Gallardo 1

Animal Testing

Thesis: Animal testing of products should be banned because the test results are deceptive,

better alternatives exist and the practice of animal testing results in unethical treatment of

animals.

I. Animal testing of products should be banned because the test results are deceptive.

A. Humans do not always have the same reactions as animals while product testing.

1. Physiological reactions to drugs vary from species to species.

2. Metabolic rates in humans and animals can vary immensely.

3. You cannot recreate human illnesses’ exact conditions in animals.

B. Animals in labs typically display behaviors indicating extreme psychological

distress, which makes results unclear.

1. Stress can change the way medication affects animals.

2. Animal testing of psychological drugs would be inaccurate because most

animals will be in a more extreme state of distress.

3. The behavior of the animal could change because of stress and discomfort,

or the medication. This makes scientists unable to see if the testing was

successful.

II. Animal testing of products should be banned because better alternatives exist.

A. Human testing is becoming more common and is more accurate.

1. Micro-dosing - volunteers are given a small one-time drug dose, and

imaging techniques are used to see how a drug behaves in the body.
 Gallardo 2

2. Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) - used to track how the

brain reacts to a drug.

3. Intracranial Electroencephalography - a technique that allows the human

brain to be studied to a single neuron.

B. Non-animal and non-human alternatives exist that are very reliable.

1. In-vitro testing - a testing method which uses human cells and tissues.

2. Computer modeling - simulates human biology and the progression of

developing diseases.

3. Human patient simulations - lifelike computerized human patient

simulation that gives the appropriate response to medical treatments and

injections of medication.

III. Animal testing of products should be banned because the practice results in the unethical

treatment of animals.

A. Animal Welfare Act - allows any experiment no matter how painful or trivial to

be carried out without pain relief.

1. In 2010-2014, nearly a half million of animals were subject to painful

experiments and not provided with pain relief.

2. The United States does not require that alternatives to animals for

experiments be used when available.

3. The AWA gives some protection to animals, but it does not protect mice,

rats, birds, and cold-blooded animals in any way.

 Gallardo 3

B. The physical and psychological stress is increasingly apparent in how the animals

act.

1. Many animals cower in fear every time a person walks by its cage.

2. Many social animals, such as baboons, are separated from their families

and other animals of the same species, resulting in unhappiness and

depression.

3. Many animals are handled roughly, which heightens their fear and stress

levels.

IV. Counter-Argument: Animal testing is better because humans do not have to be tested on.

A. Humans should not have to go through the pain or inconvenience of being tested

on.

1. Humans have better things to do with their time.

2. Animals are readily available for testing, while humans are not.

3. Humans are superior to animals.

B. Humans could become very sick due to being experimented on.

1. Poor people could be taken advantage of by testing companies that pay

them to test.

2. Negative side effects, such as diseases or chronic illnesses, could occur

when testing is unsafe.

3. It is better to have one sick animal than one sick human.

C. Animal testing could be considered accurate.

 Gallardo 4

1. Animals are genetically similar to humans, making the test results more

accurate to humans.

2. It is beneficial to observe the complex interactions of cells, tissues, and

organs in living animals when experimenting.

3. Many major medical advances are attributable to experiments on animals.

D. Reply to counter-argument: Testing does not have to happen on animals or

humans because their are other options.

1. Human testing exists that is safe and more reliable than animal testing.

2. Non-animal and non-human computer modeling programs exist that do

not hurt anyone and are become increasingly more accurate.

3. Human testing and computer modeling programs are more accurate than

animal testing.
 Gallardo 5

Sarah Gallardo

AP English IV

Mr. Cullen

04-27-2018

Animal Testing

Most people tend to be cat or dog people, others like mice or rabbits, and some might like

all, some, or no animals. Regardless of how anyone sees them, animals should be treated

ethically. Animals feel emotions and pain, as humans do. Many animals live their lives in

cages, normally separated from others of their kind, in a lonely and scary environment because

of animal testing. These animals can be subjected to testing of all kinds, including tests that can

be extremely harmful to the animals. Animals, while not always liked, should not be tortured for

the sake of humans, however, this occurs all of the time. An animal that was forced to

experience the horrors of testing facilities is Bea. Bea is a beagle that lived inside a cage and

was used in laboratory experiments in an animal testing facility in Hungary. Being three months

old when she was shipped to the facility, she never got to be a normal puppy, or dog for that

matter. During her time at the facility, she was known only by the number tattooed in her ear.

