Should Laboratory Tests on Animals Be Eliminated?

February 22, 2008

Call me conflicted. Over the years, I’ve owned four dogs, two cats, several fish, and a rabbit that we affectionately called "Mr. Bunny" until, when he was his deathbed, a vet informed us that he was actually a female. I was a fairly serious vegetarian for a number of years, until the difficulty of stomaching another tofu burger finally drove me back into the realm of reluctant carnivores. I do own a pair or two of leather shoes, but mostly they gather dust in the back of my closet. I always brake for squirrels. So while I’m not about to don a ski mask and join the Animal Liberation Front, I am concerned about the suffering that various creatures experience when they’re used in laboratory experiments. At the same time, I’m also concerned about possibly interfering with research that might provide cures for diseases that cause humans to suffer and/or die. 

That’s why this article from Information Week caught my attention:   

American scientists could use robots, cells and computational modeling to test chemicals and phase out the use of lab animals, thanks to a multiagency pact announced this week.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institutes of Health signed a memo of understanding to use new testing methods. The agencies announced the toxicity testing agreement Thursday. The details are published in the journal Science.

Two NIH institutes will work with the EPA to use the NIH Chemical Genomics Center's (NCGC) high-speed, automated screening robots to test compounds researchers suspect are toxic. The robots, created for the human genome project, could perform 10,000 cell screenings, using isolated molecular targets, each day.

NIH said the plan could generate data more relevant to humans; increase the number of chemicals tested; reduce time; and save money.

At a press conference, the government scientists said that while animal research had led to important discoveries, it is also expensive, inefficient and not always a reliable indicator of how chemicals will affect humans. Scientific American adds more details:

The news here is the capacity to test many thousands of compounds, something we haven't had until this collaboration," Samuel Wilson, acting director of the NIH National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NTP, said at the press conference. The new research model would allow scientists to test 100,000 compounds in 1,500 different concentrations in about two days compared with years if the testing was done on animals. This sort of "high-throughput" testing will enable researchers to generate more data relevant to humans, and at the same time reduce the amount of animal experimentation. The cross-species extrapolation from animals to humans is "not always as precise as it should be," Wilson said. "This collaboration is a milestone because it gives us the ability to apply a new generation of approaches to determining toxicities.

If it indeed turns out that this new sort of testing regimen provides more reliable results than the old practices — i.e, exposing animals to chemicals, observing whether or not they get sick, and then dissecting their bodies to study the damage — then it’ll be difficult to justify animal testing on the grounds of scientific necessity or primacy of human needs. The Boston Globe’s Quest for Knowledge blog had this to say on the subject:

"The idea that in 10 years we could be out of animal testing in commercial products is not pie in the sky ... the opportunity is here," said Alan Goldberg, who directs the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing at Johns Hopkins University. "Humane science is better science."

The Globe had this caveat:

Still, animal testing will not end immediately. Government officials need to validate the new methods before they are widely accepted — a process that could take a decade or more.

Beyond that, there’s another catch. As the Wikipedia article on animal testing details, toxicological tests are only one of the ways in which animal subjects are used in laboratories. For example, some researchers insist that experiments on monkeys and chimpanzees play a crucial role in the search for a cure for Parkinson’s disease, while others attest to the value of studying animals that have been genetically modified to develop human ailments. These types of animal research presumably would continue.

Or maybe they shouldn’t. The European Union, which already has enacted a ban on the use of animals in toxicology testing for cosmetics, is reportedly considering a broader prohibition on other sorts of animal research as well. Here’s a U.K. Guardian story that quotes pro-testing scientists, and an anti-testing counterpoint by British animal rights activist Michelle Thew.

So maybe it’s time to ask the big question: Should all animal testing be eliminated? Express your opinion below.

Comments

[Animals are People, Too!]

I couldn't agree more...testing anything on animals is simply IMMORAL and WRONG. But there's no excuse now, with computer simulations available that are more accurate in predicting the affect on humans.

