Is animal testing critical to our overall growth as a nation? Some say yes. Others vehemently scream “No!” Frankly, though they can’t speak for themselves, I place the animals in the latter position. Were they able, they’d be holding the signs condemning animal testing. In fact, if our roles were reversed, how would you feel about having brain surgery sans anesthesia or your cat’s medicine first being tested on your mother?

 

Again, the animals cannot speak for themselves… They do not, and cannot actually consent to the cruel practices they are subjected to in their respective labs. Oh sure, the advocates say, but we need them in order to advance modern medicine! It’s critical to allow animal testing of products and medical theories and medicines so that we, the superior species, may continue to thrive despite the inhumane methods we use to do so. Furthermore, who cares, right? They’re just animals. Not worth the effort spent in worrying about their suffering.

 

 

But let’s ask this: even if animal testing is necessary, must the animals suffer in the process? Must practices be performed without pain relief? Furthermore, if it ultimately leads to the animal’s demise, was the benefit worth the cost? And who are we to make this decision? In some arenas, this is called a God-complex. Where one (in this case, the researchers) believes that his/her thoughts or actions supersede all others, regardless of the costs.

 

Which animals are used?

Let’s look at the facts. Globally, the estimated number of animals used in the advancement of medicine is staggering: well over 100 million. We may never know for certain because many animals, such as mice and rats, are conveniently overlooked. This is true for the U.S. and supported by the Animal Welfare Act (a misnomer, surely). Sadly, most animals are used only once. The procedure used typically results in death or the animal is euthanized at the conclusion, as it serves no further value to the researchers in the state it has progressed to.

 

 

Roughly 15-20 million mice and rats are regularly used in testing in the U.S. each year, with mice being the most popular due to their small size, low cost, ease of handling, and reproduction rate.  Among the animals accounted for are other rodents, such as guinea pigs and rabbits, fish, non-human primates, sheep, cats, pigs, and dogs. Beagles, in particular, are favored because they are friendly and easy to work with. Of course. One wouldn’t want to legally abuse a dog that might bite back in self-defense.

 

 

By far, the most common source for animals tested in laboratories is specialized suppliers that “purpose breed” animals for testing. Others, namely monkeys and other primates, may come from the wild. Animal shelters also supply many victims, though in our favor, many U.S. states have regulations prohibiting this practice.  

 

The tests

So, what could be so bad, right? Let’s investigate what many of these animals go through.

 

The Draize Test: Developed in 1944, the Draize test is used to assess the irritabilityQuestion: if one company can produce a product that was not tested on animals in this fashion (and there are products where animal testing was not done), then why can’t they all? a product, from cosmetics to oven cleaners, on the eye. The product is placed on one eye of a white, or albino, rabbit. The other eye is usually left alone to serve as a control. The rabbits are given no anesthetic, (or how would the researchers determine pain associated with the product!) and the rabbits are left to suffer up to three weeks. The next time you get your cleanser in your eye and howl in indignation at the pain, take a moment to consider if you were the first to suffer. of

 

Skin Irritation Test: Some animals have irritants placed directly on shaved patches of skin to determine toxicity. The animal is monitored to determine how the affected area swells, reddens, ulcerates, or inflames.

 

 

Poison Test: Similar to the skin test, this one is used orally. The animal is forced to ingest a chemical that researchers know will produce adverse effects. The animals are then watched to determine at what dose half of the animals tested die as a result. Many of the victims die due to the massive doses of toxic chemicals, some die from organ failure, others endure pain but still hang in there, looking for help from their trusted human “caregiver,” before finally being euthanized and discarded.

 

 

Neurological and Transplant Tests:   We see the horrifying pictures of the results of some of these tests. The monkeys stretched across contraptions reminiscent of centuries-old torture racks. The dogs and cats mutilated beyond species recognition. The live, zero-anesthetic surgical procedures to assess psychological response to pain while performing procedures in the name of science. The animal’s living organs transplanted to the outside of the body. 

 

Ah…progress. What was I thinking? We are the advanced species, are we not?

 

Advocates claim these tests are necessary in the advancement of stroke, heart, and transplant research. Perhaps. But are there no other ways to accomplish this goal? Must pain and suffering on the part of creatures unable to fight back be required to further modern medicine? Animal rights activists say no.  These practices are regularly questioned as to the value and effectiveness of the procedures due, in part, to the fact that animals do not model human diseases in their entirety.  Our DNA, in fact, has its basis in that of our ancestors...we share theirs!  Never mind that some researchers’ experiment tip the scales toward downright cruelty.

 

 

Alternatives to suffering – the three R’s

Alternatives to animal testing have, of course, been suggested. The most common thread of discussion lies with the three R’s: Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement.

 

 

Reduction: Put simply, if research institutions reduced the number of animals and/or tests, there would be far less pain, suffering, and fatalities among animals. Reducing the “pool of applicants,” so to speak, would summarily reduce the casualties, though this is just one step in the overall plan.

 

Refinement: This step involves minimizing pain, distress, and suffering.  This step advocates enhancing the overall welfare of the animals involved in any testing procedures.

 

 

Replacement: This refers to the use of non-animal research methods whenever possible to achieve the same scientific results. If another option besides testing on an animal is available, why not use it?

 

 

The bottom line is that there may be no one solution that will satisfy everybody’s expectations. However, despite the fact that research does, indeed, need to be done (no one would dispute this), there are alternatives to the outright suffering inflicted upon the animals used. The best solution, it seems, would be to accord the animals the same respect we would humans. If research must be accomplished, then it must be done in a way that produces the least amount of pain, distress, and suffering possible.