Should Animal Testing Be Legal?

 by Anna Medina

I will be discussing animal testing, because I personally believe it is one of the most important issues today from both a standpoint of ethicality and reasoning, although left marginally discussed across platforms of media and through politics. It is also a topic I am very interested in researching more about.

Put simply, there are two opposing sides to this topic, both with equally persuasive arguments: if we should be against this form of research, or in support of it. Though I think this decision is made based largely on a person's principles, including if they believe it is fair to subject a sentient being to such experiments, no matter for what purpose or greater good, in any circumstance. It also depends on how far they are willing to support society in the advance and thirst for medical knowledge. The reason why animal testing so useful across most/every aspect of testing, and so widespread is that animals are appropriate subjects and the most obvious choice and candidate for testing products and treatments, considering their similar systems to humans and comparable features. Because of this, we can accurately see how a product might harm a human if released to the public before it reaches that stage. As these beings are similar in systems, there is absolutely no alternative as effective and efficient as using a whole bodied, living, breathing and responsive animal. Animal testing produces the most precise representations.

Although is it ethical? Many individuals are against animal testing, even in the circumstance of necessity, because it arises the question - should we allow ourselves to sacrifice animals at the expense of our uncertain increase of safety?

Though it is argued this is sacrifice we must be willing to make, because animal testing contributes to life-altering and life-saving cures and treatments in humans and allows us to see if options are viable and safe to use in society extensively. Animal testing helps us gain a wider understanding on cures and treatments and it is clear we would never have advanced in medical knowledge as greatly had the option of animal testing not been available. Since the 1900s, the average human life span in the United States has increased by almost 30 years, this is certainly due to medical advances and the ability to use animals in tests to strengthen research of drugs and treatments. Because of the sacrifices made and the knowledge we have gained, mankind is stronger, healthier, and more educated.

On the opposition however, some people believe animal testing is not only unethical, but undoubtedly unnecessary. Even if we did allow the use of animal testing for necessary circumstances, it had been made clear that multiple companies perform similar tests on animals attempting to achieve and be the first to invent and produce the first of similar treatments, resulting in millions of lives lost unnecessarily. This could be easily avoided if companies worked together, and would not only reduce the cost altogether, but increase the ethicality of animal testing for ‘necessary’ purposes. But that would not prohibit animal testing from being continued altogether, only minimised. There is no guaranteed success in animal testing, as so many different trials must be carried out, and that is why only 8% of drugs tested on animals are eventually approved for human use. Obviously, you can see how millions of animal lives are going to waste unnecessarily. This is also supported by the FDA phase 3 testing, clinical trials, where a drug must be tested first on human volunteers in increasing numbers before allowing the drug to be released to public. As this is necessary step in all drug trials, some think animals don’t even need to be involved in the process at all. There is also a large grey area between the acceptability of animal testing for cosmetic use and medical purposes, where is the line drawn? Who decides what specific situations can be considered justified at the expense of a living creature?

Although testing on animals appears to be the best alternative to trial drugs and treatments due to our similar systems, it cannot ever be truly comparable to testing on a real human. Animals are not small humans, and should not be treated as such, and while a cure might be sustainable in an animal, this is not always the same case for humans. In 1961, the drug thalidomide was extensively tested on animals throughout the years. It was hoped to be introduced as a successful sedative and medication, marketed towards pregnant women, although resulted in thousands of children to be born with horrific birth defects. This occurred due to the differentiating tolerances to the chemicals used in animals and humans, as it is stated that even doses 600x the amount used in humans had no harmful effects to the animals whatsoever. Finally, ethicality – do we want to subject sentient animals to such experiments? I feel by continuing these experiments we will begin to lose our humanity and dull our empathy. Is it worth even the cost of new treatments and the possibility of enhancing medical knowledge and saving lives? Are we truly worth the murder of sentient and innocent animals? Do they deserve the treatment we are currently subjecting them to?