Running head: THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY OF ANIMAL TESTING

The Good the Bad and the Ugly of Animal Testing

Stacey Roberts
Nathan Cole
English 1010-026
IEP

THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY OF ANIMAL TESTING

Abstract
This paper analyzes five published scholarly articles. One video containing opinions from animal
rights activists and the researchers at UCLA who experiment on the animals. And one statistic
done by the Gallup organization who performed a public study on the publics opinions on the
morality of medical testing on animals. These five articles provide valuable viewpoints for my
paper. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. (2014) and Research, P. P. (2009). American
Anti-Vivisection Society. (2013) both disagree with animal testing and claim it is cruel,
unethical, and unnecessary. Whereas G. Derbyshire, S. W. (2009) claim animal experimentation
to be ethical and a necessary evil to the advancement in medicine. PIR (partners in research)
believe that animal experimentation is necessary to ensure product safety. And Solomon, G.
(2004) supports chemical testing on animals because she claims it saves lives. As you can see
animal testing is a very controversial subject.

THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY OF ANIMAL TESTING

Animal testing has become a big controversial issue that has changed throughout the
decades. The majority of people nowadays have such strong opinions on the issue that they are
heavily divided. Animal testing has affected a broad spectrum of people such as the scientists
and researchers who perform the experiments, the public who has been personally affected by it
and the millions of animals lives taken for experimentation. This issue is divided between
agreeing that animal testing is necessary for the advancement of medicine, animal testing is cruel
and unethical and then there are those who only agree with animal testing for certain
circumstances. Animal testing is being done all over the world. It is stricter in places like Europe
than in The United States because of their several rules and regulations. Animal testing has been
done all over the country to prevent the spread of chemical agents, viruses, and diseases. Animal
testing started to become an issue when the mis-treatment of animals and the ethical issues
behind it started to become addressed.
The Gallup organization performed a public study on the publics opinions of the
morality of medical testing on animals. The study was done over a ten year period from 20012012. The public was given five choices; morally acceptable, morally wrong, depends on the
situation, not a moral issue, and no opinion. Every year the majority of the people chose that
medical testing on animals is morally acceptable. In 2001 65% of the people chose that medical
testing on animals is morally acceptable. By 2010 the percentage of people with a strong opinion
towards medical testing on animals dropped by 6% leaving the end result a 59%. These statistics
provide a relative idea of the general publics opinions. Below is a poll given to the public from
2001-2010 of the publics opinions regarding animal testing. (Figure1)

THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY OF ANIMAL TESTING

(Figure 1)

THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY OF ANIMAL TESTING

Stuart W.G. Derbyshire claims that Research animals are a necessary evil, when in fact
they are just necessary. Animal testing provides our future with new advancements in medicine.
The more scientists study and experiment the more knowledge they obtain. According to Stuart
the three Rs (refinement, reduction, and replacement) take away the focus of the experiment and
research. Future cures and treatments rely on animal experimentation. The information scientists
obtain from every experiment create new possibilities in the advancement of medicine.
Chemical testing on animals is an essential tool to advance any further research and
protect human health. Senior Scientist Gina Solomon, assistant clinical professor of medicine at
the University of California, San Francisco provides an example of her patients personal
experience with how animal testing has saved her life. Her patient was pregnant and worked in a
laboratory. Regularly she came into contact with a chemical solvent. Gina Solomon researched
this chemical and found out it could cause birth defects and other serious problems in women
who are pregnant. They quickly solved the solution by staying away from this chemical solvent
from the time she would be pregnant. The benefits of animal testing are endless when it comes to
curing new diseases and coming up with new treatments. Testing a drug on an animal before
being administered to a human is very beneficial. An example is if a child consumes a harmful
product the parents are able to call a poison control center and get help immediately. Before
animal testing many humans died. The need for safe drugs is a must, therefore the most effective
way is to properly test it on animals.
Animal testing has been around for decades and has helped the field of medicine advance
tremendously. Personally I think animal testing should continue because it saves lives, provides a
safer environment, and provides more knowledge. Animal experimenters should continue to

THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY OF ANIMAL TESTING

follow the regulations and laws in place to protect the animals. In order to advance our studies in
medical animal experimentation is needed to fulfill our needs.

Animal testing is cruel and unnecessary. The animals being researched and experimented
are being burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs, and
brain damaged while they are still under the law. There is also the argument that the animals do
not have a way to provide consent to the experiment. According to the AAVS (American AntiVivisection Society) organization the results researchers obtain from animals cannot possibly be
relevant towards humans. There are several ways to experiment a cure for a disease without
experimenting on animals such as In-Vitro testing.

Gina Solomon believes that animal testing should only be done in certain circumstances
such as tests searching for birth defects. She does not agree with the fact that chemicals are tested
in animals. When she was going through medical school she did not participate in animals
dissections for her own ethical reasons. She did not like how they were for practice instead of
protection for the environment and health. However in certain circumstances like to protect
people, pets, and the wild life from dangerous chemicals. She believes tests in lab animals are
critically important to keep people safe. When a humans life is at stake than animal testing is a
must in order to protect people.
Animal experimentation has been necessary for the advancement of medicine, it is also a
cruel act towards animals, and it protects people under certain circumstances. All of these three
points have been debated several times on what the right thing to do is. Animal experimentation

THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY OF ANIMAL TESTING

has served a valuable purpose which has been the millions of humans lives saved because of the
research and experiments performed. The moral and ethical standpoints regarding animal testing
have been addressed through the rules and regulations the scientists and researchers have to
abide by. Many scientists such as Gina Solomon believe animal testing is something that should
be done but only for a special cause. She understands the progress and advancements that come
with animal experimentation but only if it will protect humans, pets, and our environment. In
conclusion we have to decide between animals or humans for the future experiments.

THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY OF ANIMAL TESTING

References
American Anti-Vivisection Society. (2013). Animal Research Is Unethical and Scientifically
Unnecessary. In S. C. Hunnicutt (Ed.), At Issue. Animal Experimentation. Detroit:
Greenhaven Press. (Reprinted from Problems with Animal Research, 2011) Retrieved
from
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failO
verType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&displayquery=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&currPage=&disableHi
ghlighting=false&displayGroups=&sortBy=&search_within_results=&p=OVIC&action=
e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010002249&source=B
ookmark&u=slcc&jsid=438bd8d55ea66b9584940bd82e56ad14
Americans for Medical Progress. (2013). Medical Progress Depends on Animal Research. In S.
C. Hunnicutt (Ed.), At Issue. Animal Experimentation. Detroit: Greenhaven Press.
(Reprinted from Animal Research Means Medical Progress, 2012) Retrieved from
http://ic.galegroup.com.dbprox.slcc.edu/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetail
sWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModul
es=&displayquery=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&dviSelectedPage=&limiter=&cu
rrPage=&disableHighlighting=&displayGroups=&sortBy=&zid=&search_within_results
=&p=OVIC&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ30
10002248&source=Bookmark&u=slcc&jsid=555087c46506abdb1d59a9a671db905c
Animal Testing Ethics. (2008). R&E Newsweekly. Retrieved
fromhttp://ic.galegroup.com.dbprox.slcc.edu/ic/ovic/VideosDetailsPage/VideosDetailsWi

THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY OF ANIMAL TESTING

ndow?total=10&query=OQE+animal+testing&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&mo
de=view&limiter=&displayGroupName=Videos&currPage=1&displayGroups=&sortBy
=relevance%2Cdescending&p=OVIC&action=e&catId=&view=docDisplay&documentI
d=GALE%7CCT3208605831&source=Bookmark&u=slcc&jsid=5748318f6e7a035822b
92e4a642206ba

G. Derbyshire, S. W. (2009). Animal Experimentation Is Ethical. In R. D. Lankford, Jr. (Ed.), At

Issue. Animal Experimentation. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. (Reprinted from The
Scientist, 2006, February, 20, 23) Retrieved from
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failO
verType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&displayquery=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&currPage=&disableHi
ghlighting=false&displayGroups=&sortBy=&search_within_results=&p=OVIC&action=
e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010002232&source=B
ookmark&u=slcc&jsid=6684127dcdb02e4e6e03798b95b22bb1
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. (2014). Medical Testing on Animals Is Cruel and
Unnecessary. In N. Merino (Ed.), Opposing Viewpoints. Medical Testing. Farmington
Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press. (Reprinted from Animal Experiments: Overview, 2012)
Retrieved from
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failO
verType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&displayquery=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&currPage=&disableHi
ghlighting=false&displayGroups=&sortBy=&search_within_results=&p=OVIC&action=

THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY OF ANIMAL TESTING

10

e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010895214&source=B
ookmark&u=slcc&jsid=d50de00f52652ac16315be3d29dec72fz
Public opinion on the morality of medical testing on animals, 2001-10. (2011). In K. M.
Evans, Information Plus Reference Series. Animal Rights (2011 ed.). Detroit: Gale.
Retrieved from
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/StatisticsDetailsPage/StatisticsDetailsWindow?limiter=&
displayGroupName=Statistics&displayGroups=&p=OVIC&prodId=OVIC&action=e&wi
ndowstate=normal&view=statisticsDocDisplay&documentId=GALE%7CEJ2220006498
&source=Bookmark&u=slcc&jsid=358d1b6a6a8bb7794d32576c434ceef1
Research, P. P. (2009). Animal Experimentation Is Necessary to Ensure Product Safety. In R.
D. Lankford, Jr. (Ed.), At Issue. Animal Experimentation. Detroit: Greenhaven Press.
(Reprinted from Product Safety Testing, PIR Partners Research, 2008) Retrieved from
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failO
verType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&displayquery=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&currPage=&disableHi
ghlighting=false&displayGroups=&sortBy=&search_within_results=&p=OVIC&action=
e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010002236&source=B
ookmark&u=slcc&jsid=b9749d1f372e080226a9f78596b566cc
Solomon, G. (2004). Chemical Testing on Animals Saves Lives. In C. Mur (Ed.), At
Issue. Animal Experimentation. San Diego: Greenhaven Press. (Reprinted from Earth
Island Journal, 2002, Autumn, 17, 47-49) Retrieved from
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failO

THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY OF ANIMAL TESTING

11

verType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&displayquery=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&currPage=&disableHi
ghlighting=false&displayGroups=&sortBy=&search_within_results=&p=OVIC&action=
e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010002229&source=B
ookmark&u=slcc&jsid=8481098d4e7d839b2d65ea7e414a54fd