Hettermann 1

H
Joshua Hettermann

Professor Kirchner

English 110

25 April 2010

Animal Experimentation: Are We in the Right?

The first documented use of animal experimentation for scientific purposes dates

back all the way to the 2nd and 4th centuries BC. Philosophers such as Aristotle and

Erasistratus were among the earliest humans to seek medical and scientific research by

experimenting on animals. Since then, and especially over the last century, the ethicality

and medical effectiveness of animal testing have been catalysts for fiery debates amongst

humans and scientists all over the world. On one side of the quagmire you have animal

rights activists and animal-lovers everywhere who proclaim that we do not have the right,

just because we are humans, to subject animals to often inhumane and torturous

procedures in an attempt to test human products. On the opposite side of the spectrum

you have many scientists and humanitarians that utilize research and evidence that have

been performed to illustrate the medical and scientific benefits of animal

experimentation. The United States is one of the leading countries in animal

experimentation. Some estimates indicate that as many as 115 million animals are

experimented on per year in the U.S (“StopAnimalTesting.org”). The immense medical

achievements and potential of animal experimentation including, but not limited to, the

successful development of vaccines for influenza and hepatitis B and the possibility of
 Hettermann 2

H
one for AIDS/HIV are why animals should definitely be used for the purpose of medical

research.

The argument on animal experimentation has always been an active one, despite

the fact that much of the testing flew under the public radar until the 1980s and 1990s.

Throughout the 20th century, a rapid increase of animals being tested spurned a likewise

rapid increase of organizations trying to stop, and spread word of, the testing.

Organizations such as PETA, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, publicized

examples of extremely poor, often extremely inhumane, treatment and living conditions

of lab animals. However, not all publicity associated with animal experimentation has

been negative. One of the earliest medical advancements due to animal testing was in the

early 19th century when French Chemist Louis Pasteur successfully infected sheep with

anthrax which proved the timeless medical debate over whether or not infections arose

spontaneously (Lloyd). Many countries have laws in place that require all new drugs and

vaccines to be tested on animals, such as the Medicines Act of 1968 in the United

Kingdom (De Boer). This particular law was put in place after the Thalidomide tragedy

in 1961 when the drug, a common sedative, caused thousands of birth defects in the U.K.

The drug was not tested on animals nor had much safety research been done on prior to

its release. Animal experimentation is performed for many different purposes, primarily

to test products and medicine and their effectiveness and safety on humans but also to

research animals and their biological makeup. While many labs use safe and humane

testing practices, there are those that have little regulation and often stressful and hurtful

environments for animals. Both sides of the debate use recent and classic examples of the
 Hettermann 3

H
benefits and issues associated with animal testing to clash over the ethical and medical

justification of animal experimentation.

Animal rights activists and groups that fight the existence of animal

experimentation use three main arguments in defending their position: first, that animal

experimentation is unethical. The second argument is that it is unscientific and contains

very few medical benefits. Combining those two sentiments of anti-animal

experimentation factions, the third argument is that animal experimentation can be

replaced with alternative testing. There is certainly cause to debate the ethicality of

animal testing: millions of animals have been mistreated, abused and even killed through

medical experimentation. However, just because animal experimentation has been, in

certain cases, unregulated and inhumane it does not mean that all animal testing is

unethical. Under correct regulations and through correct practices animals can, and have

been, tested on and not been harmed or damaged. The U.S. Animal Welfare Act ensures

that animals can only be tested under strict regulations and for medical purposes only.

Another aspect of the ethicality debate is that animals have rights and do not deserve to

be captured and tested. However, it is our job as human beings to continue to strive

scientifically and fight the many illnesses and diseases that decimate our population, and

testing breakthrough drugs and practices on animals is an efficient and effective way of

doing so. The long list of astounding and significant medical and scientific improvements

due to experimentation makes the argument that it is unscientific faulty and irrational.

