Animal Experimentation:

Is it Ethical to Use Animals for the Good of Humanity?

By: Shannon Davis

Ethics K111

Professor Walkup

April 4, 2007

Animal experimentation is not a new phenomenon.  The use of animals in scientific study dates back thousands of years.  Around 500 B.C. early Greek physician-scientists began dissecting live animals to try to discover physiological processes (Sharp, 2004).  The debate over animal experimentation, however, did not really come into the public eye until a few centuries ago.  Opponents of animal experimentation say it is unethical to subject animals to a captive life of stress, pain, and ultimately early death – even in the name of humanity.  Advocates disagree, saying what would be unethical is giving medical and cosmetic products to humans without first testing them on animals.  The purpose of this paper is to help the reader come to a conclusion on whether or not animal experimentation is truly an ethical practice.

The practice of animal experimentation was first documented thousands of years ago.  The ancient Roman physician Galen is known for his practice of vivisection, wherein a living animal is cut open to study its bodily function.  Using this procedure he was able to show that veins carried blood, not air, as was the common belief in that time.  Aristotle used this procedure in his studies of bodily structure as well (MacKinnon, 2004).  In this day and age, animal testing takes on many forms.  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has a requirement that all new medications, whether prescription or over-the-counter, must be tested on animal subjects before approval is given for human consumption (Update: Animal Testing, 2006).  Other experiments may include surgeries, such as one at Cambridge University where monkeys’ brains were deliberately damaged to reproduce symptoms of Parkinson’s disease and stroke (Bird, 2003).  Still other experimentation is done for what may be deemed as more frivolous reasons.  Though it is not as widespread as it was in the past, animal testing is still being done to assess cosmetics and other household products.  According to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ([PETA], n.d.), some of the cosmetic and product tests still in use today are the acute toxicity, eye and skin irritation, and cancer tests.  The most popular of the acute toxicity tests is called Lethal Dose 50 or LD50, which began in the 1920s.  This is accomplished by force-feeding increasing amounts of product to a group of animals until 50 percent of them die.  Eye irritation tests like the Draize eye test, first used in the 1940s, usually drop or smear product into rabbits’ eyes to watch the resulting irritation.  Cancer tests are still required by the government for many chemicals such as pesticides. They are conducted by exposing rats and mice to chemicals for long periods of time and observing the occurrence of cancer (PETA, n.d.). 

Many people oppose the use of animals in research.  These opponents usually fall into two different groups: those who support animal rights and those who support animal welfare.  Animal rights groups generally believe that animals share the same rights as humans and should not be used in any way.  Many animal rights supporters advocate a vegan lifestyle. This is when a person refuses to use any animal products whatsoever.  This includes food products such as meat, cheese, and eggs; clothing materials like leather and fur, as well as products that have been tested on animals.  Animal welfare supporters will agree that animals should not be treated cruelly, but most will not go as far as giving up their morning bacon and eggs.  The animal welfare groups will oppose most instances of animal testing, but they can also see the necessity for it in certain cases (Animal Testing, 2000).

Throughout the ages, philosophers have questioned the existence of intelligence and immortal souls in animals.  According to Animal Testing (2000), animal rights did not truly come to the attention of the general public until ethicist Jeremy Bentham wrote his Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789).  Bentham argued that animals can feel pain and pleasure in the same way as humans.  For this reason, he believed that humans and animals should be treated equally. 

Bentham’s theories soon roused the people of Britain to create the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA).  It began in 1824 and is still in action today as Britain’s largest animal rights group.  In 1866, the US followed suit and created its own animal welfare group, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA).  In the late nineteenth century, anti-vivisection organizations began forming in both the US and Britain.  The first of such organizations in the US, the American Anti-Vivisection Society, started in 1883 and is still together today.  The anti-vivisection societies of Britain, along with the RSPCA, pressured lawmakers in 1876 to pass the Cruelty to Animals Act.  This act had the effect of regulating the use of animals in certain experiments.  In 1966 the US finally passed its own animal regulatory legislation, entitled the Animal Welfare Act.  This act called for certain standards to be upheld in the care of animals in labs.  It also mandated that labs were to be randomly inspected by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).  In the late twentieth century, full-on animal rights groups began appearing on the American scene.  People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) was founded in 1980, and is currently one of the foremost animal rights organizations in America.  In 1984, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) was created.  The ALF is an underground international group.  Unlike PETA, which favors peaceful - though passionate - demonstrations, the ALF has claimed responsibility for over 70 attacks on research labs since its inception (Animal Testing, 2000).

