1

Running Head: ANIMAL TESTING IN THE UNITED STATES

Animal Testing in the United States

Throughout history, the use of animals to test products that range from dish detergents,

mouthwash, and medication has been part of human society since WWI and WWII (Greaves

226). Animals used in experimentation are generally used in three main areas of study. They are
 2
Running Head: ANIMAL TESTING IN THE UNITED STATES

used in biomedical research, product screening, and education. Animals used for testing are

purposely euthanized in some occasions. Half of the animals used for testing in the United States

are used to test for things such as medication and the other half is used to test general products

(Ranganatha 28). Animal rights activists constantly pressure government agencies to pass laws

that place regulations on animal research (Hajar 42). Nevertheless, the regulations that animal

rights activists want the government to place are accompanied with increasing distress on how it

will dramatically affect scientific progression, and how it will affect the world as a whole (Stokes

18).

In this world, animals are used to test products that range from lipstick, shampoos, to new

cancer treatment drugs. “Every product that is released to the public for human trial is tested on

an animal first” (Brooks 14). At the moment, many questions are emerging that surrounds the

ethics of animal testing (Stokes 17). Consequently, regulations have been established by

governments in order to evaluate and direct the animals that are used for test experiments. The

regulations that have been established are aimed to ensure that the animals used in experiments

are treated in a humane manner (Ranganatha 29).

Even though some regulations have been established, animal testing is still a subject that

is hard to accept, and leads to a lot of heated debate (Hajar 42). The use of animals in

experimentation is considered deadly and unsafe, but people understand that it is necessary in

order for medical research to continue (Ranganatha 28). We as human beings need to find new

methods that will, over time, eliminate the harmful process of using animals as test subjects;

sadly, we have yet to discover such methods, so all we can do now is continue with our research

(Ferdosian 2). Supporters of the issue are adamant in their belief that animal testing is an

important asset to human progress.

People who support animal testing argue that if animals were removed from

experimentation, then biological and medical research will cease to exist (Burnet 35). Supporters

of animal testing states that animal testing is a justifiable practice, because it assists in new

discoveries that help people and other organisms (Garner 128). Surgical procedures using

animals have helped with the development of organ transplantation and major medical

breakthroughs like open-heart surgery (National Research Council 1). The use of animals in

research has assisted in developing vaccines that fights disease like measles, and rubella.

Methods such as in vitro fertilization, and hormone replacement therapy would have not been

invented if animals were not used in research (Hartung, 233). Supporters argue that current

testing techniques that are available today are simply not advanced enough; they want the

government to provide them with more funding, which will in effect raise product development

(Little Funding To Develop Non-Animal Testing 273). Advancements in medical research

procedures have been developed because of animal experimentation (National Research Council

1).

Medical research would have never progressed if animals were not used in

experimentation. Medical procedures that involve checking blood pressure and open heart

surgery were performed on animals prior to being released for trial to humans (Stokes 17).

Surgical techniques that involve the mending and elimination of bone diseases were created from

experiments conducted with the use of animal test models (Leppänen 1623). Animal

experimentation not only benefits humanity as a whole, but it also helps other animals as well.

Medicines, like heart worm medication were created by testing animals (National Research

Council 14). This medicine has assisted countless dogs that have suffered from heart worms.

Those who agree with using animals in research argue that society is obligated to take certain
 4
Running Head: ANIMAL TESTING IN THE UNITED STATES

actions that will lower the risk of fatal injuries and maximize the benefits that we as human

beings are entitled to. Animal testing supporters argue that the replacement of animals in

research will never be possible (Caminiti 147).

Contestants of animal testing argue that if animal testing was to be banned then society

would never evolve, it will remain unchanged, and devoid of its full potential (Caminiti 147).

Scientists are not evil people, their primary goal is to minimize pain to every extent, but for now

all we have to sacrifice are animals in order to achieve results in human prosperity. People who

are against the practice portray medical researchers, and scientists of any kind, as being crazy

and cruel. Nevertheless, when one is given painkillers or a dose of anesthesia, one should ask

themselves where did these innovations come from, and what their purpose is. Those in favor of

animal testing base their arguments on the grounds of facts.

Individuals that support animal testing argue with their facts that the advantages that

animal testing has given to mankind is greater than the costs in terms of the suffering that the

animals used in experiments had to endure (Garner 126). They believe that society is obligated to

increase their use of animals in research so that more opportunities and medical discoveries are

found even if it is at the cost of subjecting animals to agonizing pain and stress. Additionally,

some argue that the lives of the animals used in experimentation to a certain degree is worthy of

admiration, but the value of an animal's life is not equal to the life of a human being (Garner

126). In the eyes of an advocate of animal testing, animals lack true emotions.