Adversaries of animal experimentation such as Javier B. Burgos, the president of animal-

rights group The Nature of Wellness, disputes the thought that animals are similar enough
 Hettermann 4

H
to humans to perform accurate tests by asserting, “Since every species is unique, it is

absurd to believe that human diseases or ailments can be cured by applying information

garnered from animal experimentation. Would it be scientifically possible… to cure your

sick dog by researching on your uncle?” (Burgos). However, researchers like Mick Hume

imply that many animals do in fact have genetic similarities to humans that are significant

enough to ensure testing. Hume adds that “Scientists could not have achieved

advancements such as chemotherapy… without experimenting on primates… it is the

great genetic similarity between apes and humans that makes experimenting on them

expedient” (Hume). In accordance to alternative testing, academics such as George Poste,

a Veterinarian and director of the BioDesign Institute at Arizona State University, reject

the claim that alternative testing can replace animal testing, declaring that “Replacement

tests like computer simulations cannot reproduce the complexity of human genetics” and

that scientists all over the world are working on developing alternative methods that can

one day replace animals, but have not yet achieved such methods (Poste). While those

opposed to animal experimentation make some worthwhile arguments in their case, their

arguments are often misrepresented and misleading and do not accurately assess the

benefits of animal experimentation.

What do organ transplants, bypass surgery, heart catheterization, joint

replacement and open-heart surgery have in common? Their successful development and

use in the U.S. can be attributed to animal experimentation (Lankford). Educator Ronnie

Lankford, of the Foundation for Biomedical Research, is one of the most open advocates

for medical research on animals and emphasizes that “Practically every present-day
 Hettermann 5

H
protocol for the prevention, control, cure of disease and relief of pain is based on

knowledge attained—directly or indirectly—through research with animals”.

Animal research plays a vital and integral role in improving human health and

medicine. Survival rates for many deadly illnesses and diseases are at an all time

high, and statistics such as infant mortality rates dropping from about 47 deaths per

1000 births in 1947 to just 7 deaths per 1000 births 60 years later prove just how

influential animal testing has been (Lankford). One of the most well known ongoing

experiments of animal testing is the attempt to develop a cure for AIDS/HIV. While

no vaccines or actual cures have been developed yet, experimental treatments such

as the 1995 experimental treatment in which AIDS patient Jeff Getty was given the

bone marrow of an ape (because apes are immune to the virus) show just how

revolutionary animal testing can be and gives humans hope for a future solution to

one of the deadliest viruses ever (Murray). Dr. Joseph E. Murray, who performed the

first human kidney transplant in the world in 1954 and is an esteemed member of

the board of directors of Americans for Medical Progress, observes that “Had we

listened to [animal activists’] arguments 50 years ago, Children would still be

contracting polio… diabetics would not have insulin, a benefit of research on dogs…

we would also be without antibiotics for pneumonia”. The numbers and information

are astonishing. Mankind has entered an age in which the average lifespan and

disease prevention and cure are at all time highs, and are hopefully still growing,

and we can attribute those feats directly to animal testing and research. A disease

such as leprosy, which has devastated mankind for over 5000 years, now has
 Hettermann 6

H
effective antibiotics due to research on armadillos (Lloyd). Helen Cothran, another

member of the Foundation for Biomedical Research, reported in 2002 that research

on dogs, although being less than 1% of animals used, contributed vast medical

improvements to the human cardiovascular system, respiratory system,

gastrointestinal system, central organs and the skeletal system (Cothran). An

explanation for this could very well be that dogs’ genetic systems are very similar to

humans, making them very viable candidates for research. An astounding fact is that

the research on dogs has led to not only human medical benefits, but animals as

well, as Cothran points out, “Studies on dogs have led to the development of devices

and treatments for animals, including pacemakers, hip and artificial joint

replacements and diabetes treatments”. Why would we, as humans, not want to

continue testing animals when the benefits are so clear? Not only does it provide

immeasurable medical advancement for humans but for animals as well. The

countless medical achievements and improvements developed for humans and

animals alike due to animal experimentation prove that animals should in fact be

used to better the wellbeing of all living things.