experiments on animals pros and cons

16 Integral Pros and Cons of Animal Experimentation

Over 25 million animals are used for experimentation in the U.S. every year. Monkeys, rabbits, cats, ferrets, pigs, sheep and chimpanzees are just some of the animals used for biomedical experiments, science education, and product and cosmetics testing. Some animals, however, are more preferred by laboratories. In fact, over 90% of test subjects are mice, birds and rats.

Many proponents of animal experimentation claim that the process is for a good cause. Better to use animals than humans for testing, right? After all, they are below humans in the natural chain of things. But, as English philosopher and social reformer Jeremy Bentham puts it, it is not a question of whether they can talk or reason, but whether or not they suffer. Considering that animals cry and show discomfort, it is safe to conclude that they feel something.

Unfortunately, vivisection, or the practice of animal experimentation, is perfectly acceptable and legal. It is the worst form of animal abuse that is institutionalized and sanctioned by our society. Despite the fact that the conditions of animals in labs are monotonous, stressful, and very unnatural for them, invasive experimentation persists, and even when the endpoint is death. Whether animal experimentation is good or bad really depends on who you are asking. But, if it is condone by society, then there must be some advantages to it, even if the benefits are at the expense of animal lives.

List of Pros of Animal Experimentation

1. Contributes to many cures and treatments that save many human lives The majority of the medical breakthroughs that have happened in the last 100 years were direct results from animal research and experimentation, according to the California Biomedical Research Association. Insulin, for example, was discovered through an experiment where dogs have their pancreases removed. The Anderson Cancer Center animal research also associated the vaccine for Hepatitis B with experimentation on chimpanzees. Without these experimentations, thousands, if not millions, of diabetic patients and those with hepatitis B would have been killed every year. The same facility also said that the chimps serve as humanity’s only hope for finding a Hepatitis C vaccine.

2. Provides adequate living, whole body system test subject No other living thing in this planet has the closest anatomical structure as humans than animals. A human body is extremely complex that cell cultures in a petri dish cannot provide sufficient test results or proof that a cure or product is effective. Testing a drug for side effects, for example, requires a circulatory system that will carry the drug to different organs. Studying interrelated processes is also best done in subjects with endocrine system, immune system, and central nervous system, something humans and animals have. What about the use of computer models? They would require accurate information that is gathered from animal research.

3. Humans and animals are almost identical in many ways The DNA of chimpanzees are 99% similar with humans, while the genetics of mice are 98% similar. Humans and animals are also biologically similar, having the same set of organs, bloodstream and central nervous system, which is why they are affected with the same diseases and health conditions. Given these circumstances, animals used in experimentation do serve as appropriate research subjects.

4. Provides an ethical alternative for testing Most people would say that it is unethical to use humans for invasive experimental procedures, especially when it can result in death. The lives of human volunteers must not be endangered when testing medicines for side effects or potential toxicity. Ethical consideration must also be made when genetic manipulation would be involved. Human trials must be preceded by animal testing, as stated by the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. But, if animals could talk, they would probably demand the same ethical considerations.

5. Offer benefits to animals themselves Animal experimentation is not only beneficial to humans but animals as well. If the vaccines were not tested on them, a lot of them could have died from rabies, infectious hepatitis virus, anthrax, feline leukemia, and canine parvovirus. Remedies for hip dysplasia and glaucoma were also discovered through animal testing. But the real highlight is that vivisection helped kept endangered species, such as the California condor, the tamarins of Brazil, and the black-footed ferret, from becoming extinct. This is why animal testing is endorsed by the American Veterinary Medical Association.

6. Allow researchers to study a test subject for a whole life span Humans can live up to 80 years or more, which means some scientists would be dead before others results will be gathered. Laboratory mice, on the other hand, only live for 2 to 3 years, giving researchers an opportunity to study effects of genetic manipulation or treatments over an entire lifetime. In some cases, they can continue to study across several generations. This is why mice and rats have been used for long-term cancer research.

7. Animals are protected from abuse and mistreatment Contrary to what most opponents believe, animal research is highly regulated, with laws enacted to protect animals. Since 1966, the federal Animal Welfare Act have been regulating animal experimentation.

Research animals must be provided with shelter that follows minimum housing standards, such as the right-sized enclosure, recommended temperature, access to clean food and water, etc.
Veterinarians must regularly inspect the animals and their living conditions
Each research facility must set up an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) that will approve all proposals to use animals for experimentation.
The IACUC will be responsible for enforcing humane treatment of animals.
Research facilities funded by the US Public Health Service (PHS) must comply with the policies on Human Care and Use of Laboratory Animals imposed by PHS.

