Navarro 1

Karla Navarro
Professor Baird
English 2010-006
5 Nov. 2014

Animal Testing
Animal testing has played an important role in medical advancement throughout the
years, benefitting both, humans and animals health. Research and testing with lab animals
has helped find cures, and ways to control diseases, but that does not stop animal testing
from being, in some ways, animal abuse. Animal testing should be eliminated because is it
wrong to force a defenseless animal to go through such physical and emotional pain. Even
though science has evolved at a considerably fast pace, many animals are still victims of
painful physical conditions and deaths; using animals for testing products that mostly
humans use and/or want is morally wrong.
Many believe that using animals for testing is important because they have helped in
the development of many treatments and have also helped in the understanding of complex
medical conditions for the development of better treatments. Even though there have been
many medical breakthroughs throughout the years thanks to time and advanced
technology, it is important to realize that eliminating animal testing is more complicated
that it seems. By law, any chemical, drug, pesticide and cosmetic should be tested,
preferably on animal to make sure that the product is safe for humans to use and/or
consume, but that does not mean animal testing is not wrong.

Navarro 2
Animal testing has been rumored to be around since the late nineteenth century, but
it first became popular in 1922 when animal testing allowed for insulin to be isolated from
dogs (Ian Murnaghan). Since that time, animals are often used for chemical and cosmetic
testing (the testing of a finished product or the individual ingredients from the product that
are commonly performed on rats, mice, rabbits and guinea pigs). The way that scientists
practice some of these tests is by rubbing or dripping the chemical on the shaved animals
skin or naked eye with out any kind of anesthetic [fig. 1] and look for any signs of irritation
or pain. Scientists may also perform a test called Lethal Dose, it is where the animal is
forced to swallow large amounts of a drug or chemical to determine what dose is
dangerous or can lead to death.

Fig. 1 (Paul Preibisius, n.d.)

Navarro 3
Using animals for testing, in my opinion, has become the easy way out; according to
Troy Seidle, Humane Society International director for research and toxicology, the
registration of a single pesticide requires more than fifty experiments and the use of as
many as 12 thousand animals (Angela Moxley). Some animals are even used more than
once depending on the test or previous test. Something that not everybody thinks about is
that animals often suffer terrible pain and deaths by being test subjects for products that
are used by or benefit only humans.
Most of the time, all the pain that an animal is put through goes to waste since
humans and animals do not always react in the same way to all drugs. In his article, Ted
Brewer mentions that according to the U.S. and Food Administrations, ninety-two percent
(Brewer, p. 2) of experimental drugs that turned out to be safe and effective for animals are
terminated because they are too toxic or not effective (Brewer, p. 2) for humans. This
goes to show that testing on defenseless animals does not guarantee one hundred percent
precise research.
Every year, thousands of animals are crippled, poisoned and abused because of
testing. In 1996, the Animal Welfare Act (A.W.A.) was passed in the United States; the law
requires for minimum of care and/or treatment to be provided to certain animals. Sadly,
the A.W.A. did minimize the number of animals being used [Fig. 2]. Recent estimates
suggest that at least 100 million animals are used each year world wide (Taylor, Gordon,
Langley, Higgins.), but according to the Humane Society International, up to ninety percent
of animals used in the U.S. labs are not counted in the official statistics of animals tested on.
Animals cannot stand up for themselves when facing those situations, so why should using
an animal for painful testing be any different than using a human who could actually fight

Navarro 4
for his/herself. Animals are living creatures just like humans and they do not deserve that
kind of horrible treatment.

Fig. 2 (US Statistics, n.d.)

The book, Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, published 1959 in by
William Russell and Rex Burch, was written to encourage scientist to reduce the number of
animals being used in experiments and to use the Three Rs as an alternative to testing,
the word "alternative" is used to describe any change in an animal test that achieves one
or more of the Three R's (The Humane Society of the United States). Three Rs, stands for
Reduction, which means to reduce the number of animals being used, Refinement, to refine
or limit the amount of pain an animal is put through during testing, and Replacement, to
replace animals whenever possible.
Universities and laboratories across the country are working on developing other
alternatives to animal testing, Nearly 50 different alternative methods and testing
strategies have been developed validated and/or accepted by international regulatory

Navarro 5
authorities (The Humane Society of the United States). Thanks to those alternatives, there
are products whose ingredients are not tested on animals; Burts Bees for example [Fig. 3],
claims not tested on animals on the container of each of their product and on their
website they explain they do not test, but they do use ingredients derived from animals.

Fig. 3 (The Treasure Chest, 2013)

The reason why scientists are still using animals for testing is because the Three
Rs or other methods cannot be used when a living organism cannot be substituted. To
solve that problem, scientists should consider using placentas (an organ in most mammals,
formed to provide for the nourishment of the fetus and eliminates the fetuss waste) as a

Navarro 6
source of stem cells to create human body parts (limbs) or other organisms to use for
testing instead of live animals.
I strongly believe animal testing is wrong. I do understand that living organisms are
complex to understand and scientists have not figured them out yet and that animals are
not always used for every experiment, but using countless amounts of defenseless animals
for testing that could be avoided is, in my opinion is a legal way of animal abuse. I believe
that a law that makes using animals for testing illegal should be passed. With the advanced
technology that we have now, scientists should work harder to develop other ways to tests
those chemicals, that way the number of animals being used every year can decrease.

Navarro 7
Works Cited
Alternatives to Animal Testing. HumaneSociety.org. The Humane Society of the United
States. 8 Feb. 2013. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
Brewer, Ted. Trials and Errors Drug testing raises ethical and efficacy issues.
Bestfriends.org. Best Friends, Sept./Oct. 2007. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
BurtsBees.com. Burts Bees, 2014. Web. 4 Nov. 2014.
Ferdowsian, Hope R., and Beck, Nancy. "Ethical And Scientific Considerations
Regarding Animal Testing And Research." Plos ONE 6.9 (2011): 1-4. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
Fisher, Elizabeth. Why We Should Accept Animal Testing. Huffingtonpost.co.uk. AOL (UK)
Limited. 17 July 2013. Web. 4 Nov. 2014.
Miki, T., Lehmann, T., Cai, H., Stolz, D. B. and Strom, S. C. (2005), Stem Cell
Characteristics of Amniotic Epithelial Cells. Stem Cells, 23: 15491559.
doi: 10.1634/stemcells. 2004-0357. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
Moxley, Angela. The End Of Animal Testing. HumaneSociety.org. The Humane Society of
the United States. 25 Feb. 2010. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
Murnaghan, Ian. Animal Testing Timeline. aboutanimaltesting.co.uk. About Animal
Testing. 31 July 2010. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
Preibisius, Paul. Uphold Animal Cosmetic Testing Ban. Forcechange.com. n.d. [Fig. 1]. Web.
4 Nov. 2014.
The Treasure Chest. 26 July 2013. [Fig. 3]. Web. 4 Nov. 2014.
US Statistics. n.d. [Fig. 2]. Web. 4 Nov. 2014.

Navarro 8