Animal testing is used for experimentation in the development of new drugs and products worldwide. Many industries utilize animals to estimate the results of their products on humans, ranging from shampoos to foodstuffs and drugs. In the US alone, over 50 million animals are subjected to experimentation each year. Unfortunately, only 3% of lab animals survive experimentation (Webster & Rutz, 2020). Such high casualty rates warrant the question of whether or not to limit or even completely ban the use of animals in developing new drugs. This paper argues that, while it is possible to place limits on experimentation using animals, it is impossible to outright ban them without a significant cost to human life.
Reasons for Using Animals in Research
The main reason why animals are subjected to biomedical testing is because their responses are almost identical to that of humans. Laboratory mice, for example, are 98% DNA-compatible with humans (Krewski et al., 2020). In addition, the majority of diseases and illnesses that affect humans can also be found in animals. The final benefit comes from the animals’ shorter lifespan, which enables to observe and predict the effects of products over multiple generations (Krewski et al., 2020). This offers a benefit of knowing whether the drugs would affect pregnant women and their offspring, or cause any long-term deficiencies. Thus, the use of animals in research objectively makes many products much safer for human consumption.
Ethical Dimensions of Animal Testing
The ethical frameworks governing our society place a greater value on human life than that of any other creature on the planet. Humans consume animals for food and nourishment; they use their furs for clothes, and some of their bones for producing items and furniture (Wolff, 2019). As such, animal testing can be viewed as another form of utilizing animals to fulfil specific human needs. At the same time, most ethical theories recognize the intrinsic value of all life, meaning that careless and unwarranted causing of pain and suffering is unethical (Wolff, 2019). The utilization of animals in research can be justified by the fact that no other method of testing could entirely imitate the experimentation on a sophisticated living organ system with pulmonary and circulatory ones similar to those of humans (Wolff, 2019). Utilizing human testing for such methods would expose the participants to unnecessary risks to their life and health, which is why animals are used.
Another argument could be made that animals in captivity are treated better than they would have in the wildlife. The lifespan of laboratory mice is 26-30 months on average, whether those outside of pristine laboratory conditions survive for 3-4 months (Webster & Rutz, 2020). Thus, laboratory mice see an increased quality of life, which they just would not have if released back into nature. Based on these observations it could be considered that laboratory testing is beneficial to the creatures undergoing them.
Concerns of Pain and Suffering
At the same time, there are concerns about pain and suffering induced upon lab animals. They are often utilized to test various pathogens and diseases, which may cause them to suffer pain before dying. While in some cases such measures are necessary, not all research could be dubbed worthwhile to invoke such issues (Wolff, 2019). Non-drug foodstuffs producers could eliminate animal testing entirely, and build their products on formulas already developed and tested (Wolff, 2019). Same could be said for shampoo and other non-intrusive products.
Conclusion
Although animal testing cannot be completely eliminated from medical research, the use of animal testing may be reduced for some products. These products should not be invasive or, even in theory, threaten to harm human life. Alternatively, the amount of animals used for testing can be reduced, to prevent their suffering. Full elimination of animal testing would set medical science back significantly and threaten the life and health of patients taking untested experimental drugs.
References
Krewski, D., Andersen, M. E., Tyshenko, M. G., Krishnan, K., Hartung, T., Boekelheide, K., & Cote, I. (2020). Toxicity testing in the 21st century: Progress in the past decade and future perspectives. Archives of Toxicology, 94, 1-58. Web.
Webster, M. M., & Rutz, C. (2020). How strange are your study animals?. Nature, 582(7812), 337-340. Web.
Wolff, J. (2019). Ethics and public policy: a philosophical inquiry. Routledge.