8. Fewer animals are used in research than as food for humans Compared to the amount of chicken, cattle, sheep and pigs that humans eat, relatively few of them are used in experimentation. With consideration to the medical progress and advancement such tests provided, it is a small price to pay. To illustrate, for every chicken used in research, an equivalent of 340 are used as food.

List of Cons of Animal Experimentation

1. Cruel and inhumane treatment Protocols in animal testing are often painful to the test subjects. They are forced fed, deprived of food and water, restrained physically for prolonged periods, inflicted with burns, wounds and pain to test for healing process effects and remedies, and even killed through neck-breaking or asphyxiation. This is according to the Humane Society International. When testing to evaluate irritation caused by cosmetics, for example, a rabbit’s eyes will be held open by clips so it cannot blink away the products being evaluated. The clips usually stay on for days, and to ensure the rabbits stay in place, they are incapacitated. Some experimentation also involves using lethal doses of certain chemicals to determine how much can kill animals.

2. Animals make poor test subjects This statement is a direct contradiction from what proponents believe about how closely related animals and humans are anatomically and biologically, because of the many metabolic, cellular, and anatomical differences between the two species. Using rats for toxicity, for example, must not be accepted as reliable since humans are nowhere close to being 70-kilogram rats, according to Thomas Hartung, professor of evidence-based toxicology at Johns Hopkins University. This is further supported by the 2013 study in the Archives of Toxicology that states that the lack of direct comparison of human data versus that of a mouse makes the usefulness of research data dubious.

3. Success in animal experimentation does not equate to human safety When the sleeping pill thalidomide was tested on pregnant rats, mice, cats and guinea pigs, there were no incidence of birth defects, except when administered at extremely high doses. However, when it was used by pregnant women, it resulted in severe deformities affecting 10,000 babies.

The arthritis drug Vioxx, which turned out great on animals was really bad news on humans because it caused more than 20,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths.
A majority of the drugs that passed animal tests, 94% to be exact, failed in human clinical trials.
100 of the drugs designed to treat stroke worked on animals, but completely failed in humans
Over 85 vaccines for HIV worked well in primates, but failed in humans

4. Can lead to misleading research Some medicines and products that are harmful to animals are actually valuable to humans. Aspirin, for example, was almost shelved because it proved dangerous for animals. Imagine what would have happened if aspirin was completely taken off the pharmaceutical list? There would have been no way to lower the risk of organ transplant being rejected.

5. Most animals used in testing and research are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) As of 2010, only over 1 million animals are covered by the AWA, leaving around 25 million more unprotected from mistreatment and abuse. These include birds, fish, mice and rats. And because vivisections within laboratory walls are regulated by the committee that the facility itself selected, animal subjects are even more at risk of being treated like prisoners in a hospital for their entire existence. One very good example of a clear violation of AWA was discovered in a federally funded facility in Louisiana, New Iberia Research Center (NIRC). The animals were so stressed out psychologically that they resorted to self-mutilation. The rest of the 337 violations that NIRC committed were caught on a video footage, showing the heartbreaking conditions of the animals. But this facility is just one of the many that violates AWA.

6. There are less expensive alternatives to animal experimentation Despite what proponents insist, cell cultures in a petri dish, or in vitro (in glass) testing, are not exactly useless or insufficient. They can even produce results that are more relevant than animal experimentation. The same thing is true when using artificial human skin as a test subject, instead of animal skin. Virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures done through computer models also have the capacity to predict toxicity levels of substances, so no need to poison animals to collect data and draw conclusions. And, when testing for adverse reactions, administering small doses on humans, also known as microdosing, also offers an alternative. Combined with blood analysis, results will be produced.

But what is really important is that these alternatives are less expensive than animal experimentations. In glass testing, for example, only costs $11,000, which is less than $21,000 than an “unscheduled DNA synthesis”. A phototoxicity test that doesn’t use rats only cost $1,300, which is almost $10,000 less than its animal-based equivalent. These only shows that animal tests are wasting plenty of government dollars allocated for research.

7. Plenty of animal lives are wasted Considering all the tests that failed, not to mention other non-experimental factors that affect animals, there is a significant number of animal lives wasted for nothing. They suffer or get killed during the experiment, and suffer the same fate after the experiment. But what is really inhumane and unethical are the poor research procedures used by some facilities. Serious flaws were discovered in plenty of studies in the UK and the U.S. that use rodents, according to a peer-reviewed study conducted in 2009. Selection bias was a major problem, but even with randomization and blinding technique used, proper selection of animals still failed. There is also a lack of hypothesis or objective related to the study.