When she was finally rescued, she was distant, scared, and would often cower in the presence of

humans. She is one of many dogs that has gone through this atrocious experience, but she is also

one of a few that have been liberated from it. No animal should have to go through this type of

abuse. Animal testing of products should be banned because the test results are deceptive, better

alternatives exist, and the practice results in unethical treatment of animals.

 Gallardo 6

Animal testing of products should be banned because the test results are deceptive. One

reason why test results are deceptive is that humans do not always have the same reactions as

animals while product testing. An example of animals not reacting in the same ways as humans

is shown through penicillin. The man that discovered penicillin, Sir Alexander Fleming, said,

“How fortunate we did not have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably

have never been granted a license, and probably the whole field of antibiotics might never have

been realized.” Penicillin kills guinea pigs and is inactive in rabbits, so the medicinal uses of it

could have been undiscovered had animal testing been used. The Food and Drug

Administration, also known as the FDA, has noted that ninety-two percent of all drugs that are

shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials. Also, of the small percentage

of drugs approved for human use, half end up being relabeled because of side effects that were

not identified in tests on animals” (“Animal Testing Is Bad Science”).

Another reason why the test results are deceptive is that the metabolic rates in humans

and animals can vary. Metabolic rate is the amount of energy expended by an animal over a

specific time. An animal’s body size, activity level, and environment impacts the ways it uses

and obtains energy. Small animals, such as mice, have faster metabolic rates than large animals,

such as humans, in order to keep their internal temperature balanced. Many laboratory animals

have slower metabolic rates than domestic or wild counterparts due to being kept in cages for

long periods of time. The activity levels of laboratory animals are very low, further contributing

to the decreased metabolic rates of these animals. The environment of a laboratory is extremely

stressful, a topic that will be explained later, resulting in a decrease in the animal’s metabolic

rate. The test results of domestic, wild, and laboratory animals would vary decently, so the
 Gallardo 7

compared test results of laboratory animals and humans would have far greater contrast. Overall,

the varying metabolic rates between humans and animals result in deceptive test results.

The final reason for why test results of animal testing is deceptive is because you cannot

recreate human illnesses’ exact conditions in animals. Researchers want to find a cure to or

prevent an illness. In order to prevent or find a cure to an illness, a researcher would need an

animal with that illness. The accuracy of the test then becomes less applicable as they further

stray from the intended human recipient. For example, researchers cannot give a rabbit Type 1

Diabetes with an HBA1C of 10 to see how to properly treat a human with the same condition; it

is not possible.

Animals in labs typically display behaviors indicating extreme psychological distress,

which makes testing results unclear. Stress can change the way medication affects animals.

Experimenters acknowledge that the use of these stressed out animals jeopardizes the validity of

the data produced. Many animals experience cruelty throughout animal testing. It is mainly due

to cruelty that animals become so stressed.

Millions of mice, rats, rabbits, primates, cats, dogs, and other animals are locked inside

barren cages in laboratories across the country. They languish in pain, suffer from

extreme frustration, ache with loneliness, and long to be free. Instead, all they can do is

sit and wait in fear of the next terrifying and painful procedure that will be performed on

them. The complete lack of environmental enrichment and the stress of their living

situation cause some animals to develop neurotic types of behavior such as incessantly

spinning in circles, rocking back and forth, pulling out their own fur, and even biting
 Gallardo 8

themselves. They shake and cower in fear whenever someone approaches, and their

blood pressure spikes dramatically. . . (“Animal Testing 101”)

Animal testing should be banned because better alternatives exist, such as human,

non-animal, and non-human testing. Human testing has become more common and is more

accurate. There are several different ways to perform tests on humans, but the three that are

becoming more common are micro-dosing, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and

intracranial electroencephalography. “Micro-dosing is the practice and monitoring of

administering a small one-time drug dose to human volunteers. Functional magnetic resonance

imaging is a tool that is used track how the brain reacts to a drug. Finally, intracranial

electroencephalography is a technique that allows the brain to be studied to the point of a single

neuron” (“Alternatives to Animal Testing” PETA). These tests allow researchers to determine

the effects of medications or products on human test subjects, which could possibly help a

company have not only more accurate but more positive test results. Positive test results in

humans for drug trials are very important in speeding along the FDA approval process and

marketing of a drug. These tests would be more beneficial to the people running the tests and

give them less of a reason to rely on animals for testing.

