there are also many more ways that are less expensive
than testing on animals. In Vitro (in glass) testing, like studying cell cultures in a petri dish are
able to produce more accurate and efficient results than animal testing since human cells can be
used. Also micro dosing, which is the administering of doses too small to cause an adverse
reaction, which can be used in human volunteers, whose blood is then analyzed for more relevant
results. Artificial human skin, such as EpiDerm or ThinCert is made from sheets of human skin
cells grown usually in test tubes or plastic wells and can produce more useful results than that of
testing on animal skin. Microfluidic chips which are lined with human cells and recreate the
functions of human organs, are also in advanced stages of development. Not only that, but
computer models such as virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures now have the
ability to predict the toxicity of substances without harmful experimenting on animals. Now that
we have the technology and advancements to substitute human testing without the use of
animals, that should by all means be the path that is taken when doing testing for human products
because not only is it more reliable, sufficient, and accurate, but it also applies no harm to
animals either. The alternative methods are significantly beneficial in other forms as well; they
are less expensive than animal testing is and because of this they are not a waste of government
research dollars. The Humane Society International has compared a variety of animal tests with

Monica Long
11/22/14
Mrs. Freestone
their in vitro tests: an unscheduled DNA synthesis animal test costs up to $32,000, while the in
vitro alternative method costs about $11,000. A rat photo toxicity test costs $11,500, when the
non-animal equivalent costs only $1,300. A rat uterotrophic assay costs $29,600, whereas the
corresponding in vitro test costs $7,200. A two-species lifetime cancer study will average out to
about 2 million to 4 million dollars, and the US National Institutes of Health spend about $14
billion of its $31 billion annual budget just on animal research. Due to the high expenses and
harsh conditions of animal testing, it is clear that using alternative methods are more reliable and
a better option all around since they give more accurate results and help save money while doing
so.
With the advancements and breakthroughs of technology we have experienced today, it is
clearly illogical to continue the use of animal testing throughout the world. Not only does this
affect the animals physically, emotionally, and psychologically, the AWA and other programs fail
to attend to and protect the majority of animals in a way to continue animal experimenting.
Although animals are unable to consent to this experimenting, they suffer just like humans do.
The discrimination against animals because they do not have the cognitive ability, language, or
moral judgment like humans do is no more justifiable than discrimination against human beings
with severe mental impairments. It is said that testing on humans would be beyond unethical and
would be dangerous in many ways, along with the sometimes genetic mutilation that would be
unacceptable to partake upon human beings. With this said, why doesnt the same standard apply
to animal experimenting? After all, animals feel the same way that humans feel. It has been
proven that animal testing is just as unethical as human testing is because they are able to feel the

Monica Long
11/22/14
Mrs. Freestone
same infliction of pain and misery as any other living creature. Animal experimenting is not just
inhumane and cruel; it also contains inaccuracy and is an unreliable source when pertaining to
similar results in human beings. There are plenty of other more relevant and inexpensive
methods that will not only benefit human health, but will also benefit the safety and care towards
animals that are being tested on for scientific and commercial testing today.
Sources
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/using/experiments_1.shtml
http://animal-testing.procon.org/
http://www.amprogress.org/animal-research
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/CAMPAIGNS/experiments/ALL/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing