Personal Article
What Lives and Dies: Animal Testing
Where do we draw the line between what lives and dies? Is animal testing the only successful path to clinical advancement? Let’s find out.
This article is originally from Trilemma Publications, written by staff writer Kiersten Ngeow
As I explored animal testing, these questions burned into my head, as I pondered about the significant impact animal testing continues to have on the lives of humans and animals — for better or for worse.
On one end, without animal testing, the creation of several life-saving vaccines, antibiotics, drugs, and more would cease to exist. Along with the discoveries found during the development of these products, which have benefited both animals and humans alike. But at what cost have we made these discoveries?
When companies use animal testing, it is for the purpose of determining the safety of their products. As a result, animals are subjected to harmful chemicals and substances that can be detrimental to their health. Thus, paying the price for these discoveries with their lives. But that is not all. Unfortunately, the mistreatment of animals is prevalent in animal testing. Despite this, there are alternate solutions to replace animal testing, but should we?
This is where our trilemma is presented: should we support or stop animal testing? Perhaps, there is a middle ground within these two stances.
You should support animal testing:
Choosing to support animal testing would allow for the continued development of life-saving vaccines, antibiotics, and drugs. One of the numerous examples of medical treatments created under animal testing includes the polio vaccine, which conducted studies with monkeys, dogs, and mice. Before, the polio epidemic claimed the lives of thousands in the United States alone. After the vaccine, cases for polio have been reduced by 99%. Without animal testing, the creation of the polio vaccine would cease to exist, along with numerous other life-saving medical treatments.
Additionally, animal testing benefits both animals and humans alike as,
Through this, diseases prevalent to both humans and animals could be studied and prevented by animal testing. Animals also are like human beings, we share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, 98% with mice.
Although there being alternatives to animal testing, these methods are not the same as studying real animal models. In an article by Stanford addressing the myths and facts of animal testing, it states,
Animals are living models and can show researchers how diseases and other substances react. This is not prevalent in alternative methods to animal testing.
You should stop animal testing:
Unfortunately, when it comes to animal testing, mistreatment, torture, and pain are prevalent in the lives of innocent animals. In the United States alone, over 300,000 animals have needlessly suffered for “animal testing”.
Furthermore, there is a difference between animals and humans,
As a result of these disparities, the reactions between the same diseases in animals and humans indicate that different cures are needed. Thus, animal testing is unreliable in creating treatments for diseases in humans.
However, alternative methods for animal testing currently exist including:
- in vitro models
- cell cultures
- computer models
- new imaging/analyzing techniques
Additionally, the Administrator of the EPA (United States Protection Agency) has said,
Signifying that alternative methods for medical testing could have the potential to replace animal testing.
Neutral Stance:
When all is said and done, the evidence concerning the effectiveness of animal testing for humans is deeply divided, thus making it difficult to determine the truth. As Garner, a bioethicist at the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, states,
Additionally, there is no consensus concerning whether alternative methods of testing can replace animal testing, which is reflected in the differing opinions of Stanford and the EPA.
There is no denying that animal testing has brought upon important medical discoveries such as the creation of the polio vaccine. However, it is imperative to reevaluate the connection between the results of trials from animals to humans and the effectiveness of alternative testing methods.
Personally, as I researched for this article, I found it difficult to determine a stance due to the conflicting information regarding animal testing. However, the stance I am leaning towards would be to stop animal testing altogether. This is because the effectiveness of animal testing is ultimately uncertain. Therefore, it is imperative to simultaneously further medical research and also determine the effectiveness of potential alternatives regarding animal testing.
Although there are conflicting perspectives on animal testing, there is one unifying belief. No matter where the line is between what lives and dies, we should always be crystal clear regarding the line between animal abuse and animal testing.
