Animal testing is something that has come under the spotlight recently. Many consider it as an unethical approach to the testing of new drugs and products. It has led to the division of society in ways that suggests the need for the end of the practice. The purpose of this paper is to critically analyze and review the practice and draw conclusions on the different stakeholder positions and procedures.
Why Animal Testing is Controversial
Animal testing is viewed as something that has some negative moral connotations. This is because it implies taking a risk on an animal as a means of asserting whether a given medical treatment or some other dangerous product will affect them or not. This is in conflict with people who argue for rights to be conferred on animals because such persons believe that there must be some kind of humanity towards animals and the avoidance of conscious efforts to potentially damage their lives.
On the other hand some people believe that animals are merely creatures with no rights in society because they cannot speak or act like human beings. Thus, the question the grounds for the protection of the rights of such animals. After all, animals are killed daily in their millions to feed human beings all over the world. So what is the point in limiting the need to use them for drug production and other tests? They assert that if other animals are killed to feed human hunger, it might be better to at least keep some animals in the lab, spare their lives and only use them for a situation that could have a 50-50 chance of death or life. To such thinkers, an animal that finds its way to a lab is better off than one that finds itself in a slaughterhouse. And since no one is punished for running a slaughterhouse, there should be no problems with another who runs an animal testing system.
Scientific Perspectives of Animal Testing
Science has evolved significantly over the years. There is a history of scientists using animals to test their new discoveries over and over again to deduce trends and processes over the years from the days of Newton to-date. Prior to that, there is evidence that human beings were used in experiments and studies. Thus, if animals are not used in medical research and pharmaceutical research, human beings will be used. In the past, it has been reported that minorities have been used in clinical research because they had no rights. Therefore, the use of animals is a rather safer alternative to a broader necessity as opposed to the banning of these processes altogether.
A study of scientific journals indicated that as many as 59% of scientific journals between 2009 and 2014 had used animal testing of sorts to examine and evaluate clinical perspectives on newly developed products and draw logical conclusions. This shows that although there is an uproar against the use of animals in drug testing and others, it remains a pervasive practice and most tests are done with animals, rather than human beings or hypothetically. A popular argument advanced by people who use animals in scientific studies is that if drugs and chemical products are created hypothetically and certified as such, it means the first human beings who will use it will be the ones on whom the product will be tested. And there have been major disasters and problems that pharmaceutical companies who used this approach have gone through. This gives room for major class-action suits which could potentially bankrupt a pharmaceutical entity.
However, study identifies that human toxicology and animal toxicology are significantly different and as such, the testing on animals might not be anyway enough to draw conclusions on drugs. This means the use of animals in testing is very basic and just an introduction in a long process.
Perspectives of Stakeholders
In spite of the scientific justification for the use of animals in testing, there are many stakeholders who have competing claims and demands about animal testing and its ethical implications. The anti-animal testing camp is made up of animal rights groups and left-wing groups who believe there must be moderation and some kind of limit placed on animal testing. On the other hand, there is the scientific community made up of pharmaceutical companies who want to provide their services without major lawsuits which could be expensive and destructive.
The two conflicting camps consider each other as foes. Whilst animal rights activists argue that pharmaceutical companies overdo and abuse their right to use animals, pharmaceutical companies consider these liberal groups who pursue animal rights as intruders who have no practical knowledge. Either ways, the debates come down to moderation and the need for both parties to come to a compromise after a synthesis is reached.
One US advocacy group identifies that the number of animals burnt, crippled and poisoned in American labs are beyond 100 million each year and statistically, many are not accounted for. This means that there are many forms of cruelty delved out to animals who have no way of talking back or asking for things to be done right. These animals, they assert should have a normal life in the wild, raise their young and live happily without human intervention. However, due to the greed and need for a lot of checks to be done, they are captured by humans and tortured.
Although everyone acknowledges the need for some form of animal-testing, there is a reality that some of these processes go beyond their normal limits. A group like Do Something identifies that there are many tests that are unnecessary and should be avoided by testers. However, because animals do not open up and cannot protest against these, powerful chemical companies in America and other countries continue to capture a disproportionate and unnecessary number of animals and use them for testing. They also go further to say that some of these testing is absolutely unnecessary. They cite the example of testing for cosmetics as something that should be avoided.
