Pharma’s Animal Rights Conundrum
As an ambitious STEM Student studying in the UK, eager for an insider’s view into the daily dynamics within a pharmaceutical giant, I quickly seized the opportunity for a year-long placement.
Most seasoned students who’ve successfully completed their placement years will attest to two things: “your rejection emails will likely outnumber your acceptances’’, swiftly followed by “but persevere and eventually you’ll find a match”. After enduring what felt like an endless cycle of applications, resume submissions and in some cases (let’s be honest) those somewhat monotonous automated video interviews, I couldn’t help but notice a recurring question posed by all my potential employers: “Could you share your personal stance on the use of animals in scientific research?” Essentially, a coded message for: “Just so you know, animal testing is a reality here, and we prefer not to wrestle with your moral quandaries from the get-go.”
Having gained a firsthand glimpse into the complexities that swirl around animal rights activism, I can now confidently say that I’ve come to understand the nuanced dilemmas faced by pro-animal rights scientists who are caught between advancing medical progress and advocating for the welfare of living beings. In light of this, I maintain the belief that there exist more sustainable avenues for conducting animal testing and in the following article, I aim to debunk some of the intricate questions that surround animal experimentation; brace yourselves, as you’ll perhaps encounter stark statistics that make you reconsider reaching for that seemingly harmless shampoo bottle, its fine print revealing, “We test on animals.”
- How many animals are currently being utilised for testing and for what purposes?
The staggering numbers are undeniable- in 2022 alone, a whopping 2.76 million scientific procedures involving living animals were carried out in Great Britain, with 3.05 million rounding up the total amount of procedures. This is a decrease of 10% on the year prior and the “lowest” number since 2002. These endeavours were driven by various motives: 1.51 million procedures carried out for experimental purposes (55% of all procedures), around half (53%) of experimental procedures were for basic research; the top 3 research areas were the nervous system, the immune system and cancer (oncology), and 96% of all experimental procedures were assessed as “non-recovery, sub-threshold, mild, or moderate in severity”; the remaining 4% were assessed as “severe”. An array of species, from mice and rats to cats, dogs, and monkeys, found themselves entangled in this horrifying web of experimentation.
2. Do animals experience pain and distress during these experimentations?
Unfortunately, yes. Extensive research has repeatedly shown that the very realm of captivity itself proves deeply unsettling for the majority of these animals. For example, the constraints of a standard laboratory cage can propel animals towards the brink of mental turmoil, resulting in alarming brain abnormalities. Routine procedures like blood sampling can induce considerable distress, particularly when handled clumsily. Safety tests involving the force-feeding of chemicals or purposeful infliction of injuries and infections lead to profound physical and psychological anguish. In addition, not only do these animals have to endure surgeries and/or genetic manipulation, but they are frequently exposed to harmful substances which culminates in their intense suffering.
3. Are safety trials conducted on animals genuinely beneficial for human safety?
Paradoxically, animal tests often fall short of safeguarding our human well-being. Their predictive precision rests at a meagre 5–25% for identifying harmful side-effects, painting a picture of inefficacy that translates to real-world consequences. This phenomenon has culminated in a bona fide public health crisis, with animal test outcomes offering a veil of security while obscuring genuine risks. For instance, in the case of smoking — did you know that this habit was deemed “safe” for years based on animal testing, but did indeed turn out to be a fallacy silently claiming the lives of many?
4. To what extent do animal experiments contribute to discovering remedies for human illnesses?
The extent to which animal experiments contribute to the discovery of remedies for human illnesses is questionable at best. Despite their prevalent use, these experiments often fail to provide fully reliable insights due to inherent differences between animal models and human physiology. This divergence is glaringly evident in the history of medical research, where promising results in animals have repeatedly failed to translate to human treatments. This disconnection is particularly striking in cases such as cancer and HIV/AIDS research, underscoring the need for a fundamental shift towards human-focused investigations that can offer more accurate and meaningful contributions to medical progress.
5. What are the reasons behind the persistence of animal experimentation?
Our modern day persistence to continue forth with experimentation is upheld by a blend of factors deeply rooted in tradition, financial interests, and legal protections. Firstly, longstanding habits and a historical reliance on animal models have firmly overpowered this practice in scientific research. Moreover, the pharmaceutical industry’s pursuit of profit aligns with the expedited development and regulatory clearance that animal testing can offer. In regards to legal protections, these safeguards centred around animal tests further shield companies from legal repercussions, thus creating a safety buffer. These factors, combined with a belief in the effectiveness of animal models and a lack of studies conducted towards alternatives, collectively contribute to the continuation of animal experimentation.
6. What alternative methods exist for developing treatments without animal involvement?
From human tissue studies to microfluidic systems, computer modelling, epidemiology, and 3D bioprinting, there is a surprising array of transformative options that provide more accurate insights into human health without the ethical concerns of animal testing. Embracing holistic health approaches and non-allopathic therapies also offer a comprehensive perspective on well-being. These approaches render animal experimentation obsolete, making a compelling case for reallocating resources towards more impactful, human-centric research.
7. Is the argument for animal experiments rooted in the necessity to test drugs within a complete system?
Truthfully, animal experimentation is often rooted in the perceived necessity to replicate drug testing within a “complete” biological system. While human tissue studies may not perfectly emulate all potential outcomes, a combination of human tissue research and advanced computer simulations can actually yield more accurate predictions. Nonetheless, clinical trials conducted on willing human volunteers with full informed consent remains the gold standard for understanding human drug responses. Embracing a paradigm that prioritises human-focused research not only aligns with ethical considerations but also addresses the inherent limitations and inefficiencies of animal experimentation, ultimately leading to safer and more effective medical advancements. By prioritising human-focused research, we can mitigate clinical trial risks and reduce the more than 80% failure rate post-animal testing.
8. Is opposition to animal experimentation merely a matter of favouring animals over humans?
Some raise questions about the ethical consistency of those opposing animal experimentation while consuming animal-tested medicines, but others this critique overlooks the central issue: the inadequacy of animal tests in accurately predicting human responses. The objection isn’t a matter of “Oh! You just hate humans”, but rather a principled concern about the efficacy and reliability of such experiments. The focus should shift to advocating for more accurate and human-centred research methods that ensure safer and more effective medical advancements for both animals and humans.
To close, the intricate tangle of animal rights activism within the pharmaceutical realm requires measured consideration. Balancing medical progress with ethical responsibility necessitates collaboration, accountability, and a commitment to bettering both human and animal welfare.