[Ashley]

I think that animal testing should stop, for why should they suffer in order for us to live happy lives? They aren't humans! If we are trying to find cures for humans then we should test humans, or use this new computer simulation. It would give more accurate data.

[Sonja Barak]

Read what the Humane Society has to say about animal testing...
http://www.hsus.org/animals_in_research/animal_testing/

[People are people too!]

This idea is driven by emotions. It's easy to use cute pictures of bunnies and hamsters next to shots of something gory and get everyone all upset.

Put the pictures away and think about this. How can you be sure there is enough known about any organism for an accurate computer model? Every time a new discovery about the animal you are modeling is reported, it will throw doubt on your results. To ensure the new discovery does not invalidate your results you will have to reprogram the model and re-run whatever tests you've already done. Otherwise you can't be sure of their accuracy.

Even if we had what we thought was an accurate computer model of any organism to use for tests, remember, no model is foolproof. The weather has been computer-modeled too, for a long time, and we still get suprised by it. Remember the last time a drought-breaking storm was promised and never showed up, or you found half an inch of "partly cloudy" in your rain gauge? Animal testing will be necessary for years to come.

As far as testing humans to find cures for humans goes, fine... if you are in favor, will you roll up your sleeves?

[Europeans for Medical Progress]

It's certainly time to measure the effectiveness of animal tests against state of the art tests based on human biology. This could lead to safer medicines for us all. How? Watch informative short film Safer Medicines at www.curedisease.net (there are no images of animals in the film).

[Richard]

>

Well,true, but people already are doing that. Every drug or medical device has to be tested on large numbers of humans eventually. The FDA generally expects a manufacturer to conduct at least two Phase III trials, which can involve as many as 6,000 subjects total. The New Yorker just did a story on the subculture of people who are professional guinea pigs for drug companies and research institutions. http://www.guineapigzero.com/elliott.pdf Wired also did a story on this a while back...http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.05/feat_drugtest.html

If you filter out the animal rights issue, I think the real question is whether animal testing is more reliable than computer simulations in providing preliminary toxicological and efficacy information that manufacturers can use to determine whether to move on to human testing. I'm not sure what the answer is, but that's the question.

[Richard]

sorry, the typepad software deleted my quote of the comment that I was referring to...
which was:

"As far as testing humans to find cures for humans goes, fine... if you are in favor, will you roll up your sleeves?"

[Mothra]

I think animal testing is really important, because it's helped us find out a lot about diseases, especially because stem cell research isn't possible. But I think it needs to be done humanely, without a complete disregard for animal life.

[Neil]

I was going to write well-reasoned defense of animal testing, but then I found that this blogger (http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2006/11/27/animal-testing-without-the-screaming/) had done it for me. Here's what he wrote:

...one should look at how broad the field of animal testing is, not just in Europe (which has some of the strictest codes of conduct in the world) but also globally. It’s quite straightforward to make the argument that experiment A leads to outcome B, and that outcome B (child walking, or cancer patient surviving) justifies the suffering caused to non-human animals in the process.

What this ignores, however, is the extent to which practical benefits of experimentation can rely as much on basic research, with no specific objective as on more focused research. If animal suffering is justified by positive outcomes for human individuals, then experiments with no clear beneficiaries are, surely, much harder to defend, if one is to avoid simply defending all experimentation, no matter how seemingly outlandish, on the principle that it might, one day, be useful for something (Harry Harlow, anyone?).

This approach to the argument also tends, from the pro-testing position, to a kind of a-la-carte utilitarianism. The example used in the review is a typical one. About 100 monkeys dying are worth thousands of people walking. Let’s assume that’s a fair trade. What happens, however, if we start playing around with the numbers? Are 100 monkeys dying worth 100 people walking? What about 100,000 monkeys against 20 walkers? What basis does one use to make such a calculation in the first place? If I’m in a wheelchair, how much suffering am I entitled to cause to benefit myself?