The Debate Over Animal Experimentation

            Animal rights and animal welfare supporters alike have many reasons for opposing animal experimentation.  Many of them believe that it is unnecessary and unscientific to use animals when there are alternative forms of experimentation readily available.  Many opponents argue that the current laws that regulate animal experimentation are not enforced, nor do they encompass all of the animals used in testing.  One of the major factors in the debate over animal testing is the assertion by opponents that it is simply immoral to use sentient beings in painful and stressful experiments that most often end in the early death of the participants. 

            One of the arguments against animal research is that much of it is unnecessary.  According to opponents, experiments are often repeated or performed at the same time as similar tests.  They credit this to the desire of scientists to attract research grants and publish their findings.  To amend this issue, Rep. Robert Toricelli (D, N.J.) introduced a bill in September of 1995.  His bill, called the Animal Experimentation Right to Know Act, would have created a computer database to keep track of all current animal research.  With that information, scientists would have been able to know if their proposed work had already been performed.  Even though the bill was strongly backed by animal welfare groups, it was opposed by animal researchers and never made it through the House of Representatives (Animal Testing, 2000). 

            In addition to the lack of necessity for many experiments, countless animal testing opponents believe that such experimentation is unscientific.  The main basis for such an opinion is that each animal species is entirely unique.  For example, many substances that are potentially deadly to humans are harmless to certain species of animals.  A guinea pig, for instance, can safely ingest strychnine, which is one of humanity’s deadliest poisons.  Sheep have the ability to swallow vast amounts of arsenic, while owls are able to eat potassium cyanide without harm (Burgos, 2000).  Knowing this, it may be difficult to believe that product testing on animals has any validity when it comes to applying it to humans.  Another point of this argument is that research – and even the lab environment itself – can cause intense stress to the subjects.  Opponents maintain that stress leads to changes in the animals’ nervous systems that will make the results of the tests invalid (Update: Animal Testing, 2006).

            Instead of relying on animal experiments that may not be valid, critics draw attention to the fact that alternatives are already available.  Additionally, they point out that they are easier and less costly than using animals in research (PETA, 1999).  Some of the alternatives now available for medical research include clinical studies of human patients, human tissue cultures, computer programs, and mechanical models (Battle, 1996).  In addition, many cosmetic companies are now using products called Eytex, Skintex, and Neutral Red Bioassay that replace Draize and other irritancy trials.  One of the biggest benefits of using these types of non-animal tests is that observer bias – a large factor in animal tests of the same type – is eliminated (PETA, 1999). 

            Even with alternatives available, animals are still used frequently in experiments.  Official government estimates range from 17 million to 22 million animals used each year in all types of research.  PETA gives a different number, claiming that according to their research, 60 million to 100 million animals are used and killed each year due to animal experimentation (M. Leepson and M. Leepson, 1991).  However, no matter who supplies the information, the one thing they agree upon is that 90 percent of the animals used for research are rats, mice and birds.  This is a sore point with animal activists because the Animal Welfare Act does not apply to these animals (Update: Animal Testing, 2006).   Another issue that animal testing opponents have against the Animal Welfare Act is the lack of enforcement.  Even the USDA officials will admit that they have been lax in upholding the law.  According to Animal Testing (2000), USDA officials pass the blame back on to the law itself, saying it does not give them the power to punish violators.  For instance, under current law, officials who find brazen violations must wait through a drawn out hearing process before they are able to shut down the facility.  During that time, the violating facility can continue to run with no changes.  Other problems include fines that are given to the violators of the law.  Critics argue that they are not nearly high enough: most of them are only around $300 per violation.  For most research facilities, it would probably cost more to operate within the law than to pay the fines, so they endure them as the cost of doing business (Animal Testing, 2000).