Human beings are considered living things that have the capacity to love, to feel, to

laugh, and cry, an animal is seen to lack these emotions (Jarymowicz 10). For instance, if an

individual was placed in a situation that involved saving a little boy and his pet monkey stuck in
 5
Running Head: ANIMAL TESTING IN THE UNITED STATES

a burning apartment, who do you think the individual would save first, the monkey or the little

boy? Basic human instinct would guide us to save the little boy first with little regard to the

safety of his pet. Humans carry with them the mindset that they are superior to all other living

things in this world, they see the lives of animals as being inferior to them, and they refuse to see

animals as their equals or moral equivalents (Garner 125). In hindsight, an animal is

characterized as ‘any group of multicellular eukaryotic organism,” which includes plants, and

fungi (Animals 1). To some degree, humans contradict themselves when they lower the value of

another creature's life, and use them in experimentation (Garner 125). We as human beings hold

a sense of responsibility when it comes to the well-being of another living creature’s life (Garner

126).

Mankind holds a sense of responsibility in preventing any animal from experiencing pain

and suffering (Garner 126). On the other hand, when the issue of animal testing is brought to

mind, we are challenged with the moral predicament of choosing between the well-being of

humans and the well-being of animals (Garner 126). People in favor of animal testing debate that

only mankind is responsible for moral rights, and the principles of justice (Philosophies of Law).

Morality, “is there a moral duty to obey the law even when it does not embody morality, and, if

so, are there any limits to this duty” (Philosophies of Law)? In the society we live in today,

morality is considered to be a man-made concept that is not associated with animals. Man is

limited when it comes to “how far and in what sense should the law of a community seek to give

effect to its morality “(Philosophies of law). The concept of morality is typically found in

communities. It’s a concept that is forged by the people within it; animals are excluded from this

moral community. People who do not support animal experimentation usually base their

arguments on the grounds of morality.

Activists of animal experimentation post their arguments on the grounds of morality. The

people who are against using animals for research often times question the necessity or the

validity of the procedures conducted on the animals; they question whether the tests conducted

on the animals are actually needed in order to provide us with any useful information (Garner

125). Supporters of animal rights are quick to say that animals used in research have the rights to

live a peaceful life; a life that is devoid of human interactions (Garner 125). The deaths that are

involved in animal research is considered unnecessary and considered no different from murder.

The direct dissection and use of animals in research is regarded as misleading (Burnet 34). The

belief that the animals used in experimentation is misleading usually generates two different

arguments.

The arguments against animal experimentation generate two different arguments.

Individuals may believe that the purpose of this type of testing is not significant. For example,

purposefully blinding an animal in order to generate a new kind of eye medication have yet to be

justified (Alternative Methods to Animal Tests). Other animal rights supporters argue that the

reaction exhibited by an animal to a certain drug is no different from a human being (Garner

126). Animals are used to test things like cleaning products more than being used to test for

medical and surgical products (National Research Council 5). The major drawback of animal

testing explained by John Frazier and Alan Goldberg of CAAT, are animal distress and casualty,

genus-analysis complications and enormous time and upkeep (Lien 764). The primary concern of

animal rights activists when the issue of testing is involved is the environmental conditions that

the animals are kept in.

The environment of animal test subjects is a major concern to activists. Animals that are

involved in experiments are held in captivity, the animals in captivity often die as a result of the
 7
Running Head: ANIMAL TESTING IN THE UNITED STATES

experiments conducted on them, or euthanasia is administered (Ranganatha 27). Researchers

that are involved in the practice see animals as tools, creatures that are devoid of consciousness

and emotion. In the typical laboratory environment, an animal is susceptible to be poisoned, and

lethally injected with toxic chemical compounds (Ranganatha 27). This is one of the reasons why

animal activists see animal testing as being vicious and inessential.