When humans are not available for testing, there is still another option besides using

animals. Non-animal and non-human alternatives exist that are very reliable. “In-vitro testing is

a method that uses human cells and tissues, but not an actual human. Human tissue can be

donated from surgery or after a person has died” (“Alternatives to animal testing” CFI). In-vitro

testing can be used in disease research, drug testing, and toxicity testing and has been shown to

replicate human physiology, diseases, and drug responses more accurately than crude animal
 Gallardo 9

experiments do. A variety of cell-based tests and tissue models can be used to assess the safety

of drugs, chemicals, cosmetics, and consumer products. Through the use of human cells and

tissues researchers are able to determine, without harming a person or animal, the effects of a

substance. Another non-human and non-animal testing method is computer modeling, which

simulates human biology and the progression of developing diseases. An example of computer

modeling is a QSAR. A Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship, or QSAR, is a

computer-based technique that can replace animal tests and estimate a substance’s likelihood of

being hazardous. This technique could potentially save the lives of humans and animals. Yet

another non-human and non-animal testing method is the use of human patient simulators.

Human patient simulations are lifelike computerized human patient simulations that gives the

appropriate response to medical treatments and injections of medication. These human patient

simulations can breathe, bleed, convulse, talk, and die. Ninety-seven percent of medical schools

across the United States completely replaced the use of animal laboratories in medical training

with simulators such as this” (“Alternatives to Animal Testing” PETA). It is easy to see how

useful something like this could be, especially when no animals or humans are harmed in the

process.

Animal testing of products should be banned because the practice results in the unethical

treatment of animals. Many animals used for experimentation, by law, do not have to be treated

well. “The Animal Welfare Act does not cover mice, rats, birds, reptiles, and amphibians at all.

These animals can be treated in any way the researcher sees fit” (“Using Animals for Medical

Testing”). No veterinary care or pain relief is required for these animals, nor it is required of

researchers to search for and consider alternatives to animal use in experiments. Mice, rats,
 Gallardo 10

birds, reptiles, and amphibians make up more than ninety-nine percent of animals used in

experiments. “Between 2010 and 2014, nearly a half million of animals were subject to painful

experiments and not provided with pain relief, excluding mice, rats, birds, reptiles, and

amphibians” (“Animal Testing Is Bad Science”). The number of mice, rats, birds, reptiles, and

amphibians subjected to painful experiments is basically immeasurable due to the fact that

experimenters are not required to count the number that they kill. Also, if the experimenters only

use mice, rats, birds, reptiles, and amphibians then they do not have to be inspected by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, also known as the USDA.

Physical and psychological stress is increasingly apparent in how animals used in

experiments act and react. An animal that is continually in contact with a human, unless it is

being abused or is not treated well, tends to become relaxed around that human. This is not the

case for many animals used for experiments. Many animals cower in fear every time a person

walks by its cage. The unnaturally small amount of room given to the animals to move in adds

to the stress-filled reactions. Animals are also kept away from other animals. Many social

animals, such as baboons, are separated from their families and other animals of the same

species, resulting in unhappiness and depression, which could also result in death. On the other

hand, many animals are corralled together into tiny areas, resulting in more stress and anxiety.

When not enough room is given to the animals, it could cause sickness, and even death. “The

living areas are not the only reasons for stress. Many animals are handled roughly, which

heightens their fear and stress levels” (“Cruelty to Animals in Laboratories”). An animal

handled ethically should not have these reactions. The fact that many animals used for

experiments feel and act stressed shows that they are not being treated correctly. If a pet owner
 Gallardo 11

noticed any of these symptoms in their animal, they would be rightly concerned. It is unnatural

for any animals to be put under such a large amount of stress, and it is unethical.

