Animal Testing without Animals: The Emergence of Alternative Methods

In the past fifty years, the pharmaceutical industry has made astounding advancements in medicine that have revolutionized treatments and saved countless lives. While treatment success and profits have skyrocketed the methods of developing these drugs have been called into question, especially live animal testing. Recently groups such as PETA have emerged in the fight against animal testing and are calling for a cessation of it in all research facilities. With increases in federal government support for eliminating animal testing pharmaceutical companies will be faced with the challenge of continued success using alternative methods of research. Alternatives do have the potential to be the next great success story within the pharmaceutical industry, but completely replacing animal testing is a reality that is not quite within reach.

The advancements made using animal testing have made the atrocities of the practice a necessary evil within the pharmaceutical industry. Animal testing has led to vital improvements in the treatment of prevalent diseases such as cancer, HIV/AIDS, and diabetes. A report by Americans for Medical Progress cites that animal-based research has led to a ten percent increase in life expectancy in the United States. Its use has produced such astoundingly positive results that the suffering of millions of animals was largely ignored. Alternative methods must produce viable results in order to ensure the cessation of animal testing.

The call for the use of alternative testing message did not gain much ground until the early 2000s. Groups such as PETA brought to light the severity of the tests that are run on living breathing animals. Many of the trial animals are subject to skin irritation, blindness, sickness, and in many toxicity experiments receive lethal dosages. Mark Bekoff an ethics professor at the University of Colorado argues that put in any other context the effects of these trials would be considered harsh animal abuse. PETA claims that over a million animals die from pharmaceutical trials every year and millions more are severely crippled. Consequences of animal-based research such as these have been the driving force behind the development and implementation of alternative testing methods.

While the benefits of new testing methods are staggering there are still many researchers skeptical of the possible transition. Many believe that alternative methods still rely on animal-based research to back their success. One example used by the pro-research group Speaking of Research are the computer models used to simulate tests. They remind researchers that these programs use data gathered through animal research to provide an accurate simulation. Many alternative methods would not exist if it were not for the groundwork established with live subjects. Alternative advocates have not denied the important role that previous methods have filled. Theodora Capaldo says that animal-based research has served its role within the pharmaceutical industry and has paved the way for alternatives. Old methods have the set the stage for new technology to steal the show.

There is no denying the advantages of alternative testing. Not only can they produce identical results to actual animal tests, but also they often can accomplish them much more quickly. They also eliminate the over-head costs that come along with housing thousands of animals for pharmaceutical trials. Peter Tatchell states that alternatives give results that are more accurate because they produce results more similar to humans. Whether alternatives can produce as impressive results as animal-based research has yet to be proven to the scientific community. This is the main hurdle facing the transition from animal-based research to strictly alternatives.

While this issue has been gaining more attention in recent years, consumers may not realize just how much this will affect them. Researcher Peter Tatchell believes that when people realize how much it will affect product cost the issue will become much more prevalent. He states, “The introduction of alternative testing methods would cut research costs drastically, leading to almost a twenty-five percent decrease in market value.” The ethics behind animal testing sparked the debate, but it is the medical and monetary impact that will fuel the fire.

The biggest advantage alternative methods have to live animal-based research is that a majority of the time they can provide a more accurate representation of how a drug will affect humans. Theodora Capaldo, senior researcher and president of a pro alternative research organization, states that alternative research is revolutionary because of its ability to simulate human physiology. She cites methods such as in vitro testing as well as synthetic skin as the most successful pioneers to make waves in the research industry. The success of newly implemented methods will continue to pave the way for other procedures to make their way into the research industry.

Not only do the methods spare the suffering of countless animals, but also they have produced more accurate results than ever. A PETA study on alternative method success noted that in vitro methods using human cells are considered twenty-five percent more accurate than similar tests conducted on live animal subjects. Improved accuracy and reliability is one of many advantages that alternative methods provide the pharmaceutical industry.

The most common animal test run is the skin irritancy test. A study by PETA determined that this test causes more animals suffering than any other test. The use of anesthetics can drastically change the affect of topical drugs, so these animals are fully exposed to the irritation. The development of synthetic skin has saved many animals from suffering while producing better than ever results. This is another example of an alternative that can replace animals as well as produce improved results. Not only can new procedures eliminate an unethical practice, but also they can actually benefit the companies that choose to adopt them.

The pharmaceutical industry is one of the world’s most profitable markets and contains some of the most powerful players in the global economy. A New York Times article states that only an industry as profitable as pharmaceuticals would be able to take on the overhead cost of animal-based research. It further notes that if companies began implementing alternative testing methods they would see an astronomical increase in their profits. Eliminating these massive overhead costs will lead to more revenue as well as cheaper costs for consumers.

The American Anti-Vivisection Society says that research facilities spend billions every year to house, feed, and care for animals being used in pharmaceutical trials. The extra capitol that would be available without animal-based research would allow companies to perform more research and further the development of other alternative methods. A decrease in costs also means a decrease in consumer price. These methods can financially revolutionize the pharmaceutical industry resulting in more success than ever.

Pharmaceutical research is a race to see who can make the next big discovery. In such a competitive field, the turnaround time for trials in one of the largest factors in a company’s success. Alternative testing methods can produce thousands of trials in half the time animal-based research can. One example noted by British researcher Peter Tatchell was a replication of an experiment by a computer model. The model replicated an experiment done with live dogs that took a month to complete; the model replicated the experiment a hundred times in less than a day. Feedback on pharmaceutical trials can be received in record time, meaning new more effective drugs will reach the market sooner.