Taken a step further, it would be interesting to see how far those who justify the suffering of animals on the basis that the gains it produces are so great are willing to pursue that line of thought. How many of those who argue that they only support or participate in animal testing because there’s no alternative, and that the suffering of animals is regrettable but necessary are vegetarians or vegans? Surely if one is going to endorse the utilitarian position, and reluctantly allow suffering so children might walk, one must realise that the amount of suffering caused by factory farming in no way justifies the pleasure one takes in eating meat (or, to be specific, the additional pleasure one takes in eating meat over eating something else). This is particularly true when one considers that the production of meat is a massively inefficient use of natural resources, as well as being extremely damaging to the environment.

A more fundamental basis for supporting testing on animals is the simple belief that humans are intrinsically more valuable than other species. It is this principle that underlines all animal testing, indeed, all uses of animals (very few, I’d guess, would support the experiments above if it was 100 humans sacrificed to allow hundreds, or even hundreds of thousands, to walk). However, it’s not a principle that, I think, can survive real scrutiny.

One can easily point to certain characteristics that, on the whole, humans possess and non-human animals don’t: a wide range of emotions and desires, capacity to empathise with the emotions of others, ability to think in terms of abstract concepts, an understanding of oneself as an entity existing in time. These are all, I would argue, valuable characteristics and tend to make the existence of one who possess them ‘superior’ (for want of a better expression) than that of one who doesn’t. If one wants to avoid irrational, quasi-religious justifications for our superiority, these are the kind of attributes one might evoke.

Two main problems arise with this line of reasoning, though. Firstly, we now know that many species of non-human animals do possess these characteristics, to greater or lesser degrees. The Great Ape Project, which argues that basic rights, akin to ‘human’ rights, should be granted to particular groups of primates, is founded on this very premise. If the kind of qualities listed above are what make us human, and therefore entitled to specific protections (including protection against being experimented on) then how can experiments on non-human animals who share the same characteristics possibly be justified?

The second point is a linked one: the kind of qualities cited to distinguish humans from non-human animals could equally be used to distinguish between different humans. Humans who have suffered severe brain damage, or who were born with serious neurological abnormalities may very well lack some or all of the abilities listed above. Although we may consider their quality of life to be poor, or inferior to the norm, there’d be very few who would seriously argue that they’re fair game for experimentation. And if we’re appalled by the suggestion that someone with a lower mental capacity than, say, a pig could be used for organ donation while still alive, why does the idea that genetically modified pigs could be used for the same purpose in humans not fill us with the same revulsion?

That is not to say, however, that I’m unequivocally opposed to animal testing. In fact, intuitively I’d tend support it in many circumstances (including the sacrifice of the 100 unfortunate monkeys). This is the same moral intuition that doesn’t allow me to support the use of the profoundly mentally-impaired in the same kinds experiments. Luckily, though, I don’t think moral intuitions are always necessarily correct, and I’d be of the view that if one is going to support scientific testing on ‘higher’ animals, one should also be prepared to support testing on human animals of the same capacity.

[Ultralord]

We shouldnt perform experiments on monkeys ecxept for making them dance. DANCE MONKEYS, DANCE I SAY!!!!!!!!!!

[Patrick Kiger]

I just came across this organization in the UK, Pro-Test, which argues in support of animal testing. Interestingly, it was founded in 2004 by a 16-year-old blogger, who then rallied scientists and academics to the cause.
The web site is http://www.pro-test.org.uk/index.php

Here's an excerpt from the "about" section of the web site:

Pro-Test aims to counter the irrational arguments of anti-vivisectionists by raising public awareness of the benefits of animal research and creating an environment where scientists can speak out about their work and be proud of the contributions they make. We stand for science, reasoned debate and, above all, the promotion of the welfare of mankind. Pro-Test exists to support the construction of the Oxford lab, to make the case for animal research, and more generally to defend scientific research as a necessary tool of human progress in a climate that is increasingly misanthropic and suspicious of scientists.We support only non-violent protest and condemn those using violence or intimidation to further their goals. We strongly support animal testing as crucially necessary to further medical science.

