In the Society of Toxicology’s (SOT) public policy statement, toxicology is defined as the study of the interaction of chemical substances with living tissue in the context of the following issues: how they affect a biological organism’s processes, how to reduce the chemical substance’s potential harm to the organism, and what are safe levels of exposure (Society of Toxicology, 1999). The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the SOT’s position statement on animal testing. The topics addressed in the paper are how toxicity levels are determined, the application of SOT principles to course material, and the objectives and endpoints of toxicity testing. Finally, the validity of the assumptions of the SOT position statement is discussed.
The SOT report explains why animals must be used, the benefits of the use of animals in research, and an outline of the ethical treatment of animals in research. The justification of the use of animals in research and testing is because living organisms, including the environment, are highly complex with multiple interactions between different systems within organism. It is only possible to truly determine toxicity levels if the chemical substance is tested on a living organism. To summarize the SOT’s position statement, SOT states that its aim is to conduct research and disseminate information that enhances the health and safety of the animals and humans and protects the environment (SOT, 1999). The mandate as outlined in the position statement is to conduct the best possible research, use animals in research responsibly and only when necessary, use alternatives to animals, use research designs that requires less stress and pain to animals, and reduce the number of animals in research and testing when possible.
The SOT report claims that toxicologists determine the level of exposure that causes adverse health effects with a graduated series of tests that start with test tubes and then move to animals, then possibly to humans. Using a stepped research design allows the identification of the crossover point when beneficial effect shifts to adverse effect. In vitro and animal models, acceptable to the scientific community, are used to determine the level of toxicity.
The SOT principles set out guidelines that responsible researchers can follow to ensure that their research is ethical with regard to animal testing. The guidelines are a reminder to seek alternatives to animals in research. The guidelines can be applied at the initial conception of a research project because this is the point at which the research can be designed to include procedures that minimize the harm to animals, and minimize the number of animals used.
The objectives of toxicity testing are to establish points at which a substance switches from beneficial to harmful. The switching point is different in animals than in humans. Among humans, the point is different for women than it is for men. In addition, the costs of removing a toxic substance from the environment can be evaluated. The endpoints are to make sure that technological innovations are safe to use, in the dosages established by toxicological testing, before they reach the marketplace or are applied to the environment.
SOT seeks to limit the pain and suffering caused to animals in the course of testing and research. There is no lack of disagreement with SOT’s assumption that some level of animal use is essential (Cruelty Free International, n.d.; Liou, 2010; PETA, 2011) or those who regard that the assumption of the necessity of using animals is at least worthy of debate (Liou, 2010; ProCon.org, n.d.). On the other side, Festing and Wilkinson (2007) agree with the SOT in saying that no responsible scientist would use animals in research if it was not necessary. Indeed, they characterize animal rights advocates and anti-vivisection groups as extremists, dangerous to scientific progress, sentimentalists, and downright crackpots.
However, there are carefully reasoned arguments against the use of animals in research that question the assumptions of animal experimentation. For example, Nordgren (2002) reviews the history of the debate between animal rights activists and scientists. Nordgren states that those arguing for the necessity of animal experimentation operate from the assumptions of the evolutionary psychology, specifically, humans are psychologically wired to assume that animals occupy a lower status than do human beings and therefore human beings have the right to use animals for their own benefit. The SOT position statement does indeed accept the assumption that humans have rights that supersede those of animals. For example, the ordering of the steps in determining the levels of toxicity is in vitro to animal model to human; therefore, testing on humans is done only after gross measurements of toxicity have been determined. Also, the SOT position statement claims to be using animal experimentation to ensure the safety of humans and animals, and no mention is made of human experimentation being used to ensure the safety of animals and humans. The above argument is made in the realm of philosophy and the legal definition of personhood, and although the arguments are valid, they are difficult to apply to science.
A more relevant argument against animal experimentation is to question another assumption of the SOT report, and that is the efficacy of animal experimentation within the realm of the tradition of the scientific method. The first items under the SOT position statement is “the design and conduct of the best possible scientific research” (Society of Toxicology, 1999, p. 5). If the aim of the study is to determine the level of toxicity of any given chemical substance on humans, then human beings should be the subjects of the study. To use animals is to not directly address the study purpose, and the results are therefore either incomplete or invalid.
References
Festing, S. & Wilkinson, R. (2007). The ethics of animal research: Talking point on the use of animals in scientific research. The ethics of animal research. EMBO Reports, 8, 526-530. DOI 10.1038/sj.embor.7400993
Liou, S. (2010). Animal research: The ethics of animal experimentation. Huntington’s Outreach Program for Education, At Stanford. Available at http://web.stanford.edu/group/hopes/cgi-bin/hopes_test/animal-research/
Nordgren, A., (2005). Animal experimentation: pro and con arguments using the theory of evolution. Medicine, Healthcare, and Philosophy, 5(1), 23-32.
PETA. (2011). Top five reasons to stop animal testing. PETA. Available at http://www.peta.org/blog/top-five-reasons-stop-animal-testing/
ProCon.org. (n.d.) Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing? Retrieved on May 17, 2016 at http://animal-testing.procon.org/
SOT. (1999). Animals in Research: The Importance of Animals in the Science of Toxicology. Reston, VA: Society of Toxicology. Available at https://www.toxicology.org/pubs/docs/air/AIR_Final.pdf
