The Sacrifices for Science
It is evident that animal testing has produced life saving medical breakthroughs, but an ethical line has to be drawn somewhere.
Conflict of Interest?
I am always one to prioritize the ethical side of things. To me, the morality of a situation or controversial subject outweighs any other factor, and I let my intuitive moral compass be the principal guide of my opinions. But the field of bioethics, specifically lab testing on animals, has always put me in a bit of a conundrum.
I think a significant part of this conflict arises from the fact that my mom is a stem cell researcher with a focus on chondrodysplasia, the regeneration of limbs, and various types of arthritis. Her research requires her to test on mice, which unfortunately can involve needed to induce arthritis in their knees to amputating their toes. Whenever my mom discusses the labs that she performs with mice, I can’t help but feel sorry for them and feel uncomfortable because of that. Sometimes I even let out an audible groan of commiseration.
Despite that, hearing the medical breakthroughs she has accomplished and the countless people she’s helped with this testing allows me to simultaneously recognize that it may be necessary. I am aware that her and others’ work has produced invaluable information for the scientific and medical community that has helped develop life saving treatments.
For instance, scientists are closer than ever before to making the regeneration of limbs a reality. One can imagine how that kind of medical miracle would affect humans, and it would not be possible without testing on animals.
Only Under Regulations
Even so, I do not hesitate to question the procedures that she and her colleagues use. In doing so, I learned that any lab tests using animals are heavily regulated. One of the main regulations are extensive applications that the scientist is obligated to fill out before undergoing any kind of animal using procedure that may be needed for research or for testing drugs(Caroline Dealy). These applications consist of numerous pages of questions about every single protocol that would be conducted, the answers of which must be completely approved by a panel of scientists, unassociated public, and animal welfare persons in order for the experiment to be permitted. The scientist has to prove the justification of using animals in the experiment, the purpose, and how it may lead to the “advancement of knowledge” or have “potential value to human or animal health and the good of society(Animal Care Association Protocol).”
In cases where the protocol is not approved, the animal testing being administered is unethical and should be prohibited because there is not sufficient justification of the procedure or specification about the treatment of the animals.
Remember when we learned to write those seemingly unnecessarily detailed procedures about the percolation rate in fifth grade, right down to the way you deposit the measured out soil into the funnel? Well, even though it seemed useless then, that is essentially how these protocols must be written in order to be approved. Missing just one detail can not only jeopardize the credibility of the experiment, but the animal’s life. Strangely, it is also specified that it must be written in language an eighth grader would understand(Protocol), which does seem out of place for professional scientists, but it really does make sense- when someone is handing animals, there can be no fault in transparency. Scientists can ditch the pedantic language they learn in school and exchange it for the less exuberant but always reliable middle school language.
A variety of animal welfare organizations manage and approve the animal testing that is administered by scientists, and they impose regulations on universities or facilities were the tet will be performed. As most is today, animal testing should only be administered in universities that are accredited, or evaluated and confirmed to be a high quality educational institution that meets a set of high standard that keep scientists in check and establish their boundaries. Non accredited organizations should not be able to carry out animal tests; they never provided reason to be trusted will something as integral as animal life. Therefore, you can trust that any kind of experiment carried out in these institutions, especially those with animals, will have been proven to produce a valuable medical impact and will be performed in the safest possible conditions with as little animal suffering as possible.
In fact, one of the first parts of the application confirms if the scientist actually has to use animals in order to limit it as much as possible(Dealy). Some of the reasons for using them are because of the complexity of the process, the lack of existing information to design other systems, a requirement of preclinical studies, a requirement by law, or because it is a behavioral or developmental study.
Another qualification in the applications is the listing of the members of the lab, along with their records to be judged and approved(Dealy). A member is restricted to performing only the procedures they have been trained on. In addition to specifying every person who will play a role in the experiment, the scientist must specify what species they need, every single location they will be with the animal, and the conditions of the experiment: Will the animal’s genes will be modified? Will they be on a special diet? Where will they be living? If they need surgery, how will the site be prepared and cleaned? Answering “yes” to one such question opens up a whole new set of questions to be assessed on.
These protocols are part of the reason why animal testing can be justified at this point in scientific progress. They prove that animal testing is not an easily carried out procedure and involves a great deal of preparation, assessment, and justification.
One of the most difficult parts of lab testing on animals is witnessing, causing, or being obligated to induce illness, disease, or physiological deficits because of the procedure. I can say with confidence that all scientists I have talked to that have used animals, including my parents and biology teacher, hated this aspect of it. Much of the backlash against lab testing on animals is due to the fact that animals cannot provide consent to be tested on. However, the scientist is required to minimize the pain and distress whenever possible, and regulations are in place to do so, as well as set a time frame for the use of animals and the maximum number of animals that can be used(Dealy).