[Patrick Kiger]

fyi, I sent an email to the Pro-Test people, and also one to the Johns Hopkins University's Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, inviting them to participate in the discussion. Hopefully they will...

[Groovy Grove]

AIDS researchers wasted a lot of time and effort years ago trying to infect chimpanzees with the HIV virus. As it turned out, they were immune to it because of another retrovirus to which their ancient ancestors had been exposed. So animal research is not always the best way to go.

[Michael Hughes]

We are well on our way to the replacement of animals in testing, but we have a long way to go before *all* tests can be done without animals.

The Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) has pioneered this field since 1981. The most humane science really is the best science, and government and regulatory agencies around the world are now acknowledging this by pushing hard for alternatives.

An excellent resource for information about alternatives is Altweb:

http://altweb.jhsph.edu

[/.,mk0987]

" And if we’re appalled by the suggestion that someone with a lower mental capacity than, say, a pig could be used for organ donation while still alive, why does the idea that genetically modified pigs could be used for the same purpose in humans not fill us with the same revulsion?"

couldn't that be because most people in the world aren't cannibals but eat a lot of pig meat already??

anyway, i have a vegetarian friend who is adamant in her feelings against animal testing. But when I asked her "if animal testing was still needed what animal(s) should it be?" she replied mice. What is it that makes mice different to the rest, the fact that they are small, insignificant, redundant or able to reproduce greatly in numbers in short periods of time????

[kiuantebedofrd]

thats cool kool dude

[Claire]

The argument that people attempting to ban animal testing is based on emotion is irrelevant. So what? Humans are emotional creatures. Apparently we test on animals because we care about other humans and think that this will lead to a cure for the other humans to survive. That's an emotional reasoning. But because you argue on the side of humans makes it ok to torture and maim innocent creatures? Show me one animal whose anatomy is exactly the same as a humans and then I MIGHT believe that testing on animals has some relevance to the possible outcome in a human.
An argument against computer-based testing that stated that something like that wouldn't always show what the result in a human would be because technology doesn't always give you the correct answer is without merit. Animal testing doesn't always show the exact result either, especially because animals don't have the same skin, hair follicles, nerve endings, etc. as humans do, so what makes anyone think that animal testing is completely accurate? If we are going to have slightly inaccurate testing one way or the other, let it be on the computer or an inanimate object that isn't going to feel any pain or go through any type of anguish.
When did humans become so ridiculously superior-minded that they think simply because they can't feel the pain or it's not happening to them, that it was ok to torture another living creature. May I please remind everyone that we need to share this earth with other animals and simply because we have a different form of communication and can't understand what a dog or cat is thinking doesn't mean we are superior to them. Just because it is our belief that we are superior doesn't mean it is right. What people believe isn't always correct - remember the "earth is flat" theory, anyone? I'm sorry, but take away the means to make weapons and we are NOT the highest on the food chain. I'm pretty sure no one reading this, if brought back to our most natural state, would win a fight with a lion without some type of gun or weapon. Yes, we may have a more complex form of intelligence, but that does not mean we are BETTER. It means we have the responsibility to take care of the rest of the planet because we have the ability to, not destroy and torture it. We are the only species on the planet who happens to be completely polluting and destroying it. Why test on the innocent ones? We need to test on humans. Why not use death row inmates? (I'm just waiting for someone to tell me how horrible that is, but don't waste your breathe, because I don't care.) What makes any one of you reading this think that in the grand scheme of the universe, at the end of time, that your life will make any more difference than any other creature on this planet?
There are hundreds of companies who get by just fine without cruel testing on animals, why do others have to use these inhumane methods? And to "People are people, too" - have you ever watched an animal cruelty video? You talk about cute bunnies and hamsters, but if you see what they do to those cute bunnies and hamsters it's not cute at all. It's disgusting. It's absolutely horrifying the sick things humans come up with. They make animals imbibe chemicals until they vomit, seize and die. They burn their eyes out, cut chunks of muscle out of their bodies while they are still alive and fully awake. They electrocute them. If you've ever had a pet that you loved, go watch a 5-minute animal cruelty video and come back and talk to me when you're finished (if you can even stomach it; I won't be surprised if you can't.) Many animals have more nerve endings in their bodies than humans do and those nerve endings are also more sensitive, tell me how testing animals with different anatomy than a human's is more accurate than a computer model that can be programmed to be exactly like a human's. You can't program a rat to be exactly like a human.
This disrespect of the other creatures that inhabit this earth and this superiority complex of ours need to stop. There is absolutely too much technology in the world today and too many alternative resources for us to be treating animals cruelly and inhumanely solely for our own benefit. We are not the only important ones in the picture and the sooner people realize that, the better off we will all be.

