Jan 66 min read

The Dirty Side of Science

An argumentative essay about animal testing by author C.G.Youngs

“In the name of science” is a common justification many use to excuse the suffering of more than 50 million animals annually. These defenseless animals are used as test subjects and are subjected to cruel treatment such as being injected with deadly chemicals, deliberately being infected with diseases, and are forced to live in inhumane dirty cages, never to see the light of day. Not to mention that if they miraculously survive to see the end of the experiment that they are forced into, they are killed anyway. This treatment is not excluded to rats and mice. Monkeys, cats, dogs, pigs, rabbits, and so many more helpless animals are bred solely for -essentially- death. While these animals suffer in cages and are treated like objects, scientists play God, and genetically modify animals, leading to a life of suffering for them. While some people argue that animal testing is necessary for advancements in the medical field, others raise ethical concerns. This essay will contend that no matter anyone’s “justification” for treating animals inhumanely, there is no case where it is acceptable. Especially when there are cheaper, and ethical alternatives.

One counterclaim suggests that animal testing is key for medical progress. Often citing its crucial role in developing life saving medicines and vaccinations. However,, according to statistics from the PETA as can be seen here the NIH admitted that 95% of drugs that were tested on animals and were shown to be “effective” on animals, failed during human tests. This is because humans and animals are not the same things; they are completely different species. PETA makes an interesting point as well, saying “There are also probably some—perhaps many— drugs that would help humans but are discarded because they fail in tests on animals.” Which is another way to look at it. However I digress, in response to the counterclaim, it is essential to acknowledge that while animal testing has contributed to medical advancements over the years, technological advancements such as cell cultures, organ-on-a-chip technology, and even computer simulations have all gained traction in recent years and have become more accessible. These alternatives have also been shown to be more accurate in predicting human responses to drugs. These alternatives are reducing animal suffering without compromising scientific progress. Which leaves animal testing outdated.

Now let's discuss what some of these alternative testing methods really are. Cell cultures are human cells that are grown in laboratories and can be used as an alternative to animal testing. A benefit to cell cultures is that they are fairly accurate when it comes to testing drugs since they are human cells. Which gives scientists a better understanding of how that drug will work on a human. You can read more about cell cultures here. Another great alternative is computer models and simulations. Computer models are not only time-efficient but also very cost-efficient. A group of researchers from Oxford University have created a computer model that lets scientists test drugs on a digital human. This specific program proved to be 89-96% accurate. Feel free to read more about computer models in place of animal testing here. And finally, the one I’m sure you have been waiting for, The organ-on-a-chip technology. This is obviously not a literal organ on a chip, however, scientists have been able to create these microfluidic devices that are lined with living cells to test drugs on. According to this website where you can also read more about organ-on-a-chip technology, they state, “Organ-on-a-chip (organ chip) microfluidic devices lined with living cells cultured under fluid flow can recapitulate organ-level physiology and pathophysiology with high fidelity” Organ-on-a-chip technology also have the ability to accurately mimic multiple human organs and other body parts, such as kidneys, livers, hearts, lungs, intestines, brain, eyes, bone, reproductive organs, blood vessels, Lymphoid organs, and much more! The liver chip technology alone was shown to be eight to seven times more accurate than animal testing, and other organ chips were shown overall to be more accurate than animal testing too.

Another counterclaim the opposing side makes is that animal testing is ethical when animals are treated humanely and the gains humans experience outweighs the harm done to animals. And while regulations do exist to ensure humane treatment, instances of cruelty towards animals still happen in some laboratories. In rebuttal to the claim made, stronger regulations need to be made to properly ensure animal rights, However, there is no foolproof way to ensure animal integrity. And regardless of stricter regulations and the claim that if it's done humanely, the ethical dilemma still remains. Human gain does not outway cruelty no matter what may be gained from the exploitation of animals.

Furthermore animal testing often involves painful procedures without enough or in most cases any pain relief. This has been revealed by undercover reports from the Humane Society Of The United States, who say “There is no limit to the extent of pain and suffering that can be inflicted on animals during experiments. In some instances, animals are not given any kind of pain medication to help relieve their suffering or distress during or after the experiment on the basis that it could affect the experiment.” which can be seen here. Painful is quite an understatement, Dogs can have their heart, lungs, and kidneys deliberately damaged or even removed all while being conscious. Monkeys are taken from their mothers at birth to study stress. Mice are force fed chemicals for years to see if they’ll cause cancer. Cats can have their spinal cords damaged and then are forced to run on treadmills to study how the nervous system works. Pigs are implanted with various devices to see how the human body may react. Ferrets are injected with extremely painful and fatal diseases and after death, they are studied to see how humans might be affected by the same disease. Rabbits are forcefully impregnated and then force fed toxic chemicals to see how they will affect the babies. Sheep are subjected to high amounts of pressure for hours to see how it may affect humans. Rats are placed in small tubes and forced to inhale cigarette smoke to study the effects of smoking. Baboons are injected with endometrial tissue to induce painful symptoms of endometriosis and study how humans might be affected by the disorder. Horses are infected with fatal viruses to monitor their symptoms. These examples are not even the worst that it can get. Do note these animals are not limited to these types of tests but they are common for that species, animals could be put in any test scientists want.

The European Union's ban on animal testing for cosmetics, which was passed in 2013 and can be further explored here, goes to show the ethical concerns animal testing has. The move by The European Union supports my side's claim and also shows that alternative methods to animal testing can be used on a larger scale.

There have also been studies that have shown alternatives to animal testing are actually more cost-efficient and more time-efficient. Many procedures can be cut in half (price-wise and time-wise) by using computer models. Additionally using this method will also make tests that normally take years only take days, if even that. Read more about these benefits here, and see how a Rat 24-month cancer bioassay goes from $700,000 to only $22,000 using alternative methods.

Another important aspect to take into consideration is the public's opinion. According to this 2018 survey, 52% of Americans oppose animal testing. This is interesting because in 2014 there was another poll conducted and only 50% of Americans opposed animal testing, meaning the public's opinion of the ethical treatment of animals is changing. And it is starting to favor animals. Many of the individuals that support animal testing say it is for scientific advancements, much like my opening statement, “in the name of science”. And maybe the alternatives we have today weren't entirely advanced yet which would have swayed people's votes, especially the ones who supported it for the technological advancements.

To conclude, we need more studies done on animal testing alternatives, but there are many studied and proven alternatives that we know of today, and at the rate scientists are working in modern-day society I'm sure there will be many more advancements in the field soon. This is a very complex issue but it is one that needs to be more mainstream and recognized for the inhumane treatment that it is. Animal testing does not have a place in modern-day society, it is outdated and there is no reason to subject animals any longer to suffering. I urge you to make your voice heard in this dilemma, sign petitions, support companies that are animal cruelty-free, and vote for legislators who oppose animal testing. The time is now to put an end to suffering.