Animal experimentation has been widespread for numerous years and in some parts of the world it still is. The earliest references about animals being used for experimental reasons are dated back in the 4th and 2nd century B.C., when Greek philosopher Aristotle, whose writings were also focused on biology, and Greek anatomist Erasistratus, conducted experiments on animals (Cohen and Loew). Throughout the years, animal testing and especially vivisection has raised high levels of controversy and criticism. Vivisection is defined as the surgical act conducted on living animals in order to examine the internal structure of the animal for biomedical reasons, among others (Encyclopaedia Britannica). Of course, in most cases, vivisection is performed without the use of any anesthesia or pain relief drug. One can only imagine the insufferable pain caused to animals.
Ever since, animals have been vastly used for research the methods that have been used to draw conclusions have become the culprit for many discussions and arguments. The cruelty demonstrated by people conducting the experiments on animals has raised a serious concern, in regards Animal Rights. Suffering, pain and even death has been part of animal testing and that is why many organizations are founded and common sense strongly opposes to such inhumane acts towards animals. For many reasons than one, animal testing is considered not only unethical, but should also be banned from modern societies that claim to be humane and just.
Timeline of Animal Rights’ Laws
It seems t has the United Kingdom has a long history in trying to impose laws and acts to prevent cruelty of any kind on animals. The Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822 (3 Geo. IV c. 71) was the very first attempt passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom to secure animals’ welfare via legislation, although that specific Act was meant only for cattle, such as sheep, oxen, cows, steers, heifers and related animals. The British government’s attempt to enforce laws that would prevent cruelty on animals continued with a series of Acts that concluded in The Cruelty to Animals Act, as conducted in 1876, according to which « A person shall not perform on a living animal any experiment calculated to give pain, except subject to the restrictions imposed by this Act» (39 & 40 Vict., Public Acts, c. 77.)
However, other nations, like the United States, have also embraced and enacted similar Acts. The Animal Welfare Act (Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966, P.L. 89-544) is the only Federal Law that regulates animal experimentation, treatment and care and was followed by a total of seven amendments. Note that reptiles, birds and rodents are excluded from this Act, which is something that the Animal Legal Defense Fund alongside the Humane Society of the United States have tried to alter by filling a common petition to the United States Department of Agriculture, in 1989, requesting the pre mentioned excluded animals to be part of the Animal Welfare Act too (American Anti-vivisection Society).
A concept that has prevailed and was adopted by several scientists during the 17th century was that of René Descartes, a French philosopher, who believed that animals don’t experience pain; therefore it is perfectly acceptable to be used for experimental reasons (Carbone 149). The lack of consciousness in animals that leads to a supposed lack of pain was a notion embraced by Bernard Rollin, the very main author of two federal laws that regulated pain relief for animals in the US and based on that researchers on that time simply ignored pain when concerning animals (Rollin 521–525). It was not until the 1990’s that latest academic reviews examined the issue of animals experiencing pain and their mental states and criticized the reliability of previously mentioned concepts on the particular subject (Degrazia & Rowan 193-211).
Ways of Animal Research
Genetic engineering uses animals as models and manipulates their genetic code. Genetic engineering breaks into four main divisions of animal testing, which comprise of: pure research, xenotransplantation, Pharming / Pharmaceutical reasons (applied research) and toxicology research.
In detail, pure research is generally used by biomedical researchers that seek for answers related to human biology or else mentioned as developmental biology. The majority of animals used for experimental reasons are part of pure research (House of Lords). Researchers want to find out how organisms behave and interact with each other and their environment, and also study genetics and evolution in order to fully understand how they behave. Their findings are applied to humans as a means to improve their health; however, this method has proven to be of little success (House of Lords).
Xenotransplantation research uses animals to produce organs, cells or tissues that can be taken from the animal and transplanted to humans. In other words animals are used in order to fulfill the human need for organ transplants (Platt & Lin). This method is also considered as non-successful, given the great percentage of transplant rejection up to the present times (Schuurman & Pierson).
Pharming is another field where animals are used as incubators for the production of pharmaceuticals that could be applied to humans later on. Pharming or Applied Research mainly focuses on specific problems and researchers try to find solution to particular practical medical issues and might come up with a new drug discovery during the whole process (American Anti-Vivisection Society). As part of the pharmaceuticals procedures, animals might be part of a toxicology testing process that allow pharmaceutical companies test drugs on animals, as instructed by their customers worldwide. Animals get a toxic substance either injected to them, dripped into their eyes, applied to their skin, inhaled, put in their food to eat or through a tube that is placed in their mouths and goes into their stomach. They are tested both with the substances and the finished products and the time period could range from only once to the animals’ entire lifespan.
