Right: In 1664, a Royal Society researcher, Robert Hooke, conducted an experiment on a dog to study the mechanics of breathing. Although Hooke's experiment (depicted in this contemporary painting) was informative and was considered by the scientist a success, he ended a description of the process with the words, `I shall hardly be induced to make any further trials of this kind, because of the torture of this creature'
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments in favour of animal testing
1. Human life is of greater value than animal life
It has been claimed that though the loss of animal life that often results from animal testing is regrettable, it is preferable to either the loss of human life through disease or through testing treatments initially on human beings.
Those who argue this claim human life is of greater value than animal life. In justifying this claim it is usually argued that human beings are the most intelligent, creative and adaptable creatures on the planet and that they have a level of consciousness and self-awareness that exceeds that of any other animal.
Relatedly, it is claimed that human consciousness and self-awareness means that human beings have a greater capacity to suffer than any other species. This argument is used to justify the use of animals other than human beings in animal testing.
This argument has been put Dario Ringach, who, on September 12, 2012, on the Internet site Speaking of Research, argued, 'A human mother that is contemplating death due to cancer, will suffer beyond her physical pain when thinking that her children will grow up without a her, that she will never see them marry or have children of their own, that she will leave her spouse alone to take care of the family.
It is her cognitive abilities that allow her to suffer in ways other animals cannot. Thus, if we agree that suffering is morally relevant, the type of suffering this mother experiences must count too. And because such suffering is enabled to beings with the cognitive abilities that allow them to pose such questions, one must conclude that human cognitive abilities are morally relevant too.'
2. Animal suffering is minimised in animal testing
It has been claimed that there are protocols in place which ensure that animals used in testing are treated in a way that minimises their distress.
The United Kingdom Internet site 'Understanding Animal Research aims to provide information and educational materials to increase understanding of the need for animal testing and the protocols which govern it.
The Internet site notes, 'The people who work in laboratories - scientists, vets, animal carers - are human beings like everyone else and have no desire to mistreat animals. For many of them it is their primary responsibility to look after the animals, and they work with laboratory animals because they are animal lovers. Many are also actively involved in developing scientific methods to reduce the need for animals or replace them entirely.'
It goes on to claim, 'Good science and good animal welfare go hand in hand. If an animal is suffering stress or pain it could affect the results of the research. So it makes good scientific sense to house animals in the best possible conditions and make sure they get the best possible care from skilled and experienced carers. What animals need is not always the same as what people think they need, so scientists are studying which environments different animals prefer.'
In the United Kingdom experiments are classified as mild, moderate or substantial in the amount of suffering they cause an animal. A fourth category of unclassified is used when the animal is anaesthetized but killed before regaining consciousness.
In December 2001 the breakdown of experimental licenses issued in the United Kingdom was:
39% mild
55% moderate
2% substantial
4% unclassified
Such a breakdown indicates that very few experiments cause substantial suffering to the animals involved.
In a letter published in The Age on December 9, 2012, Johannes Manning claimed, 'I am a retired vet and am one of those who benefit from having ''electric shocks to my head'' while undergoing treatment for Parkinson's disease (a treatment developed in monkeys). From the footage I saw, the monkeys [used in tests] looked healthy, had plenty of space, were in the company of other monkeys and showed normal behaviours.'
3. Many of the animals killed in animal testing have been specifically bred for this purpose
It is noted that many of the animals used in testing have been bred for this purpose. Those who argue in favour of animal testing further note that these creatures would not have been alive at all were they not needed for animal testing. It is also noted that they are bred and reared under humane conditions.
The pharmaceutical company Johnson and Johnson's Internet site states, 'When animal testing is necessary, it is our policy to use purpose-bred animals, which are born and raised under controlled conditions and specifically for testing. In certain geographic regions of the world, purpose-bred animals are not available and, in these cases, animals must be obtained through regulated dealers that meet our criteria for the humane care and use of laboratory research animals.'
The American Association for Laboratory Animal Science also states, 'While some research requires that dogs and cats are used, the vast majority of laboratory animals are rodents specifically bred for research. Nearly half of the dogs and cats needed for research are also bred for that purpose. Since state laws and local policies prevent many animal pounds and shelters from providing dogs and cats to research facilities, animal dealers are the primary source for the other half of the animals scientists require. These dealers must be licensed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and must adhere to Animal Welfare Act standards of care. Both dealers and research facilities can obtain dogs and cats only from specified sources and must comply with detailed record-keeping and waiting-period requirements. In addition, USDA conducts unannounced inspections of dealers and research facilities for compliance to help ensure research animals are not missing pets.'
4. Animal testing helps achieve advances that save human lives and ensure human safety
It has been claimed that animal testing is needed to save the lives and improve the health of human beings suffering from diseases and other debilitating conditions.
The Age, in an editorial published on November 25, 2012, noted, 'Organisations such as the Foundation for Biomedical Research say that without experimentation, the vaccines against "polio, diphtheria, mumps, rubella and hepatitis" would not exist.'
The same editorial also quotes Professor James McCluskey, deputy vice-chancellor of research at the University of Melbourne, who believes that testing on animals was 'absolutely crucial to huge areas of biomedicine, particularly the testing of drugs'.
