O’Flaherty 1

Brooke O’Flaherty

Ms. Gardner

Hon. English; Fourth

30 April 2018

Testing the Equality of Life

In 2016, 820,812 laboratory animals were used for animal research and testing in the USA alone.

Over 51.8% of these animals could have been tested on without heavy regulation (US Statistics). In

animal testing, clinical explanations often excuse and exclude the lifelong torture creatures go through

from the conversation. Animal testing, not to be confused with animal research (the observing animal

behaviour), is used to measure how much of a drug or biologic is “absorbed into the blood, how a medical

product is broken down chemically in the body, the toxicity of the product and its breakdown components

(metabolites), and how quickly the product and its metabolites are excreted from the body” (Alternatives

to Animal Testing). In this practice, animals may spend their entire lives in a cramped living space, with

less than ideal conditions. Society is unconsciously condoning incredibly crude practices not only by

supporting certain cosmetic products purchased, but medicines. Unfortunately there is currently no

truly-reliable alternative for medicine, and the scientific push to find an alternative has proved to be a

nudge. Animal testing a cruel, outdated method used to test for drugs that are successful for animals;

consequently, roughly 94% of the drugs passed on to human testing fail when used on humans: it is with

great exigency that the cavil process is replaced.

Many scientists argue that animal testing is necessary and not profoundly harmful, highlighting

examples of light tests and animal research, while avoiding the fact that scientific advancements in the

experimentation process can, and have already begun to, be made. The fact that testing is currently a

necessity is undoubtedly, and unfortunately, true. According to president of the Foundation for

Biomedical Research, Matthew Bailey, endangered species, such as Asian elephants, may be saved from

diseases, such as herpes, by cures made through animal testing/research. Countless species would benefit
 O’Flaherty 2

from these cures (Bailey). Moreover, animal testing saving lives isn’t just a hypothetical; antimicrobial

Rumensis, a treatment for various cow’s infections, was developed through testing mice. Similarly, Bailey

states, mice were used to develop a vaccine for Fowl-Pox, a painful disease that, “threatens the world's 19

billion chickens.” Because of these results, many believe that although animal testing is admittedly bad,

the practice has, and continues to, save numerous lives among numerous species; furthermore, the benefit

of good must counter the burden of bad, right? Wrong: since the development of animal testing

alternatives has already begun, its gradual production is a self-made excuse made by scientists to continue

through with their antiquated practices. Scientists who test on animals argue that the technology needed

for an animal testing alternative is non-existent, while they torture animals to find not-yet-existing cures

for diseases (Gluck); thus, more importance should be put on finding an alternative to animal testing, so

we may reap the benefits without such an excessive cost.

Outside of the experimentations, many animals unnecessarily used in testing have to deal with

horrendous living conditions including the deprivation of basic resources, ghastly living conditions, and

dehydration. The National Institute of Environmental Science (NIEHS) does address the Animal Welfare

Act, which “requires that facilities using animals for research and testing have Institutional Animal Care

and Use Committees” (​Alternatives to Animal Testing​). This policy requires experiments involving

animals to be run by the committee for approval, which ensures that alternatives to animals are used

whenever possible. Unfortunately, mice, fish, and birds, animals commonly used for toxicity tests, are not

protected by the Animal Welfare Act. Former animal researcher, emeritus professor of psychology, and

research professor, John P. Gluck retails his days as an animal tester, divulging how he used to “[tell]

[him]self that [he and his team] were being responsible by providing good nutrition, safe cages, skilled

and caring caretakers and veterinarians for the animals--and, crucially, that what we stood to learn

outweighed any momentary or prolonged anguish these animals might experience.” Gluck also excused

his behaviour by labeling the primates which he and his team gave “developmental disorders” as

“research partners” who were just helping further the understanding of similar disorders in humans.
 O’Flaherty 3

Gluck’s reactions of the time can be viewed as blatant examples of how scientists emotionally disconnect

themselves from their ‘subjects.’ This crude experimentation is atrocious regardless of species, but the

morality of the matter is especially wrong regarding primates. “[Chimpanzees] have a similar capacity for

suffering, both mental and physical, and show similar emotions to many of ours,” explains acclaimed

British primatologist and anthropologist, Dr Goodall (qtd in Jeory). Dr. Goodall, found that Baboons, a

type of Cercopithecoids, and monkeys can also suffer from fear, depression, anxiety, and other emotions

evoked when confined to cages and tormented by unfit living conditions. This is inexcusable behaviour

coming from an advanced species. A former scientist who worked first hand with animal testing was able

to take off his ‘science’ goggles, take a step back, and recognise the cruelty in his actions. However, as

long as he had those glasses on, the abuse and cost of knowledge seemed not only necessary but “noble.”