Activists argue “that the use of animals for testing purposes is vicious and inessential;

they have a strong belief that animals share genetic, neuroanatomical, and physiological

similarities with humans” (Ferdowsian 1). They believe that the use of animals for testing drugs

is not a plausible form of information (Garner 125). Human beings are considerably different

from other animals found on earth, so the results that emerge from animal testing may not be

applicable to humans (Garner 126). Activists argue that the way certain species behave to a drug

or chemical compound in a distinct way does not really lead to other species reacting in the same

way (Alternative Methods to Animal Tests). Peitro Croce, an Italian professor has contended

against animal testing for several years (Croce). Croce argues that the results received through

animal testing is misleading and have no correlation when applied to humans. The plant parsley

is considered a baneful poison for certain species of parrots, yet we use it as a type relish for our

food; the compound arsenic is poisonous to humans, but is not harmful to sheep. A rhino can

ingest large amounts of opium in one sitting, but a human cannot. The compound morphine is

considered a type of anesthetic that human beings use, but if it is given to a dog, cat, or mouse it

generates a state of convulsive activity (Morphine 1). Methods like the 3R system were

developed to alleviate the pain, stress, and psychological torment that the animals go through

(Ferdosian 1).
 8
Running Head: ANIMAL TESTING IN THE UNITED STATES

Alternative methods have been created over the years in an attempt to test products

without harming animals. Methods such as the 3R principle have been developed to establish

new ways for testing products. The three Rs stand for replacement, reduction, and refinement

(Ranganatha, 28). This alternative method was classified as building blocks, or stepping stones

required to establish new methods for animal testing (Ferdosian 1). The basis around this idea

was not to get rid of the use of animals in testing all together, but to create methods of

experiments that are notably more humane for the animals used in experiments (Ranganatha 27).

A new method that emerged in the past is the use of computers in order to cut down the number

of animals used in testing.

The use of computers was created in order to lower the amount of animal test subjects

used in experimentation. “Computers make it possible to observe, manipulate physiological

processes to an extent that might be possible or financially viable in a living animal or in animal

parts”. The use of computer models can display the anatomy in humans. Computers can display

“lungs, musculoskeletal system, digestive system, skin, kidney, lymphatic system and the brain”

(Biever 1). Those against animal testing see this method as an ideal way to address the three

main areas of study that requires the use of animals as testing models. Although using computers

as an alternative for animal experimentation looks promising, scientist and supporters of animal

experimentation argue that this method does not produce efficient results. Scientist and

supporters that are involved in animal experimentation are aware that using animals to study is

somewhat immoral, but they understand that it is for a greater cause, a greater cause that

oftentimes stirs the emotions between both sides of the issue.

Numerous studies and experiments have been conducted by supporters and activists of

animal testing in order to determine emotions exhibited by each of the opposing sides. “In

Britain alone, it is estimated that some 3 million animals, from fruit flies to mice to nonhuman

primates are used annually in experiments, and may be subsequently euthanized” (Swami, 269).

This is a shockingly high number, a number that consequently results in heated debates by

activists of the practice. In an experiment, “185 British and 43 American undergraduates

completed a battery of tests that measured attitudes toward animal testing and various individual

difference variables” (Swami, 278). The results of the tests yielded into two sections.

The test conducted by British and American undergraduates yielded varying results. The

sections included “general attitudes toward animal testing, animal welfare, and conditions of

testing” (Swami, 269). “Results showed that there was encouragement for animal

experimentation under the right conditions, although there was also concern for the welfare and

conditions of testing” (Swami, 268). Americans in the study were more acquiescent about the

testing of animals and less acquiescent about the welfare of the animals. Women were more on

the negative side of animal testing; they seemed to hate the whole concept of using animals as

testing models (Swami 48). There were individuals that had indifferent attitudes as well (Swami

268). The use of animals is a controversial issue; the opposing sides are always debating with

one another in an attempt to justify their beliefs.

The argument that is presented by supporters and activists of animal testing is an issue

that will continue for a long time. Professor R.G. Frey, an activists of animal testing argues that

the direct use of lab animals should be illegalized on the spot (Frey 202). Nevertheless, a person

may argue by stating that if animals were to be completely removed from research, it will lead to
 10
Running Head: ANIMAL TESTING IN THE UNITED STATES

the prevention in the development of basic medical research, and production of vaccines. New

medicines would not be available for the general public, and patients in hospitals would be at

risk. However, a supporter of animal testing may state that mankind has always profited from

health care advancements that solely depends on the achievements of animal research. On the

other hand, some argue that testing for cosmetic items like lotion, lipstick, and household goods

is not an acceptable amount of data to accumulate support for this controversy. The pain that the

animals have to endure during testing is unimaginable; therefore, the basis for animal testing

cannot be supported (Frey 202). However, all animal testing cannot be removed right away

because it is the only way that mankind can develop medicines and cures (National Research

Council 5). Even though alternative methods to animal testing has been created over the years,

the biases that exist on both sides of the issue still exist, animal testing is an issue that still to this

day has yet to be solved (Ranganatha 27).