In a letter published in The Age on December 2, 2012, Julia Veitch has stated, 'Don't we all have family and friends affected by health problems, who take medication and often wait anxiously on developments in medical research?
Without understanding how a biological mechanism works in vivo - in a living system or ''model'' - there is no hope of fixing the mechanism when it goes wrong, as it does in sickness. Living systems are highly complex, and developing successful therapeutics depends wholly on a good understanding of them. That is why the National Health and Medical Research Council funds medical research using animals.'
On its Internet site, the University of Minnesota has published a list of some of the major medical advances which have occurred as a result of animal testing. The list includes: 1796 - Smallpox vaccine developed (Cow); 1881 - Anthrax vaccine developed (Sheep); 1885 - Rabies vaccine developed (Dog, Rabbit); 1902 - Lifecyle of Malaria discovered (Pigeon); 1919 - Immunity mechanisms discovered (Rabbit, Horse, Guinea Pig); 1921 - Insulin discovered (Dog, Fish); 1932 - Neuron function discovered (Cat, Dog); 1933 - Tetanus vaccine developed (Horse); 1939 - Anticoagulants developed (Cat); 1954 - Polio vaccine developed (Mouse, Monkey); 1956 - Open-heart surgery & pacemakers developed (Dog); 1964 - Cholesterol regulation discovered (Rat); 1973 - Social & behavioural patterns in animals discovered (Fish, Bee, Bird);1982 - Leprosy treatment developed (Armadillo); 1990 - Organ transplant techniques advanced (Dog, Pig, Sheep, Cow); 1997 - Prions discovered & characterized (Hamster, Mouse); 2000 - Brain signal transduction discovered (Sea Slug, Mouse, Rat); 2002 - Cell death mechanism discovered (Worm).
5. Animal testing is properly regulated
It has been claimed that the members of ethics committees, making judgements as to whether particular animal tests should be approved, take their task seriously and make well-considered decisions. This claim is made even by some members of ethics committees who are not themselves research scientists.
In a letter published in The Age on December 9, 2012, Cormac McMahon stated, 'I am proud to be a non-scientific member of an ethics committee. Yes, the issues are complex and the scientific language of the applications can be daunting. But the tests a committee applies are not hard to understand: Does the study make a valuable contribution to our understanding of disease or developing treatments and is the animals' welfare built into every stage of the project?'
It has further been claimed that researchers are scrupulous in the applications they make to ethics committees justifying the use of animals in tests and experiments. It has been argued that this is the reason so few applications are denied.
In a letter published in The Age on December 9, 2012, biomedical research scientist, Philip Shehan, has claimed, 'The vast majority of researchers ensure the I's are dotted and T's are crossed in their applications. You do not wish to invite questions, delays, extra work and possible rejection by not doing so.
It is hardly surprising that applications routinely report there are no alternatives. The housing of and caring for animals is messy, time-consuming and expensive and grant money is scarce. Projects where alternatives can be used will by definition not be presented. The fact that few applications are rejected is evidence that researchers are unlikely to submit proposals that will not pass muster.'
A similar claim has been made by Swetha Murali, a PhD student at the University of Sydney, working in a neuropharmacology lab researching the development of novel therapeutics for treating chronic pain. Swetha Murali has stated, 'All scientists who work with animals spend a significant proportion of their time applying for approval from their institutional animal ethics committee for their work, and ensuring that approval is maintained. The committee is comprised of vets, experienced researchers, members of animal welfare organisations and independent people who are not associated with animal-based research, or with the institution.'
Swetha Murali has further stated, 'It's the responsibility of the scientist to meet the requirements of the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes. Failure means the denial of access to animals for research. And under New South Wales legislation, the penalty for cruelty to animals carries an imprisonment sentence of two years or more. Similar rules apply in all Australian states and territories. So, the consequences for deviating from accepted ethical guidelines are well understood and severe.'
6. There are often no reliable alternatives to animal testing
It has been claimed that there are often situations in which there are no viable alternatives to animal testing in order to develop treatments to assist human beings suffering a wide range of diseases and other debilitating conditions.
This point has been made by the National Health and Medical Research Council which has stated, 'Animal experimentation remains crucial to a proportion of NHMRC-funded research designed to find better ways of preventing, treating and curing human disease ... there are many situations where no alternatives exist.'
In relation the use of primates in animal testing, the National Health and Medical Research Council has stated, 'Some biomedical research is best undertaken on primates in order to allow the greatest relevance to understanding health and disease in humans.'
Swetha Murali, a PhD student at the University of Sydney, working in a neuropharmacology lab researching the development of novel therapeutics for treating chronic pain, has stated, 'The list of proposed alternatives to animal research...includes prevention programs, epidemiological studies, autopsies, in vitro research in cell cultures and computer modelling.'
Swetha Murali has raised a number of concerns regarding these alternatives, arguing, 'The first three are not alternatives at all. They don't actually lead to the development of novel treatments, just a better understanding of the efficacy of existing ones. Meanwhile the last two are already commonly used in most labs, but prior to and in conjunction with work with animals.'
Swetha Murali has further argued, 'And as powerful as modern computers are, there's still simply no comparison - the idea of successfully simulating the complexity present in organism-level biological systems is a pipe dream at present.'