The ‘scientific advancement to save lives’ isn’t fair to the lives lost, crippled (physically and/or mentally),

or spent wasting away in a cage in the process. The horrific treatment of animals, which even effects

primates, including deprivation of basic resources, horrid living conditions, and dehydration is

inexcusable. Overall, animal testing is an unethical practice, and the fact that some animals aren’t even

protected by the Animal Welfare Act, to allow cruel toxicity tests is inhumane. As put by John Gluck, “ If

you are ethically prevented from conducting a particular experiment with humans because of the pain and

risks involved, the use of animals is warranted.”

The suffering animals experience because of testing has been deemed worth the outcome. It is

true that animals, including humans, do benefit from the cures devised through animal testing. In fact, the

president of the Foundation for Biomedical Research, a nonprofit organisation dedicated to getting people

to support animal research, asserts that “animals played a role in the development of each of the top 25

most prescribed drugs in America” (qtd in Howard). Nevertheless, the lives taken for this temporary,

barbaric solution are impermissible. Heroism is when an individual volunteers their life to help, not when

the individual is forced to suffer in aid of others. In continuation, the NIEHS highlighted that the concept

of using animal alternatives in testing is far from a new one: William Russell and Rex Burch wrote about
 O’Flaherty 4

it in their book ​The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique​, published in 1959 (Alternatives to

Animal Testing). Their book plays with the concept of Replace, using non-animal alternatives for animal

research; Reduce, reducing the amount of animals used in testing by only using them with necessary; and

Refine, lessening or eliminating the pain felt by the animal. Thankfully, the beginning hurdles not only of

normalising alternatives, but of finding alternatives to animal use have already been jumped; federal

agencies are required to strengthen studies developing animal alternatives by the U.S. law. One kind of

animal alternative that is in development is computer modeling; if an accurate model can be made,

projects such as dissection can be done digitally, without the need for a body (Smith). A more hands-on

animal alternative in development is Corrositex, a “synthetic skin” that can be used to test “chemicals for

skin corrosivity” (Smith). Strides like these are what need funding to replace lab animals. So, given the

amount of time people have known this was an issue, the current lack of alternative is inexcusable.

Countless scientific advancements have been made since the 1960s, so why hasn’t this one been

addressed? To put the scientific advancements into perspective, man landed on the for the first time early

1969, ten years after the book’s publication. The people who dedicate their life to finding unknown cures

excuse their behaviour since the technology needed is unknown, as they can continue using backwards

practices to discover the unknown.

Animal testing is often used to weed out drugs that will be harmful for humans, yet drugs that

were successful for animals often aren’t successful for humans. According to ​the New England

Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS) in 2011, c​himpanzees, humans’ closest animal relative who share

96% of its DNA, were almost entirely relieved of animal testing due to them not being necessary in

modern testing (​Press Release | Resources​). Conversely, animal-testing advocate group Understanding

Animal Research (UAR) argues the statistic “92% of drugs fail in clinical trials, having successfully

passed through animal studies” is commonly taken out of context, ​claiming that the inaccuracy of the

drugs should be looked at in relation to the phases of testing (Nine out of Ten Statistics). To illustrate

their point, UAR breaks down the stages of drug testing: 64% of the drugs pass animal tests, so 36% of
 O’Flaherty 5

the drugs will be removed from the human trials. In the next stage (the first involving humans), 12% of

the initial drug pool gets passed on to the next phase, and after three phases of testing, approximately

“93.8% fail.” The math behind this failure rate is courteously broken down:

[The] number of drugs which have passed Phase 3 clinical trials ÷ number of drugs which have

passed just animal tests = 1.2 ÷ 19.4 = 6.2% of drugs which reach Phase 1 trials are eliminated by

Phase 1-3 clinical trials. 100 – 6.2 = 93.8% fail. (Nine out of Ten Statistics)

The animal phase of drug tests is ultimately to see if the drug is safe to use in the human trails, dismissing

the life of the animals used to test the toxicity (Nine out of Ten Statistics), as 93.8% of the drugs that were

found to be successful through animal testing fail when used on humans. Sure, animal testing weeds out

some drugs from the human trials, but overall, it is a trivial amount. ​Chimpanzees are man’s closest living

animal relative with very similar genetic makeup, and even though they have been deemed “mostly

unneeded” due to the inaccuracy of application of results on humans. Other animals, which share an even

further common ancestor with humans, are still being used in abundance despite their recognised

inaccuracy .As they are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act, he animals most commonly used in

these practices are fish, birds, and mice: birds and fish even belong to different animal classes than

humans. Regardless of the drugs discarded, animal testing is highly inaccurate, so: why ruin lives with the

practice? Given the accuracy, or rather inaccuracy, of the results from animal testing in relation to

humans, the product of narrowing down the drug pool is clearly not worth the cost of life.

In conclusion, animal testing is unethical, unnecessarily cruel, and needs to be replaced by

advancements in technology. Former animal researcher John Gluck simply states, “No matter what

honorable ends you tell yourself you have in sight, if you're finding yourself having to bowdlerize the

description of your work, you are in a morally perilous place and should urgently reconsider what you're

doing.” It is important that society is not the cause of other species suffering. As an advanced species,

there should be greater advancements in matters regarding any form of life. As a public, it may seem that

there isn’t much that can be done since medicine is a necessity, and all alternatives come from the same
 O’Flaherty 6

source. However, many household and cosmetic products use animal testing in development, so it is

important to check if the company you are supporting is animal friendly. Buying products that are

“cruelty free” or “not tested on animals” don’t use animal testing outside of what may be required by law.

As companies recognise that products produced without the use of animal testing yield more money, they

may adjust their practice as well. After all, global development has to start somewhere.

Works Cited Formatting

 O’Flaherty 7

Works Cited

“Alternatives to Animal Testing.” ​National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences​, U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, 26 Apr. 2018,

www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/science/sya-iccvam/index.cfm​.

Bailey, Matthew R. "Love Your Dog, Support Animal Research." ​Wall Street Journal​, 18 Sep,

2017, pp. A.17. SIRS Issues Researcher, https://sks.sirs.com.

Gluck, John P. "Regretting My Animal Research." ​New York Times​, 04 Sep, 2016, pp. SR.7.

​SIRS Issues Researcher​, ​https://sks.sirs.com​.

Howard, Jacqueline. "FDA Reviewing Animal Studies in Wake of Monkey Deaths." ​CNN

Wire Service​, 31 Jan, 2018. ​SIRS Issues Researcher​, ​https://sks.sirs.com​.

Jeory, Ted. "David Attenborough Calls for End to 'Cruel' Brain Tests on Primates.." ​The Independent

(Online), 07 Sep, 2016. ​SIRS Issues Researcher​, ​https://sks.sirs.com​.

“Nine out of Ten Statistics Are Taken out of Context | Understanding Animal Research.”

Understanding Animal Research​, 23 Jan. 2013, ​www.understandinganimalresearch

.org.uk/news/communication​s-media/nine-out-of-ten-statistics-are-taken-out-of-context/.

“Press Release | Resources.” ​NEAVS/Project R&R Responds to IOM Chimpanzee Report​, 11 Dec. 2015,

www.neavs.org/resources/publication/neavs-project-rr-responds-to-iom-chimpanzee-report​.

Smith, Mike, and JH Bloomberg School of Public Health. “FAQs.” ​Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School

of Public Health​, 15 June 2012, altweb.jhsph.edu/resources/faqs.html.

“US Statistics.” ​Speaking of Research​, 20 June 2017, speakingofresearch.com/facts/statistics/.