MEMO
To: ES 188 section
From: Diana Phan
Date: 23 February 2017
Subject: Animal Research & The Necessity
Summary
Animal testing has been a highly-heated debate since the 1990s.1 The implications behind the experiment has a negative connotation because morality is often put into question. Although there are these negative thoughts that surround the idea of animal testing because of the immoral ethics behind the issue, restrictions have been placed to keep the practice as ethical as possible and it has been, and continues to be, extremely beneficial to humanity.
Background
The first major recorded event of animal testing happened when Louis Pasteur administered anthrax to sheep to show the importance of vaccines with his germ theory.1 Not only that, but there is evidence that testing has occurred on animals out of curiosity during the ancient times.3 The number of tests continued to increase as well as the abundance of animals being tested on, but along with that came organizations that found these types of experiments to be morally unjust.1
“The research being used from these tests help provide accurate information about certain drugs that are needed to solve numerous health issues. Negative backlash did not occur until the programs started getting publicized in the 1990s.”1 Up until that point, many people did not know the implications of the testing. After the testing was publicized, it received a lot of negative attention from the public. The negative attention was thoroughly misinformed and one-sided because the public did not get both sides of the story. They did not realize that animal testing was needed for the health of humanity.
Ethics/Implications of Animal Testing
“Before animal testing became popular, a pharmaceutical company created drugs used to treat streptococcal infections. Within the drug, there was a solvent that was poisonous to humans. The drug ended up killing more than 100 people. After this and several other drug related instances, the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act required companies to test drugs on animals to confirm that they were safe for humans.”2 Without animal testing, drugs that are hazardous to people’s health would be distributed only to kill them because of the lack of research on the repercussions of the drug. There is no other alternative to determine the safety of a drug, so people must choose between medication along with animal testing or risky and unsafe medication and all animals are free from being tested on.
With animal testing comes a negative connotation that the animals are treated poorly throughout the process, but that information is false. There are a variety of agencies, and laws, that protect animals from being tortured and the agencies strive to mandate certain standards for the environment that the animals live in. “The federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) requires regular inspections from veterinarians and enforces minimum housing standards for research animals. Along with the AWA, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) must approve all proposals to use animals for research before any testing can occur.”3 With these agencies, it is safe to assume that the testing that is done on animals are, to the best of the researcher’s ability, in a way that delivers the least amount of discomfort and has the ethical treatment of the animal as the top priority.
The animals being tested on are needed solely for the advancement of medication and humanity. Humans should not worry about the ethical treatment because the animals do not have a voice to speak for themselves and the companies are doing their best to be ethically sound.
Counter-Argument to Animal Testing
There are several arguments as to why animal testing is not ethically sound. A couple of them would be that non-human animals are not the same as humans, so the results should not be held accountable for humans, animals are truly suffering from such acts and in the end, and there are alternatives from animal testing.3
“The fact of the matter is that animal testing is extremely expensive, because they must pay for housing, food, and simply caring for the animals. With that in mind, because animal testing still exists today, only companies that have no other alternatives turn to animal testing because if there was a cheaper alternative, the companies would have switched to that instantly to save money.”4 There is no other life-form as reliable as a non-human animal when it comes to deciding what would be safe for humanity. Computer models do not have the ability to stimulate the similar findings of such a complex system, i.e. the human body.3 As for animals suffering from such experimentation, it is a matter of the advancement of humanity versus the supposedly ethical treatment of animals that were placed upon humans from society.
Conclusion
There are both pros and cons to animal testing, but it puts into question what humans should prioritize: advancement of human life or the safety and ethical treatment of animals. There are cases where without animal testing, many humans would have died in replacement with non-human animals and there are several agencies that mandate the safety and ethical treatment of the animals being tested on. In the end, it is impossible to eliminate all animal testing because there are simply no other alternatives and it is crucial to the development of the civilization.
References
1. Murnaghan, Ian. "Animal Testing Timeline." Animal Testing Timeline. N.p., 17 Feb. 2017. Web. 20 Feb. 2017.
2. Scutti, Susan, and Susan Scutti Susan Scutti Is a Reporter, Novelist, and Loather of Self-descriptions. Read More. "Animal Testing: A Long, Unpretty History." Medical Daily. N.p., 27 June 2013. Web. 21 Feb. 2017.
3. "Animal Testing - ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Feb. 2017.
4. "Do “Alternatives” Exist?" Speaking of Research. N.p., 12 Mar. 2014. Web. 22 Feb. 2017.