The use of animals in research is a controversial subject; the biases that abide on both

sides can throw off balance the concrete annotation of the practice. Those against the practice

would reply that animal testing creates distress and agony. Those who support animal testing

may denominate it as an analysis that avails animals to aid in the prosperity of humans, where it

emancipates the longevity of men, women, and children, and provide medical treatment

(National Research Council 5). Numerous debates have been held in regards to animal testing for

centuries, but sadly no concrete solution has been established that will satisfy both supporters

and activists of animal testing (Hajar 42).

Results

Trend in number of animals used in research in the US, 1973 – 2016 Retrieved from
 11
Running Head: ANIMAL TESTING IN THE UNITED STATES

Bibliography

“Alternative Methods to Animal Tests." domain-b. 347 words. LexisNexis Academic. (2012):

Web. 28 June. 2013

“Animal.” Encyclopedia Britannica online. Encyclopedia Britannica. 2013. Web. 03 Jul. 2013.
 12
Running Head: ANIMAL TESTING IN THE UNITED STATES

“Little Funding To Develop Non-Animal Testing." Nature 418.6895 (2002): 273. Academic

Search Complete. Web. 10 July 2013.

“Morphine." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 2013. Web. 10 Jul.

2013.

“Philosophy of Law.” Encyclopedia Britannica online. Encyclopedia Britannica. 2013. Web. 03

Jul. 2013.

Biever, Celeste. "Can Computer Models Replace Animal Testing." New Scientist 190.2551

(2006): 7. Academic Search Complete. Web. 30 June 2013.

Brooks, Michael. "The Truth about Animal Testing." New Statesman Jul 23 2012: 14. Research

Library Web. 3 July 2013 .

Burnett, Cynthia. "Should Animals Continue to be used in Research Experiments?" Issues 03

2009: 34-9. Research Complete. Web. 10 July 2013.

Caminiti, Roberto. "Replacement Of Animals In Research Will Never Be Possible." Nature

457.7226 (2009): 147. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 July 2013.

Croce, Pietro. Vivisection or Science?: An Investigation into Testing Drugs and Safeguarding

Health. London: Zed in Association with Doctors and Lawyers for Responsible

Medicine, 1999. Print.

Ferdowsian, Hope R., and Nancy Beck. "Ethical and Scientific Considerations Regarding

Animal Testing and Research." Plos ONE 6.9 (2011): 1-4. Academic Search Complete.

Web. 28 June 2013.

Garner, Robert. "Animals, Ethics And Public Policy." Political Quarterly 81.1 (2010): 123-130.

Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 July 2013.

Greaves, Peter, Andrew Williams, and Malcolm Eve. "First Dose Of Potential New Medicines

To Humans: How Animals Help." Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 3.3 (2004): 226-

236. Academic Search Complete. Web. 28 June 2013.

Hajar, Rachel. "Animal Testing and Medicine." Heart Views 12.1 (2011): 42. Academic Search

Complete. Web. 10 July 2013.

Hartung, Thomas, and George Daston. "Are In Vitro Tests Suitable For Regulatory Use?"

Toxicological Sciences 111.2 (2009): 233-237. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 July

2013.

Jarymowicz, Maria. "Understanding Human Emotions." Journal Of Russian & East European

Psychology 50.3 (2012): 9-25. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 July 2013.

Lein, Pamela, Paul Locke, and Alan Goldberg. "Meeting Report: Alternatives For

Developmental Neurotoxicity Testing." Environmental Health Perspectives115.5 (2007):

764-768. Academic Search Complete. Web. 8 July 2013.

Leppänen, Olli V., Harri Sievänen, and Teppo L. N. Järvinen. "Biomechanical Testing in

Experimental Bone Interventions--may the Power be with You." Journal of

Biomechanics 41.8 (2008): 1623-31. ProQuest. Web. 10 July 2013.

National Research Council. Science, Medicine, and Animals . Washington, DC: The National

Academies Press, 1991

R. G. Frey and D. Thomas Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Apr., 2005), pp. 202-204
 14
Running Head: ANIMAL TESTING IN THE UNITED STATES

Ranganatha, N., and I. J. Kuppast. "A Review on Alternatives to Animal Testing Methods in

Drug Development." International Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences 4.

(2012): 28-32. Academic Search Complete. Web. 28 June 2013.

Stokes, William S. “Best Practices for The Use of Animals In Toxicological Research and

Testing.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1245.1 (2011): 17-20.

Academic Search Complete. Web. 28 June 2013.

Swami, Viren, Adrian Furnham, and Andrew N. Christopher. "Free The Animals? Investigating

Attitudes Toward Animal Testing in Britain and the United States." Scandinavian

Journal of Psychology 49.3 (2008): 269-276. Academic Search Complete. Web. 28 June

2013.