On the topic of pain regulation, analgesics and anesthetics are prescribed at every opportunity to reduce animal suffering. Treatments such as euthanasia, since it is putting the animal to sleep, is very tightly regulated, so it will only occur when absolutely necessary.
If the scientist does not follow every single guideline exactly on their protocol, then they and their university will face major consequences with the federal government and lose their grant(Dealy). Because we cannot halt the progression of technology or science, as it has led and will continue to lead to an infinite amount of groundbreaking discoveries, it is simultaneously our duty to set a boundary to what extent ethics should be sacrificed in science. In this case, that line is minimizing pain at every opportunity and following the regulations, such as the lengthy protocol, to a T, otherwise resulting in consequences like with the violation of any other law.
Justification Through Living Conditions
Another aspect that justifies the majority of animal testing and determinant for many people about this controversial subject are the living conditions and facilities for the animals. In proper institutions, the animals are extremely well tended to. Every animal is looked at every day by techniqutions. They are fed and given clean water. Their cages are cleaned every day. Most even live in a filtered facility where the caretaker actually has to gear up as to not contaminate the air(Dealy).
Many people, including myself, do not support the food industries that kill their animals with excessively cruel methods and keep them in nauseating conditions, their meat ultimately being mass produced and distributed for human benefit. However, the use of the animals for human benefit is often reconsidered if animals are sourced from free range, local farms that raise them in exceptional conditions and put them to death in a painless way. Thus the moral boundary in this situation is similar to that of animal testing, where the process in which something is used as a tool overrides the actual use of the tool.
It is not possible to sugarcoat the idea of killing an animals, but scientists are not in their labs with an evil ulterior motive to murder these animals for fun. Like many people put their pets down when they are old and sick, scientists almost always end an animal’s life with the motivation of ending their suffering. Another common misconception is that the means of death are painful for the animal. However, the two main methods, cervical dislocation and decapitation, are in fact quick and painless, despite how alarming they seem(Dealy). These methods definitely gave me shock when I first heard them- my first reaction was admittedly, how is this ethical? But it is actually a great deal less painful than death by something like gas inhalation, which actually suffocates the mouse for a long time before it dies.
A Limited Selection
With regulated, justified animal testing, the types of animals utilized are restricted depending on their abundance, mental capacity, and closeness to the human species(Dealy). Mice are most frequently used, but animals like chimpanzees are very highly regulated or in some counties, like in the U.K., are no longer legal primates because they are too close relatives to humans. Endangered animals are not tested in unless it is to save their species, and scientist will try to use close relatives in place of them if they can(Dealy).
Human’s lives are at stake, so as difficult as it may be to accept, using monkeys or other animals to help produce a treatment for devastating diseases is important and many times necessary. Scientists have to find balance between emulating humans close enough that the test is reliable and not emulating humans so close that it is as if we were testing on humans, which is unethical. Because mice are so abundant, the amount that scientists use are not enough to make a huge impact.
Humans are incredibly complex, comprehensive, and emotive. We have the largest mental capacity and are advanced enough to create technology and establish a society in which, let’s face it, we are at the top of the food chain. As predatory as that sounds, it is also our duty as fellow human beings to help those that are suffering.
It is simply unfair to leave people terminally ill when they should have an opportunity to live out their entire life and become future leaders. If humans cannot survive, they cannot spur the research that would say more life and create alternate reliable methods of testing than animals. If we could not use animals for research, not only would those people die from lack of treatment, but we wouldn’t be able to produce those alternative methods in the first place. It is unethical not to address rampant human diseases or conditions by not engaging in animal testing knowing it would produce a life saving drug or research. Because society still has an endless amount of medical issues, animal testing is necessary. If it were eliminated completely at this point, massive amounts of human death would ensue.
The “Unsung Heroes of Medicine”
Of course, the arguably most prominent justifying factors of animal testing are its outcomes and what they bring to the medical field and thus human survival. The medical breakthroughs and treatments that have been produced as a result of animal testing are the justification to continue the practice until alternative methods are created. Of course, I would much prefer that animals not be used as test subjects, but this is currently not realistic, and we cannot deny the pivotal medical solutions that it has produced.
For example, military defence involves animal testing to simulate battle wounds and gauge reactions to exposures of agents used in war. Thousands of wounded of soldiers have been saved because of it. If you’ve ever taken antibiotics, had a vaccine, a blood transfusion, an organ transplant, chemotherapy for cancer, bypass surgery or joint replacement, you have benefitted from animal testing and research. Immunizations against diseases such as polio, mumps, and hepatis are now preventable, treatable, or have been removed because of the discovery of new drugs or surgical procedures that have come about from animal testing(Medical Advances). Practically every drug, treatment, medical device, diagnostic tool or cure we have today was developed with the help of lab animals, meaning billions of lives have been saved because of it. Animal testing is the last safety check before a new drug is tested on a human. If that stage is ineffective, humans can be exposed to potentially dangerous, or even fatal compounds(About Animal Testing).