On the other hand, animal testing should not be banned because animals take the place of

humans in experiments. “Scientists say that banning animal experiments would mean either an

end to testing new drugs or using human beings for all safety tests” (“Animal Experimentation”).

Humans should not have to go through the inconvenience of being tested, nor should they have

to deal with the possible pain that could result from the testing. Most people have better things

to do with their time. The average person normally has a job and a family to take care of, so they

do not have time to participate in lengthy experiments. Animals are always readily available for

testing, while humans are not. Most laboratory animals, being our r-selected species, produce

offspring at a higher growth rate; humans, on the other hand, are k-selected species, resulting in

lower growth rates and less offspring. The higher growth rate makes it easier for animals to be

expendable in a laboratory setting. Humans, while considered animals, are superior to animals

not of the human species, because human life has greater value. If any animal should have to

suffer through the pain of being tested, it should not be humans.

Humans, if used for experimentation, could become very ill. Products not tested on

animals could have unforeseen side effects on humans participating in tests. Companies would

lose money because they would have to pay people to participate in possibly dangerous tests.

These companies could also take advantage of poor people that need the money or treatment.

People who might not have the money to receive medical treatment are more likely to participate

in paid experiments, so that instead of paying for healthcare they are getting paid to test the

product. Especially when companies start to lose money, testing can become unsafe. Negative
 Gallardo 12

side effects, such as diseases or chronic illness, could occur when testing is unsafe. Choosing

between having one sick animal or one sick human is an easy choice for most people.

Obviously, a lot of people would rather have a sick animal than a sick human.

Animal testing could be considered accurate to humans for several reasons. Animals are

genetically similar to humans, making the test results more accurate to humans. The DNA of

animals is the closest DNA to humans that can be used by researchers without using actual

human DNA. It is beneficial to observe the complex interactions of cells, tissues, and organs in

living animals when experimenting. Also, many major medical advances are attributable to

experiments on animals. Examples of this include blood transfusions, anesthesia, and insulin.

“In other words, animal testing has worked and benefited humans” (Blakemore).

Although experimentation on humans seems to be horrific, many human experiments are

safe and would not cause side effects. Many researchers would not put a human through

suffering, oftentimes finding ways to perform the experiments without animals or humans. The

testing of products does not have to happen on animals or humans because their are many other

alternatives. Regardless, human testing is safe and more reliable than animal testing exists. It

has more benefits for the researchers that are doing the testing. A human’s DNA is definitely

more likely to give an accurate response than an animal’s DNA. Using animals for

experimentation when more accurate human DNA or computer modeling programs are available

is completely unethical. There is no reason to put the animal through suffering when it is not

needed and can easily be avoided by using other methods.

Overall, animal testing of products should be banned because the test results are

deceptive, better alternatives exist and the practice results in unethical treatment of animals.
 Gallardo 13

Banning animal testing of products would result in a more accurate testing of human products

and less tortured, dead animals. More animals would get to live their fullest life and have

opportunities to find homes and families.

 Gallardo 14

Works Cited

BBC. "Animal Experimentation." Experiments on Animals. BBC, n.d. Web. 2 Apr. 2017.

Blakemore, Colin. "Should We Experiment on Animals? Yes." Science News. The Telegraph, 28

Oct. 2008. Web. 2 Apr. 2017

Cruelty Free International. "Alternatives to Animal Tests Are Often Cheaper, Quicker and More

Effective." Alternatives to Animal Testing. Cruelty Free International, n.d. Web. 2 Apr.

2017.

PETA. "Alternatives to Animal Testing." Animals Used for Experimentation. PETA, n.d. Web. 2

Apr. 2017.

PETA. "Animal Testing Is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint." Animals Used for

Experimentation. PETA, n.d. Web. 2 Apr. 2017.

PETA. "Animal Testing 101." Animals Used For Experimentation. PETA, n.d. Web. 2 Apr.

2017.

PETA. "Cruelty to Animals in Laboratories." Animals Used for Experimentation. PETA, n.d.

Web. 2 Apr. 2017.

"Using Animals for Medical Testing Is Unethical and Unnecessary." The Ethics of Medical

Testing. Ed.