Animals also suffer and die in classrooms when they become part of biology experiments, even though there are suggested alternatives that can save both schools’ money and the animals’ health (PETA 2013).
Alternatives to Animal Testing
The American Anti-Vivisection Society is perhaps the largest non-profit educational organization in the United States with millions of followers that is dedicated in protecting animals’ rights, stop cruelty in animals and animal experimentation in any field and for any purpose. According to them, animal tests are not considered reliable enough to be applied to humans, given the fact that there are biological differences among species that result in insufficient results (American Anti-Vivisection Society). Alternatively to animal experimentation, cell culture method appears to gain ground and approval in the medical community. According to an article posted in CNN official web page, stem cells are coming as a strong emerging theory alongside computer simulation that could end animal testing (Knight); however there still needs to be some more research done. Animal-based skin irritation and corrosion testing can be replaced by tests utilizing human skin equivalent, following the guidelines imposed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Phototoxicity is a skin condition that bears significant resemblance with a bad sun burn and is caused when a chemical is applied on the skin and then with presence or absence of light, that chemical reacts on the skin causing pain and severe burn (Institute for Health and Consumer Protection). This is what happens mainly to mouse embryo. The goal of this test is to determine the viability of a cell line called 3T3 cells. Instead of the animal phototoxicity test, it is suggested that in vitro 3T3 neutral red uptake test can be used instead (Zhang & Dong).
Conclusion
Animal testing has been a highly controversial topic among modern societies that struggle to balance human rights for medical healing, advancements in human disease treatments and animal experimentation, as a means to deliver results and answers to the numerous questions raised. Hopefully, due to technology’s galloping evolution, it is highly likely that animal suffering will end soon and that both animals and humans will be able to enjoy their rights in life and wellbeing. Like Mark Twain said, we shouldn’t be interested in knowing if vivisection is effective and can produce results that will help humans, rather than focusing on the pain we cause to un-consenting animals that has no real justification (Twain 139).
Works Cited
American Anti-vivisection Society (n.d). “Problems with Animal Research”. Web. Sep. 1, 2013. <http://www.aavs.org/site/c.bkLTKfOSLhK6E/b.6456997/k.3D74/Problems_with_Animal_Research.htm#.Uj9zGT9pfIU>
"An Act to Amend the Law Relating to Cruelty to Animals," Public General Statutes passed in the Thirty-Ninth & Fortieth Years of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, 1876 (London, 1876), Google Books: Online Library of Free eBooks 459-64.
Carbone, Larry (2004). '"What Animal Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy. Print. Oxford University Press.
Degrazia, David; Rowan, Andrew (1991). "Pain, suffering, and anxiety in animals and humans". Theoretical Medicine 12 (3): 193–211.
Encyclopaedia Britannica (2009). "Vivisection". Web. Sep. 21, 2013. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/631461/vivisection>
Knight, Matthew (2008). “Scientist: Stem cells could end animal testing”. Web Sep. 21, 2013. < http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/12/22/stem.cell.drug.tests/>
Cohen BJ and Loew FM (1984). “Laboratory Animal Medicine: Historical Perspectives in laboratory Animal Medicine”. Print. Academic Press, Inc, Orlando, FL
MacLennan & Amos. (1990). “Cosmetics and Toiletries Manufacturers and Suppliers”. Clinical Science Research Ltd, XVII, 24.
Mark Twain (1989). “Book of Animals: Letter to London Anti-Vivisection Society”. Print. University of California Press. p.139
OECD (2010). “OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4: Test No. 439: In Vitro Skin Irritation Reconstructed Human Epidermis Test Method”. < http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/9713241e.pdf?expires=1379891983&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=E656B014EA4C2634175BED26EF70F3F2>
Platt, JL; Lin, SS (1998). "The future promises of xenotransplantation". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 862: 5–18.
Rollin, Bernard. "Animal research: a moral science. Talking Point on the use of animals in scientific research", EMBO reports 8, 6, 2007, pp. 521–525
House of Lords (2002). “Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures Report", Chapter 3: "The purpose and nature of animal experiments."
Schuurman, HJ; Pierson Rn, 3rd (2008). "Progress towards clinical xenotransplantation". Frontiers in bioscience: a journal and virtual library 13 (13): 204–20
Zhang HW & Dong SX.(2005). “Study on using in vitro 3T3 neutral red uptake to test phototoxicity”. Wei Sheng Yan Jiu. 2005 Sep;34(5):628-30