Animals are necessary because it is difficult to emulate a complex, multicellular organism with its own personal factor in just a petri dish, which doesn’t take into account behavioral reactions, or the effect on complex body systems that humans have.
Recently, several new methods of testing that do not use animals have been produced, and when proven reliable, will most likely become widespread. They are hope of cheaper, more ethical solutions that may exceed animal testing in the future. One of these methods is the organ on a chip, a plastic chip laced with channels that are lined with human cells from the organs there are representing. Microdosing humans and the implantation of electrodes into humans have also been developed, but they are not yet readily used(WYSS institute).
The Dark Side to Animal Testing
Of course, there is a dark side to animal testing. Though these incidents do not occur as frequently now, isolated cases of abuse of animals have understandably amplified the case against animal testing(About Animal Testing). Luckily, reactions from the scientific community generally have been swift and indicated that the abuse will not be permitted(About animal Testing). It is unethical for an animal to experiencing unnecessary, unjustified abuse, and such testing should be eliminated as well as punishment given to those scientists.
Aside from the medical benefits that can come about from animal testing, animals are still used to test cosmetics(About Animal Testing). Contrary to the profound impact animal testing has on medical advances, the cosmetic testing practice sacrifices an animal for the sake of appearance, which is not sufficient justification; it is a superficial, not life saving. There is high quality and highly raved makeup on the market created without animal testing, known as “cruelty free” makeup, further proving the need for animals unnecessary and therefore cruel.
The Irony of Animal Testing
Many of us are hypocrites. We preach certain ideals and condemn those with opposing ones, but often times benefit off of and continue to use the practices we condemn. For instance, some people who eat animals every day speak out against animal testing, not to mention that many of those animals were raised in facilities where they are treated much worse than in labs. In reality, animals are constantly used as tools, whether it is for food, recreational activities, comfort, or for medical reasons. People often perceive animal testing differently, perhaps because they may endure pain or may be killed, however, the same can be said for the food industry. Animals are killed and eaten as food, which is essential for survival, but are also flaunted in restaurants where exotic animals are plated with a pinch of parsley. In science, animals are sometimes killed, but they don’t just produce a product, they save lives by allowing scientists to develop treatments for illnesses.
In proportions to the issues society is facing in the world- hundreds of thousands of people dying from opioids, measles, ebola, arthritis, the military- animal testing is generally seen as a way to solve those problems rather than being a problem itself. You don’t really here about populations of mice dying in the news, but you do here about new treatments that might just provide a cure to cancer, which almost half of the US population faces(UPI).
Most people, including myself, are more inclined to save a dying child than save a mouse’s life and allow the child- which has to potential to grow up and create life of their own- to die. There is an emotional connection that I inevitably have for other people who are suffering, and a desire to help them, as their fellow human being. The empathy that humans share is powerful, and extends beyond just “animal instinct.”
Having an ethical line and moral code is what makes us humans and not barbarians. As they should, regulations and limitations exist to minimize pain and the use of animals in lab testing until one day, the practice can hopefully be eliminated all together. Not only would those regulations encourage and stimulate research into alternate methods of testing, but less animals would be harmed for unjustified reasons.
I love animals. I have always been an animal lover. I am the type of person that will free a spider instead of kill it. In movies, as heartless as it sounds, I usually only cry when an animal dies rather than a person. Yet despite me loving animals, I still think that animal testing is justified if under regulations and for medical purposes. Some procedures are unethical and should not be administered. And the U.S. still has much to improve on in their regulations on animal testing. The UK has gone farther than any country to pass laws that regulate it, in turn finding a middle ground that is more ethical. They are the example.
Mice and lab testing animals are the unsung heroes of medicine; animal testing has been crucial to survival. Knowledge about our bodies is the product of innovation and practice that ensure the quality of human life. With science, humans have a massive capacity to progress, and that progression can happen rapidly. Just looking at the past ten years, new introductions of technology and scientific discoveries have caused exponential growth in technology itself, understanding of the world, and ultimately an increase in quality of life far beyond what anyone could have predicting. There is gene editing, surgical procedures, and so much more. But it is of the utmost importance that a balance is struck between this continuous progress and the ethics in the process.
Alternative methods to testing couldn’t have been produced without animal testing in the first place, and animal testing couldn’t have been created without the sacrifice that scientists made for the sake of saving lives; we are one of the rare species that doesn’t just live to survive, but we live to try and reverse mortality to an extent, and do so for others of our species. That being said, especially now, when new methods are being produced, greater attention should be put on developing those methods so we can ultimately have not just the morality but the reliability in choosing those methods over animal testing: enforcing the ethical boundary because we can. Until that point, we need to do things that we don’t like and don’t want to do for a greater cause. But above all with science and discovery, we cannot let our need and desire for knowledge cloud our ethical lines, nor can we halt our innovation.