“It is only a matter of time until consumers care just as much about the process as they do the product.”

Not only do alternative methods provide pharmaceutical companies an advantage within the lab, but also they improve a company’s image and branding. In such a highly competitive market, branding is one of the most important factors to a product’s success. Marc Bekoff, a renowned researcher in animal ethics, states, “It is only a matter of time until consumers care just as much about the process as they do the product.” PETA and other such animal activist groups have brought the cruelty of animal research into the limelight, making it a global issue.

In a survey done by PETA over sixty percent of individuals polled considered the use of animal testing reason enough to not purchase a product. Paul Locke a pharmaceutical researcher says,” Animal testing has been portrayed in such a negative light that eighty-five percent of consumers would choose a similar product that was developed using alternate methods.” Locke also believes that consumers will become more aware of how products are developed, leading to pressure on companies to integrate new methods as soon as they can.

“It is scary to think that a method used to make countless great discoveries could become extinct within the research community. “

One worry of animal testing supporters is that the success generated by current methods cannot be matched by new methods. Unfortunately, the impact of innovations will be unknown until they are fully implemented. More than half of the drugs currently on the market were developed using some form of animal based research. Edythe London a researcher at UCLA that works with animals comments on this concern. She says, “It is scary to think that a method used to make countless great discoveries could become extinct within the research community. “ Although previously effective it is time for the emergence of innovative methods.

Although these concerns are legitimate, the alternative methods currently used have shown to be extremely effective. A study backed by the New England Anti-Vivisection Society predicted that the implementation of synthetic substitutes would lead to an exponential growth in the development of new medicines. The study specifically cited the accuracy, efficiency, and reliability as advantages of these tests compared to animal based research. The advantages of alternative methods are perfectly suited to the pharmaceutical industry and their success should be limitless.

Animal testing fails to utilize the vast advancements made in medical technology over the past fifty years. New techniques are developed using top of the line technology. One example of this is computer-generated animal models that can simulate a majority of internal physiology tests. These animal models can predict the affect of exposure to a drug on an entire organism or even at a cellular level. Critics such as Americans for Medical Progress point out that technology such as computer-generated models would not be possible without data collected from years of live animal research. The reality is that animal testing is an obsolete, unethical practice that should be eliminated at every possible opportunity.

Alternative testing methods are more ethical and effective than live animal tests. It is currently a reality that millions of animal lives are sacrificed unnecessarily for medical progress. Until recently, the only way to test lethal doses was to experiment on animals. Dosages were even allowed to kill up to fifty percent of subjects being tested. Now human-like cells can be developed and used as a replacement for this test. Researcher Peter Tatchell believes that an alternative to this lethal dosage trial overcomes the last major obstacle to alternative implementation. It seems now that the only obstacle to more advanced methods are their acceptance by major research corporations.

The call to end animal testing has steadily gained momentum and support over the past thirty years. Groups such as PETA have led the charge against major research corporations to finally enact change. Until recently there has been little ground gained due to the fear of a drop off within the pharmaceutical industry. With the implementation and further development of alternative methods, there is now a middle ground on which both sides can be satisfied. Not only are these new methods ethical, but also they provide advantages never before available to the pharmaceutical industry. Improved accuracy, efficiency, and reduced costs will result in revolutionary medical discoveries. Alternative methods can save the lives of countless animals while improving human health at the same time.

Works Cited

“Alternatives to Animal Testing.” PETA. PETA, 1 July 2011. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

“Alternatives to Animal Testing and Research.” NEAVS. 2013. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

American Anti-Vivisection Society. “Animal Research Is Unethical and Scientifically Unnecessary.” Animal Experimentation. Ed. Susan C. Hunnicutt. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Rpt. from “Problems with Animal Research.” 2011. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

“Animal Research Means Medical Progress.” Animal Research Benefits. 1 May 2012. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

“The Argument Against Laboratory Testing on Animals.” PETA Prime The Argument Against Laboratory Testing on Animals Comments. PETA, 1 July 2011. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

Bekoff, Marc. “Should Animals Be Used in Laboratory Testing? (Op-Ed).” LiveScience. TechMedia Network, 11 Nov. 2013. Web. 22 May 2015.

Capaldo, Theodora. “Animal Data Is Not Reliable for Human Health Research (Op-Ed).” LiveScience. TechMedia Network, 6 June 2014. Web. 22 May 2015.

Feder, Barnaby. “Saving the Animals: New Ways to Test Products.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 11 Sept. 2007. Web. 22 May 2015.

Locke, Paul, and Jim Moran. “Chemical, Medical Testing on Animals.” Tribunedigital-baltimoresun. 8 Apr. 2013. Web. 22 May 2015.

London, Edythe. “Why I Use Animals in My Research.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 1 Nov. 2007. Web. 22 May 2015.

Speaking of Research. “It Is Not Possible to Completely Replace Animals in Medical Research.” Animal Experimentation. Ed. Susan C. Hunnicutt. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Rpt. from “Alternatives?” Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

Tatchell, Peter. “The Long Fight against Animal Testing.” The Gaurdian. 23 July 2009. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.