8. Medical breakthroughs need not involve animals Is animal experimentation really that necessary in discovering treatments and cures? Opponents argue that there is really no evidence of its vital role in major medical advances. If funds and resources are focused on animal-free alternatives, more humane, ethical and inexpensive solutions. One such alternative that should be given full support is the microfluidic chip, also known as organs on a chip. This involves the use of chips to achieve certain functions of a human body, such as mix, pump and sort. The chips are lined with human cells so they work similar to human organs. With this alternative, researchers can no longer use the excuse that they need a living, whole-body system to run experiments.

Net Zero Features
Conscious Living Essentials
Geothermal Energy Installers
Planet Earth
Climate Policy
Sustainability

The Pros and Cons of Animal Testing

We are reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn affiliate commission.

Animal testing is a hot topic in the food, medicine, and cosmetics industries. The conversation seeps into other sectors, like fashion and cleaning products. It is commonly agreed that harming creatures isn’t aligned with environmentalist ideals, but are there pros and cons to animal testing?

To uncover the truth behind the argument, you must understand the logistics behind executing an animal test — whether for medicine or fashion — and the technology these experts have available to them. Explore the subject’s nuances and if there are any ways to justify the practice.

What Is Animal Testing?

Animal testing encompasses any test, whether chemical, medical, or anything in between, that is performed on animals instead of humans. It is for research purposes, usually during product development, such as formulating a new medication or testing the irritants of a perfume.

The food industry may give test products to animals sprayed with new pesticides to see how they impact animals biologically similar to humans. The possibilities are comprehensive and versatile, but does that make them ethical?

Most animal testing occurs in containment in laboratory settings. Animal testers must abide by specific regulations. In the United States, the Department of Agriculture governs them. They work alongside the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service for enforcement. However, the primary law they look to is the Animal Welfare Act, passed in 1966. It encompasses everything from testing methods and transport. These are some of the basic tenets animal testers must follow:

Refer to an animal care board
Have veterinary programs
Ensure qualifications of those practicing on animals
Have adequate safety and reporting tools for animal welfare

Do these guidelines make animal testing a viable option? Not necessarily. The act does not cover rats, mice, and birds — most animals used in animal testing. Let’s dive into the pros and cons of animal testing, starting with some arguable pros.

These are the most prominent arguments those in favor of animal testing make, despite potential evidence for the contrary.

It Saves Human Lives With Medical Advancement

Numerous vaccines and medications throughout human history became what they are today from animal testing. Everything from cholera to polio had animals leading the charge to save millions of human lives. It is not just vaccines and medications — they also advanced surgical procedures, like organ transplants and other body part replacements. Biomedical research would not be the same without it.

Animals Also Benefit from Research

Medical advancements happen to more than just humans. Animal testing can improve the health and livelihoods of animals , extending their life span. For numerous diseases and ailments that impact both humans and animals, researchers can manipulate discoveries to help all parties involved.

The saturation of animal rights and environmentalist education is revealing the catastrophic cons of animal testing. Do any of them outweigh the potential pros?

There Are Plenty of Alternatives to Animal Testing

The technology humans have nowadays has rendered live animal testing obsolete. First, medical researchers can run paid testing scenarios with humans or ask for willing volunteers. Humans can provide consent that animals cannot, allowing them to continue living in their habitats unharmed for the benefit of humans.

Additionally, doctors can test product reactions using in vitro methods, analyzing how small pieces of tissue and even human cells react without needing a wholly live participant. The results would appear with relative accuracy — especially when animal testing has debatable accuracy and predictive value abilities .

There is also software now that leverages AI, machine learning, modeling, and related resources to execute scenarios and determinations well with near-infinite data. For example, scientists are working on integrating advanced AI algorithms with emerging technologies like organ-on-a-chip and in vitro models. These innovations simulate human organ function and allow for more accurate drug efficacy and toxicity testing.

Humans and Animals Are Not the Same, Causing Waste

Despite how the media portrays animal subjects as biologically similar, that is not the only similarity required for in-lab tests to translate to human subjects. The National Institute of Health revealed that 95% of novel drugs that went through animal testing fail application to humans. For example, medication tests for ailments such as Alzheimer’s and sepsis have a near 100% failure rate.

The percentage reveals how much time and research funds are wasted on experiments that do not yield results. The amount of waste in products, resources, energy, labor, and animals is toxic for the environment and an objectively poor business model.

Encourages Animal Cruelty in Captivity

It is the most significant and powerful argument in the conversation. Despite rules and regulations, it is impossible to make animal testing objectively humane. Even if the lab and housing conditions when away from testing are comfortable, it does not excuse the potential pain and suffering countless animals have endured to benefit humans. It includes but is not limited to, being exposed to toxic substances or being force-fed.

