Animal Testing Controversy

As you stand in front of a whole collection of prescription drugs, do you ever question the lengths taken to create those medications? More than likely, you just take the necessary medication and continue your day; however, many medications are products of animal testing. Katharine Sanderson’s article, “Rat helps pinpoint pain molecule,” asserts that rat animal testing presents a potential pain treatment in humans and is thus considered a “necessary evil.” The common products produced through animal testing use all types of animals that we adore. Animal testing should be stopped due to the unethical treatment of animals and its uncertain benefits, and regulations preventing animal testing should be implemented.

Sanderson’s article states that scientists at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California took rats with surgically damaged paws, which were suffering from neuropathic pain, pain that affects the sensory system, and examined their metabolites. These metabolites, substances formed in or necessary for metabolism, are instrumental in the route to treating pain caused by nerve damage. Scientists identified the metabolite, N,N-dimethylsphingosine (DMS), and by inserting it into healthy rats, found that it was indeed involved in neuropathic pain. But to what degree is animal testing, in this case rats, ethical? In this experiment, scientists surgically damaged rats’ paws only with the expectation, no certainty, that a pain treatment for humans would be discovered. They also implanted DMS into healthy rats to determine the metabolite’s function, causing pain and harm to the rats. In my opinion, no animal should suffer for the improvement of another species. Animal testing is simply unjust.

Not only is animal testing limited to prescription drugs, but it is also used in other industries. For example, The Draize Eye test conducts inhumane experiments on conscious albino rabbits. In this test, scientists place 100 milligrams of a concentrated solution, such as shampoos, household detergents, and pesticides, in the eyes of these rabbits, who are typically immobilized with a head restraint. This test can last anywhere from 7-18 days while the rabbits’ eyes are held open with a clip. These innocent animals must endure such pain and suffering solely for human benefits. Animal testing is also common within the manufacturing of cosmetics. The Lethal Dose 50 test uses mascaras, lipsticks, skin care products, etc. to investigate a substance’s dosage that will kill 50% of the animals given the dosage. This experiment manipulates and sometimes destroys animals’ lives for human value. Not only is this experiment unethical, but it has a limited significance when applied to humans. These two examples show the wrongdoings of animal testing and provide only a small portion of the animal testing spectrum.

False benefits of animal experimentation serve as a strong opposition to animal testing. Andrew Rice, a neuropathic pain expert, describes such a drawback to Sanderson’s experiment. He states, “[the current animal model for pain] only corresponds to pain resulting from trauma, and not to the many other sources of neuropathic pain.” In other words, animal testing in search for a possible pain treatment is only useful when an individual suffers from pain resulting from trauma. Animal testing is not beneficial when the pain corresponds to diabetes, HIV infection, or stroke (Rice). Knowing this, wouldn’t you agree that there simply is not enough certainty about animal testing? Does it really help humans, or is it just a means of trial and error? Even if scientists discover conclusions using animals, there is a high chance that it may not actually work accordingly to humans. There are biological differences between animals and humans, and animal experiments often depend on the animal being tested. A product that does not affect rats could possibly be humanly fatal. From a realistic standpoint, there is no concrete evidence stating that animal testing will, without a doubt, support humans.

As rats are commonly used in laboratories for experimentation, so is the human’s closest ancestor, the chimpanzee. According to the article, “Great ape debate,” the chimpanzee has been historically used for scientific research dating back to polio and hepatitis vaccine developments. The opposition of chimpanzee research has reached a historic high as the United States is the only country in which these experiments are conducted. If chimpanzees are our closest ancestors, why is research continuing to be done on these animals? Through animal testing, chimpanzees are held in their non-habitats (with little to no interaction with one another) and are consistently presented to dangers during an experiment’s execution. While there is current legislation prohibiting the use of chimpanzees in research, it is unlikely that anything will be implemented as a result of our struggling economy. It is important that Congress, as well as our society, understand animal testings’ profound effects.

PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, provides a strong position in the fight against animal testing. PETA’s article, “Alternative: Testing without Torture,” offers alternatives that would replace animal testing. Not only would these alternatives save countless lives of animals, but they would also be more reliable and cost efficient. Such possibilities are human population comparative studies and in vitro studies. Studies of human populations “allow scientists to discover the root causes of human disorders and diseases so that preventive action can be taken.” Human studies have proven to be beneficial in history. For example, they were an important factor in the discovery of the relationship between smoking and cancer and the transmission of AIDS and other infection diseases. In vitro (cell and tissue matter) studies are beneficial to the human population, because they screen for many different types of drugs and are used to test vaccines and antibiotics. While animal experimenters focus on the manipulation of innocent animals, clinical investigators ensure that there is no harm done to their participants. With these alternatives so readily available, animal testing should be banned and considered immoral.

Next time you go reaching for that typical prescription drug, or any other household product, think about how that item was created and produced. Animal testing harms those animals involved, and it does not always help further scientific research. The idea that the drugs were created through unethical means would be enough to prevent the purchasing of such medications and products.


Works Cited
Sanderson, Katharine. "Rat Helps Pinpoint Pain Molecule." Nature. Nature Publishing Group, 22 Jan. 2012. Web. 10 Feb. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/news/rat-helps-pinpoint-pain-molecule-1.9871>.

"Great Ape Debate." Nature. Nature Publishing Group, 15 June 2011. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7351/full/474252a.html>.

"Alternatives: Testing Without Torture." People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. <http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-testing-without-torture.aspx>.