            Finally, it is asserted by opponents of animal experimentation that such testing is completely unethical.  The article Update: Animal Testing (2006) aptly phrases the argument as such, “…it is morally wrong for humans to assert their dominance over animals by exploiting them in animal testing.”  The article Animal Testing (2000) quotes Tom Regan, who is a leading animal rights activist and author.  His belief is that any benefits humanity has recieved from animal research may be genuine, but “…all gains are ill-gotten when secured unjustly” (1984). As the term ‘animal rights’ suggests, many critics believe that animals have individual rights in the same manner that humans do, including a basic right to live a natural life span, free of unnecessary pain and suffering (Battle, 1996).  Some animal rights activists, beginning in 1975 with Australian philosopher Peter Singer, believe that because animals’ psychological states are so like ours, they are entitled to live on the same moral plane as humanity.  Therefore, humanity’s use of animals as means to our ends is a form of “speciesism.”  This term refers to a bias against another species simply because they are members of that species (Sharp, 2004). 

            Clearly, not all of the people in the world hold on to this same idea.  After all, animal experimentation would not be up for debate if all sides were in agreement.  There are probably as many advocates for animal research as there are opponents against it.  Advocates reply to critics call for alternatives by saying that at this time, there is no way that animals can be replaced in many fields of biomedical research.  They argue that animal testing is necessary.  Backers maintain that the animals used in research are well cared for, and many who were bred especially for research are living out lives they may not have had otherwise.  In response to the immorality of animal testing, advocates contend that because of the great benefits to humans and animals provided by animal research, it would be unethical not to use it. 

            Advocates for animal testing say that they already use the alternatives in every test that they can.  Because of this, they claim that in the past 20 years the number of animals used in research has been reduced by 20 to 50 percent.  Scientists maintain that using animals in experiments is not only difficult but also expensive (Battle, 1996).  The only problem is that the current alternatives are more like additions to animal research.  They help take some of the pressure away from animal testing, but both are necessary in most biomedical experiments (M. Leepson and M. Leepson, 1991).  According to Animal Testing (2000), the problem is that the current alternatives are not the same as a living system, and cannot accurately reproduce how one would react. 

            Backers of animal experimentation also maintain that animals in research facilities are well cared for.  According to the Animal Welfare Act, research labs must set up a committee to observe the treatment of their research animals.  One person completely unaffiliated with the facility and a veterinarian must be on the committee.  These facilities must be registered with the federal government and they are required to submit to random inspections (Battle, 1996).  As to the exclusion of mice, rats, and birds from the Animal Welfare Act, scientists claim that including these animals in the law would seriously impede their work.  These animals are very common in animal research, and having the law apply to them would create great difficulties in obtaining them (Update: Animal Testing, 2006).

            Another side of animal testing that some advocates will point out is that animals that may never have been born are given a chance at life.  Many animals are bred with the specific purpose of being research animals, just as farm animals are raised to be slaughtered for meat.  These animals may never have been born if it were not for the existence of animal testing.  Advocates of this theory point out that these animals get a sentient life and can experience pleasures they never would have known otherwise.  They believe that as long as the pleasures of life outnumber the pains, the animals that are in this situation have been given a gift (MacKinnon, 2004).

            Finally, advocates will point out many of the advances that humanity has made due to animal experimentation.  Many benefits have come out of animal testing, including chemotherapy, insulin treatment for diabetes, the polio vaccine, organ transplants, and blood transfusions (Animal Testing, 2000).  Even benefits for animals have come out of such testing, like vaccines for rabies and feline leukemia.  Additionally, surgery techniques and antibiotics that are used on both humans and animals were developed using animal experimentation (Battle, 1996).  Without animal research, backers claim, continuing research on major diseases like cancer, AIDS, and Alzheimer’s disease will be impossible (Animal Testing, 2000).  This is why advocates of animal testing believe that it would be unethical not to test on animals.  M. Leepson and M. Leepson (1991) quoted a report from the National Academy of Science’s Committee on the Use of Animals in Research.  The committee wrote that it would be “immoral and selfish not to use animals in research today given the harm that could accrue to future generations if such research were halted.”  A committee formed by the American Medical Association came up with almost the same conclusion, stating that to deprive “humans (and even animals) of advances in medicine that result from research with animals is inhumane and fundamentally unethical.”  Still other backers of animal research go into other ethical areas.  They point out that all new drugs must be tested on animals before being cleared for human consumption.  They believe that testing the drugs on humans without going through animal testing first would be profoundly unethical.  These advocates do not believe in the idea of animal rights.  Instead, they are of the opinion that “Ethically, there is nothing wrong with the only truly evolved species on the planet using other creatures for its benefit” (Update: Animal Testing, 2006). 