Over 110 million animals die in the United States alone yearly from animal testing, and this does not include other nations in the world that have mandatory animal testing for most products, including makeup.

This is especially true for non-essential products, like cosmetics. For example, testing makeup on animal fur could cause topical irritation or burning, irreparably damaging the coats that keep them safe and warm. It is why the Leaping Bunny symbol came into existence, only branding cosmetics with its signature if the company proves it is cruelty-free and does not engage in animal testing.

Animal Testing Pros and Cons for a Healthier Environment

The animal testing conversation is heated, but when looking at the big picture, it is possible to eliminate it for biodiversity and animal welfare — primarily for non-essential, non-medical purposes. Research and development in related industries will need adjustments, but harming animals like this is questionably effective when compared to how it will affect humans.

To help the planet thrive, humans should seek alternative ways to formulate products, including medicine. Exploring technology is the best way to keep animals safe and healthy while empowering humans toward medical advancement and safe and refined consumer products.

This post was updated on May 31, 2024 with more updated information.

Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Like what you read? Join other Environment.co readers!

Get the latest updates on our planet by subscribing to the Environment.co newsletter!

About the author

Breeding Programmes for Endangered Species: What Goes Into Rebuilding Wild Populations?

Safe or Scandal? Unraveling the Los Alamos Plutonium Contamination Site

Why Are Plants Green and What It Means for the Planet

Inside the World of a Supervolcano: Understanding Their Impact and Power

Seaweed Belongs To Which Of Earth’s Spheres?

Uncharted Waters: Is Deep-Sea Mining the Future or an Ecological Disaster in the Making?

Ethical care for research animals

WHY ANIMAL RESEARCH?

The use of animals in some forms of biomedical research remains essential to the discovery of the causes, diagnoses, and treatment of disease and suffering in humans and in animals., stanford shares the public's concern for laboratory research animals..

Many people have questions about animal testing ethics and the animal testing debate. We take our responsibility for the ethical treatment of animals in medical research very seriously. At Stanford, we emphasize that the humane care of laboratory animals is essential, both ethically and scientifically. Poor animal care is not good science. If animals are not well-treated, the science and knowledge they produce is not trustworthy and cannot be replicated, an important hallmark of the scientific method .

There are several reasons why the use of animals is critical for biomedical research:

• Animals are biologically very similar to humans. In fact, mice share more than 98% DNA with us!

• Animals are susceptible to many of the same health problems as humans – cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc.

• With a shorter life cycle than humans, animal models can be studied throughout their whole life span and across several generations, a critical element in understanding how a disease processes and how it interacts with a whole, living biological system.

The ethics of animal experimentation

Nothing so far has been discovered that can be a substitute for the complex functions of a living, breathing, whole-organ system with pulmonary and circulatory structures like those in humans. Until such a discovery, animals must continue to play a critical role in helping researchers test potential new drugs and medical treatments for effectiveness and safety, and in identifying any undesired or dangerous side effects, such as infertility, birth defects, liver damage, toxicity, or cancer-causing potential.

U.S. federal laws require that non-human animal research occur to show the safety and efficacy of new treatments before any human research will be allowed to be conducted. Not only do we humans benefit from this research and testing, but hundreds of drugs and treatments developed for human use are now routinely used in veterinary clinics as well, helping animals live longer, healthier lives.

It is important to stress that 95% of all animals necessary for biomedical research in the United States are rodents – rats and mice especially bred for laboratory use – and that animals are only one part of the larger process of biomedical research.

Our researchers are strong supporters of animal welfare and view their work with animals in biomedical research as a privilege.

Stanford researchers are obligated to ensure the well-being of all animals in their care..

Stanford researchers are obligated to ensure the well-being of animals in their care, in strict adherence to the highest standards, and in accordance with federal and state laws, regulatory guidelines, and humane principles. They are also obligated to continuously update their animal-care practices based on the newest information and findings in the fields of laboratory animal care and husbandry.

Researchers requesting use of animal models at Stanford must have their research proposals reviewed by a federally mandated committee that includes two independent community members. It is only with this committee’s approval that research can begin. We at Stanford are dedicated to refining, reducing, and replacing animals in research whenever possible, and to using alternative methods (cell and tissue cultures, computer simulations, etc.) instead of or before animal studies are ever conducted.

Organizations and Resources

There are many outreach and advocacy organizations in the field of biomedical research.

Learn more about outreach and advocacy organizations

Two researchers in lab looking through microscopes

Stanford Discoveries

What are the benefits of using animals in research? Stanford researchers have made many important human and animal life-saving discoveries through their work.