In spite of that, there is the reality of consumerism and investor expectations. Consumers want new and safe products. They are willing to pay for something that will not harm them. Governments are making laws that proactively protect consumers from injuries. As such, there is a risk of major lawsuits from consumers which can prove to be fatal to a company’s capital and financial base. Therefore, investors believe that the rights of consumers and the need to protect their profit margins and targets must be put ahead of the need to protect animals from destruction and torture.
There are also metaphysical groups and entities that have demands and expectations of consumers for the protection of animal rights in relation to animal testing on the grounds of spiritual matters. The Christian perspective is one that seek for some kind of moderation and the prevention of extreme pain and the minimization of the impact of the testing on animals. This is in line with the Christian views of moderation and temperance and the avoidance of excessive destruction of the natural resources.
Traditionalists and spiritualists seem to have some understanding of the need for balance in the natural environment. They therefore argue for some kind of consideration for the soul of animals. On the other hand, Buddhists and other oriental religions that hold that the soul of animals are sacred and could be reincarnations of other creatures and humans ask for a zero-tolerance policy for animal testing. This is because animal testing could interfere with the soul of an animal which could turn out to be a specific spirit that has features that might affect the peace of the world.
Personal Perspective on the Debate
There are different views and perspectives on this subject. However, in my opinion, animal testing is an important part of our society. We cannot expect drugs to be tested on human beings as a first point of call. Human beings are above all other creations in the world. We have a mind of our own and no human being deserves to be tested and used to ascertain whether a product or drug is good or not. Animals must be used for such testing because they have a lesser soul and they have little or no rights in normal society.
However, it must not be abused. Like any practice in the world, animal testing is prone to abuse. People can use it beyond its normal limit and process. Therefore, in every testing, only the minimal number of tests and the minimal impact must be wielded on animals. This is because going beyond the normal and the allowed level of pain and actions is something that could cause more harm than good. Therefore, entities and companies must try to stay within a reasonable range.
Realistically, proper and faithful records must be taken on animal testing. This must be closely monitored and efforts must be taken by independent experts to minimize the impacts of these actions and testing processes. Thus, in my view, some kind of supervisory system by a recognized authority must be created and intensified to avoid the abuse of the right to test products on animals.
Conclusion
The research examines the appropriateness of animal testing in a critical manner. This examines different views and perceptions as well as the realities of these test. The findings indicate that the scientific community has a major reason to use animals in testing. This is because in the absence of animals, they might have to resort to the use of human beings for testing which could turn out to cause harsh consequences for some human beings.
There are different stakeholders who disagree on the issue of animal testing. First, there are animal rights activists who argue that a lot of animals are killed and made to suffer in these tests and most of them are for useless ends like cosmetics. They advocate for actions like boycotting products that are tested on animals. However, there are investors and consumers who need animal testing. Consumers need safe products and investors need to produce safe products that will not attract serious penalties and problems.
My personal opinion is for some kind of moderation and balance. Animal testing must continue. However, it must not be done in a way that will involve extreme cruelty to animals. The number of animals tested in these processes must not exceed the number necessary to achieve results.
Works Cited
Chen, Zoey and Jonah Berger. “When, Why, and How Controversy Causes Conversation.” Journal of Consumer Research 40 (3) (2013): 580 - 593. Web.
Do Something. 11 Facts about Animal Testing. 9 December 2014. Web. 13 April 2016. <https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-animal-testing>.
Goldacre, Ben. Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma Flacks. London: Macmillan, 2013. Print.
Hayhurst, Chris. Animal Testing: The Animal Rights Debate. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2011. Print.
Kilkenny, Carol, et al. “Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research.” Animals 4(1) (2014): 35-44. Web.
Posluszna, Elzbieta. Environmental and Animal Rights Extremism, Terrorism, and National Security. Waltham, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2015. Print.
