Chloe Mamaclay

Intro to Rhetoric and Composition

Multimodal Essay

18 December 2020

Why Animal Testing Could be a Thing of the Past

Animal testing has an always been a hot topic in the news within groups such as

researchers, animal rights activists, and cosmetic companies. The question posed is whether or

not it is morally acceptable and if it is, in what bounds should it be allowed in? Many of those

who believe that animal testing should not be held under as much criticism as it is, also believe

that it should only be allowed within research that will benefit our society. Those who believe is

should be abolished as a whole, feel that the lives of animals are much similar to our own and

should not be jeopardized for our benefit. It seems that there is a very thin line when it comes to

this topic, but how do we go about not crossing it?

When it comes to using animals in research for medical/biological purposes, researchers

are required to employ what is referred to as the Three R’s. This is an Ethical Review Process in

which the researchers must valuate their reasoning for testing on the animals. The Three R’s

stand for Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement. In an article on animal testing Rachel Hajar

goes into detail on the Three R’s,

“Issues such as 'cruelty' to animals and the humane treatment of animals are valid

concerns, and hence, the use of animals in experimentation is greatly regulated. This has

led to the 3Rs campaign, which advocates the search (1) for the replacement of animals

with non-living models; (2) reduction in the use of animals; and (3) refinement of animal

use practices.”
This practice allows researchers to continue with animal testing but also has them stop and

rethink whether or not is completely necessary for that specific research. Hajar goes on to say,

“By employing the 3Rs when continuing to use animals for scientific research, the scientific

community can affirm its moral conscience as well as uphold its obligation to humanity to

further the advancement of science for civilization and humanity.” So while looking in from the

outside it seems as though there is no moral compass for those who use animals in their research.

There are guidelines being set to ensure the ethical sustainability that occurs within these

researcher’s work.

Although there may not be a complete solution to animal testing, there are some

alternatives that can be used in specific cases. In many cases, scientists are finding that testing on

animals is providing them with inconclusive results due to the difference in biology in humans.

In a survey the question, “What alternatives could there be for animal use in research?”. Out of

those who responded two answers stuck out. Those being, “Maybe try using sample tissue from

actual humans.” and, “Using genetically engineered organisms.” These responses are very close

to that of what is being done to evolve the way that scientists conduct their research against

various types of diseases. In an article from Peta, which is an organization that works to enforce

animal rights, it talked about how scientists are using new advancements in medicinal research.

The alternatives to animal testing include, “sophisticated tests using human cells and tissues (also

known as in vitro methods), advanced computer-modeling techniques (often referred to as in

silico models), and studies with human volunteers.” This could potentially be the future for

medicinal research and start the era of phasing out animal testing. These new advancements also

allow for the scientists to get more conclusive results. A main problem in animal testing was the

difference in biology in humans and animals. It was also stated that, “These and other non-
animal methods are not hindered by species differences that make applying animal test results to

humans difficult or impossible, and they usually take less time and money to complete. “

Now using approached that are engineered more towards the biology of humans, the research

being conducted will bring more positive results and free up the time that it would usually take to

re-engineer the experiment because it was not

working on the animal.

In the cosmetic industry, animals are used

for experimental products in order to test the safety

of the chemicals that make up the product on skin.

The controversy caused by these companies has

caused countries including Israel, India, and the

European Union to ban the sale of any cosmetics or cosmetic ingredients that are tested on

animals. In a survey released, 100 percent of participants responded no to the the question,

“Should animal testing be allowed for cosmetics?” When asked why they responded no to this

question, many responses included, “Animals in cosmetic testing is unnecessary,” and “I

answered no to the second question because I felt that the benefits of better cosmetics do not

outweigh the possible consequences that these animals experience.” In an article from the

Humane Society International, the affects cosmetic testing has on animals is explained in detail.

“Cosmetic animal tests are archaic chemical-poisoning experiments devised more than half a

century ago, such as rodent “lethal dose” tests (1920s), rabbit eye and skin irritation tests (1940s)

and guinea pig skin allergy tests (1950s).” These tests can be detrimental or cause defects that

the animal must live with for the rest of their life. Animal testing in the cosmetic industry is seen
as extremely unnecessary to most people. In the journal Alternatives to Animal Testing the

author Harrison provides a statement from legislation saying,

“‘An immediate ban has been imposed on animal testing for finished cosmetic products

(effective from September2004). This is because it is recognized that the safety of

finished products can already be assessed from knowledge about the safety of ingredients

that they contain, and by methods that do not involve the use of animals. An immediate

ban was also imposed on the marketing of new cosmetics (finished products and

ingredients) tested on animals where validated alternative (non-animal) test

methods exist.’”

The U.S. yet to ban animal testing for cosmetics, but some brands

have taken it upon themselves to take initiative and become what is

known as Cruelty-Free brands. The U.S. also does not even require the use of animal testing in

order for brands to prove the safety of their products. Some might wonder, then what’s the hold

up? How come other brands still continue to test on animals? Unfortunately that question

remains unanswered.

In my opinion, animal testing for medicinal research is somewhat acceptable whereas

animal testing for cosmetics is not. Although they both impose the same kind of affects on the

animals, there are some things that are more important than others. Cosmetics are for vanity and

are a non-necessity. They are products that could be forgone and products that do not need to use

animals in order to prove their safety. For industries such as this, what they should be focusing

on is using chemicals and other substances that make up makeup that are known to be safe for

humans already. The only reason they need to do so much testing is because companies like

these are getting cheaper and are constantly looking for the next new thing they can use in their
product that won’t cost them as much. Medical researchers can use the alternatives, but there are

some things that need to be tested on a living being. There is a very thin line and the hope is that

these scientists won’t cross that line. So while it is more morally acceptable for them to continue

testing on animals, they should do so carefully and always consider their other options.

Citations

1. Adler, Basketter. “Alternative (non-Animal) Methods for Cosmetics Testing: Current Status
and Future Prospects—2010.” Archives of Toxicology, vol. 85, no. 5, Springer
Science and Business Media LLC, May 2011, pp. 367–485, doi:10.1007/s00204-011-0693-2.

2. Hester, R. E., and Roy M. Harrison. Alternatives to Animal Testing. Royal Society of
Chemistry, 2006.
3. Hajar, Rachel. “Animal Testing and Medicine.” Heart Views, vol. 12, no. 1, Medknow
Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd, Jan. 2011, pp. 42–42, doi:10.4103/1995-705X.81548.

4. Kabene, Baadel. “Bioethics: a Look at Animal Testing in Medicine and Cosmetics in the
UK.” Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, vol. 12, Tehran University of
Medical Sciences, 2019, pp. 15–15, doi:10.18502/jmehm.v12i15.1875.

5. Festing, Wilkinson. “The Ethics of Animal Research. Talking Point on the Use of Animals
in Scientific Research.” EMBO Reports, vol. 8, no. 6, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, June 2007,
pp. 526–30, doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400993.

6. “In Vitro Methods and More Animal Testing Alternatives.” PETA, 25 Nov. 2020,
www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-animal-testing/.