Chuan Lin

Period 6
Medical Ethics
Should animal testing be allowed at the expense of living animals?
Animal testing has both its advocates and its opponents. However, people are
severely mistaken if they believe animal testing should be banned. Most of the opponents
for animal testing are simply arguing the welfare of the animals being tested on and any
cruelty the animals are being treated to. Others may say that animal testing is ineffective
and that there are other methods to finding treatments.
Lets start with those who say, Animal testing is bad because animal testing is
cruel. Yes, we all know that already, but animal testing is necessary and that is why we
have certain rules and regulations. All scientists follow a set of guiding principles called
the three Rs. The three are Rs are replacement, reduction, and refinement.
Replacement refers to using non-animal methods of testing when possible. In
other words, if animal testing wasnt necessary people wouldnt be it in the first place.
Reduction refers to using the fewest number of animals possible to obtain a result. This
also ensures that fewer animals are being tested on. However, this obviously may have an
adverse effect because as opponents of animal testing argue, animal testing isnt always
successful. This lack of success can be attributed to a deficiency in test subjects. Finally,
refinement states that testing should be refined as much as possible to reduce the
suffering of test subjects. Put simply, researchers dont blindly test animals with drugs
without attempting to obtain a specific outcome.

Aside from the three Rs, there are other laws and regulations. The Animal
Welfare Act provides protection for certain species. The U.S. Department of Agriculture
enforces the Animal Welfare Act. Under the Animal Welfare Act, businesses and
individuals using animals for testing must be licensed or registered with the USDA.
Facilities used also must undergo yearly inspections by the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service. Research institutions are also required to establish an Institutional
Animal Care and Use Committee to oversee institutions for animal testing and makes
sure certain regulations are followed. They inspect animal labs at least twice a year,
report deficiencies win animal care, respond to public complaints, and perform several
other duties.
Opponents of animal testing may argue that these laws are flawed. For example,
the Animal Welfare Act doesnt cover all animals. Furthermore, there are only 115 USDA
inspectors to oversee more than 7,750 licensed facilities, involved in research, exhibition,
breeding, or dealing of animals. Inspections are also sometimes inadequate and serious
violations may be ignored. I agree that the system is not without its faults. However, this
is something that can be fixed. In 2002, the Animal Welfare Act had been amended to
exclude mice, rats, and birds. Prior to the 2002 amendment, the Animal Welfare Act had
all warm-blooded animals under its protection. Therefore, there is much controversy
over this amendment. Inclusion of all warm-blooded animals, rather than excluding some,
and better training of USDA inspectors, as well as increasing the number of inspectors,
would greatly reduce resistance towards animal testing animal testing. Furthermore, most
money for research comes from government grants that require comprehensive animal
care and a welfare program. This is the Public Health Service Policy on Human Care and

Use of Laboratory Animals and it further serves as an incentive for better animal care.
Funding for animal testing often comes from grants or organizations that provide funds to
testing facilities that treat their animals humanely.
The other major argument opponents of animal testing have is that animal testing
is insufficient and that there is a lack of success. Therefore, animal testing is a waste of
time and money when we could be spending those resources on alternative testing
methods. Indeed, there have been cases where incorrect animals have been used for
research. However, these cases are just cases in which those responsible for the testing
have made an incorrect choice in animal selection. For example, chimpanzees share 99%
of their DNA with humans. Furthermore, mice are 98% genetically similar to humans.
Why wouldnt we be testing treatments on these animals? While there may be other
methods, such as in vitro testing or human volunteers, nothing beats the real thing and
animal testing allows for a larger sample size to provide more accurate results. Even then,
there are many cases in which animal testing has been unsuccessful. However, this is to
be expected, since finding treatments isnt supposed to be easy.
Animal testing is essential to providing vaccines for new diseases. While there are
faults in regulations, animal testing in itself is not inherently wrong. There are times
when alternative methods should be used. However, this does not justify a ban on animal
testing.

Bibliography
O'Neill, S. (2012, March 27). Why animal research is still necessary. Retrieved
September 28, 2015, from http://newsciencejournalism.com/03/2012/why-animalresearch-is-still-necessary/

Laws and Regulations | Animal Use in Research. (2015). Retrieved September 28, 2015,
from http://www.neavs.org/research/laws

Who makes sure research animals are treated well? (2013). Retrieved September 28,
2015, from http://www.animalresearchcures.org/treatedwell.htm

Animal Experiments: Overview. (n.d.). Retrieved September 28, 2015, from

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-usedexperimentation-factsheets/animal-experiments-overview/

LEGAL ARENA. (n.d.). Retrieved January 5, 2016, from

http://www.navs.org/legal/animal-welfare-act

California Biomedical Research Association, "CBRA Fact Sheet: Why Are Animals
Necessary in Biomedical Research?," ca-biomed.org (accessed Oct. 15, 2013)

Animal Testing - ProCon.org. (n.d.). Retrieved January 5, 2016, from http://animaltesting.procon.org/