Various Ethical Perspectives

            The debate over animal experimentation can be looked at through multiple ethical perspectives.  Using Bentham’s utilitarianism, for example, the topic needs to be looked at in terms of the greatest good for the greatest number (MacKinnon, 2004) – for all of the sentient beings involved, including animals.  This involves the maximizing the good or pleasure while minimizing harm or pain (Sharp, 2004).  According to Bentham’s utilitarianism, only experiments benefiting vast amounts of people and animals will be able to justify the pain and suffering of the test subjects. 

            Advocates for animal research might be said to subscribe to the ethical theory of teleology.  They believe that the ends justify the means; that is, the benefits reaped for the good of humanity justifies the use of millions of animals in sometimes painful experiments.  On the opposite side of this, hard-core animal rights activists may be said to subscribe to the theory of deontology.  They believe that animals have basic rights, and will not violate those rights for any reason, no matter what the benefit to humanity. 

            The theory of individual ethical relativism also comes into play. This ethical theory states that right and wrong is relative to the individual (MacKinnon, 2004).  This theory is probably the most prevalent in this debate.  Not only are there two main views, but there are many perspectives of the topic in between.  Each person believes that his or her perspective regarding animal testing is the right one.  The problem with this theory is that it does not help to bring an answer to the debate.  All opinions are equally right depending on the individual.

My Personal Perspective

            Animal experimentation is not – nor will it ever be – a black and white issue.  In between animal rights activists and animal research scientists there are many shades of gray.  I do, however, have my own opinions on the subject.  In most cases, I am in agreement with the opponents of animal research.  I originally undertook this research paper to share that opinion.  After all of my research, however, I made the discovery that I have stated above: animal research cannot be debated in simply black and white terms.  My own perspective falls in the middle, alongside millions of animal welfare advocates.

            One part of the animal testing debate that I am exceptionally clear on is this:  I do not believe that any testing on animals of cosmetics or household products is justified.  In this day and age, there are so many chemicals that are known to be safe that there should be no need for further animal testing on new chemicals.  This is especially true because of the new skin and eye irritancy tests that have been created (PETA, n.d.).

            I also agree with opponents that all animals that are used in experimentation should be subject to the regulations of the Animal Welfare Act.  Rats, mice, and birds make up 90 percent of animals used in research, yet scientists have no obligation to use and care for them in a humane manner. 

            In addition, I agree with the opponents who criticize the validity of animal tests.  Animals are different from humans, and their systems react in different ways than ours (Burgos, 2000).  They are put under immense stress, which can also affect the validity of the experiments (Update: Animal Testing, 2006).  I think that if current alternatives are not completely workable, it should be a priority in the research community to come up with new and better substitutes for animal research. 

            However, if current alternatives are truly not as effective, I can see the need to continue some animal experimentation in fields that will have huge benefits for the medical world, such as AIDS and cancer.  On this one point, I can take a utilitarian approach and call for the greatest benefit for the greatest number.  I do, however, have some restrictions I would impose.  Scientists should only use animals when there are no reliable alternatives, and as soon as those alternatives are created, researchers should immediately replace animals with them.  Additionally, animals should be well cared for at all times, no matter what species.  I also think that it is unnecessary for the test subjects to be killed after the experiments are final.  There are many people willing to give such animals loving homes, and many sanctuaries for exotic animals.  Pain should be kept to a minimum in both duration and intensity, and avoided altogether if at all possible.   

I can only hope that one day animal testing will be phased out completely.  While there are many people who advocate it without question, I am not one of them.  Even in the most noble of circumstances, I need the reassurance that all subjects are being treated in the most humane way possible.  For this reason, I have to oppose animal experimentation in all but the most dire of situations.