[Ana]

Please forgive my English misspelling, I am just learning the language but anyway want to share with you same ideas.
In reality the ethical thing would be create a legislation recognizing the Animals Right.
Why we always take advantage of them? What kind of people are we? Why we can do whatever with them for free?
I agree with Claire, Ashley and Sonja Barak. Is horrible how many unnecessary testing on animals, even for stupid's cosmetics!!!
Please read what Humane Society has to say: http://www.hsus.org/animals_in_research/animal_testing/ but also about other animal abuse.
Not only we abuse animal in tests but in shows and many business and for other commercial purposes.
Many animals are unpaid workers for life, performing repeatedly acts, shows, or simply passing all their life inside a concrete cage exhibit to the public (with /purchased a ticket). They goes nuts and suffer obsessive behavior. Many of them has been kidnapped from their assassinated families.
After used and abused for years these animals are simply discarded: Destroyed

Unlike the film Free Willie, the real whale Lolita is still now living in solitude confinement, after 38 years!!! performing daily shows, living alone in her small tank separate from her family pack.
Everyone who can pay a couple of hundred bocks, can swim with a unlucky dolphins, many times a day.
Same thing for many other animals exploited gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees, dolphins, elephants, bears, birds, lions tigers....and la list goes on and on.
It seems animals do not have any earnings, all the money they have made during their life time work goes for their owners. Why anybody recognize their rights?
I think we need same new laws in the XXI century in America.
They must have the right to keep a big part of the incomes they generated for their "retirement". Included animals of laboratories.
They have the right to be retire having a better life.
What was earned with them must be saved for them.
They must be untitled to be protected, but they should have enough money to pay for their well deserved retirement in true sanctuaries or reintroduce and care for them in their natural habitat.
I do not understand how people have fun and pay money to see this poor animals incarcerated for life far away from their families and natural habitat, acting obliged to perform in Circus and same pseudo Zoos and Aquariums.
How can this level of animal abuse can be tolerate in the US?

[nichole]

i completely agree, all animal testing should be banned. its not right for them to suffer reactions and horrible deaths all becase they are living things you can test on. its wrong to test beauty products, toxic chemicals, and various other creations on them. they are just trying to live and create a sence of security just as we all are.

[me]

Hi,I think this is a very good explanation and I also think animal testing is wrong.I have been doing some research and it is actually a fact that there is no piont of animal testing.

[chelly]

ok. Let's cut the big scientific details on why animal testing is okay, because here is the thing - it is disgusting and selfish. Just the other day I was at a TAFE workshop and it was showing how they fed a pregnant mouse on alcohol to see what affect it would have on her offspring, so that they could find out what affect it would have on human fetus. what a pointless experiment!!!!!! just because you say to the world: drinking while you are pregnant is bad; we tested on mice and here are the results, does NOT mean that people are going to stop drinking while they are pregnant!! so that's an innocent animal life down the drain. in another experiment a scientist explained about how they pumped a chemical into a mouse to give it malanomers, so they could test anitdotes on it! I asked her about animal cruelty and she assured me that they only tested as much as was necessary! what a load of bollocks!!! I came home that day and became vegetarian! For all those people out there who think that it's ok, let me ask you this: if it were you in the animal's situation, would you like to be tested on?