Many animal rights advocates have been campaigning against the use of animals for scientific research and studies. One of these advocate groups is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or more popularly known as PETA. In their official website, PETA.org, the group calls animal testing as “bad science” and claims that “more than 100 million animals every year suffer and die in cruel chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics tests as well as in biology lessons, medical training exercises, and curiosity-driven medical experiments at universities.” As part of the campaign, the group also offers a list of cruelty-free companies which opt not to test their products ion animals. Although it is true that animals have rights, too, and needs to be protected and respected, the society also needs to consider the best interest of the human population. As long as the need for the study or research is justified to benefit the most number of people, animal testing should still be considered as good scientific practice because any alternative method still cannot replace animal testing and there are laws and regulations to ensure that humane treatment and handling is applied in the process.
First of all, animal testing done for the benefit of many people is a good scientific practice given that it would help alleviate human sufferings. For instance, there were several treatments that were successful formulated with the aid of animal testing and research. The Americans for Medical Progress or AMP states that the formulation and development of Herceptin and Tamoxifen, medicines that help save lives of many men and women diagnosed with breast cancer, were attributed to animal research (“Animal Research”). In 2011 alone, the U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group reports that there are 220, 097 females and 2,078 males diagnosed with breast cancer in the United States (cited in “Breast Cancer Statistics”). In addition, young patients suffering from acute lymphoblastic leukemia or ALL also benefit now from animal research through a revolutionized leukemia therapy. Back in 1962, the survival rate for this illness in St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital is only 4%, but it improved to 80% today (“Animal Research”). Aside from cancers, animal testing is proven helpful, too, with other diseases, such as HIV/Aids, heart disease, diabetes, and other deadly diseases. For example, working with animal models made way for new therapies for HIV to help infected people live more normal and longer lives while statin, a pill that controls cholesterol level, helps reduce the risk for heart disease (“Animal Research”). Without the use of animals, these important medicines and therapies would not be of use today, and more people could have suffered from fatal diseases and conditions.
On the contrary, PETA argues that animal testing is unreliable. The group states that “because animal tests are so unreliable, they make those human trials all the more risky” (“Animal Testing is Bad Science”). However, a non-profit organization called Understanding Animal Research believes that many animal rights advocates have taken statistics out of context. According to the group, preclinical non-animal tests are being done before preclinical animal test to reduce the amount of needed animal research and to determine if the research is safe enough to reach Phase 1 human trials. This means that if there’s any adverse reaction from a new drug, it doesn’t mean that animal testing is unreliable because these drugs were already tested on humans through human clinical trials (“Nine Out of Ten”). Clearly, the accusation of animal testing being unreliable isn’t always accurate.
In addition, it is impossible, at least nowadays, to replace animal testing with any other methods. It is important to understand how a new therapy, drug, or disease works on a whole living system (“Animal Research”). The other alternative methods that PETA is suggesting, like computer modeling and in vitro testing, cannot provide this capability just yet. Without animal testing, it will be too risky to determine if a new therapy or drug is safe to proceed to human clinical trials.
Furthermore, PETA’s argument stems from the notion that animals are not being protected and only suffer in the process of animal research. However, the Animal Welfare Act was already established by the U.S. government to ensure that animals used for research are handled and cared for accordingly (“Animal Welfare Act”). This act was amended and improved several times over the years to balance both the welfare of animals and humans. Even the use of animals in psychological research is guided by the “Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in the Care and Use of Nonhuman Animals in Research.” This mandates psychologists to adhere to ethical procedures when conducting research and studies using animals. Both humans and animals are at risk of suffering from adverse effects for new drugs or treatments, but there are laws intended to protect them in the process, and these efforts are done for the benefit of the society as a whole.
In the end, using animals for research isn’t bad science as what PETA believes it to be. A good number of successful treatments and drugs were already formulated to alleviate human sufferings, and these wouldn’t be possible without the use of animals as test subjects. Often, animal research are accused of being unreliable, but it is important that these accusations are always verified as accurate because most often than not, figures and facts are taken out of context by many animal rights advocates. Nowadays, it is still impossible to completely replace the use of animals in scientific research and studies, not just yet. To understand how a new drug, new therapy, or certain disease works, a real living system must be observed. After all, animals are not just the only ones who are being used in clinical trials. There is also a phase for human clinical trials. Nonhuman clinical trials are done only to make sure that it is already safe to proceed to the next phase of the study. This is why there are laws and regulations that were established to make sure that the interest of the people, the scientific community, and the animals are as balanced as possible. As long as the use of animals in research is justified, adheres to the laws and regulations, and will potentially benefit the human race, it is good science.
Works Cited
“Animal Research Means Medical Progress.” Americans for Medical Progress. Americans for Medical Progress, n.d. Web. 26 June 2015.
“Animal Testing is Bad Science.” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. PETA, 2015. Web. 26 June 2015.
“Animal Welfare Act.” Animal Welfare Institute. Animal Welfare Institute, 2015. Web. 26 June 2015.
“Breast Cancer Statistics.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC, 2 Sept. 2014. Web. 26 June 2015.
“Nine out of ten statistics are taken out of context.” Understanding Animal Research. Understanding Animal Research, 30 September 2014. Web. 26 June 2015.
