Why Animal Testing Is Unethical And How To Stop It?

Animal experimentation has always been a source of contention among humans. Even though Europe, Israel, and India have already banned cosmetic testing on animals, animals are still used all over the world to test the safety of products, make-up, chemicals, and medicines.

Every year, about 115 million animals, including cats, dogs, monkeys, rats, etc., are burned, poisoned, tortured, and crippled in laboratories in the United States. They are poisoned on purpose with chemicals that are bad for them, get sick, and are kept in barren cages until they die. Here, we will discuss why animal testing is unethical and how to improve this situation.

Why is animal testing labeled “unethical” when it appears to be an unavoidable step before applying items or drugs to humans?

There are 3 major problems with this confidence that show why animal experimentation, no matter what disease category is being studied, is not a reliable way to learn about human health:

1. The effects of the lab environment and other factors on study results
2. Differences between animal models of disease and human diseases.
3. Differences in the physiology and genetics of different species.

Animals’ physiology and behavior are affected by lab procedures and conditions in ways that are hard to control and can affect the results of research. Animals in laboratories are forced to live their whole lives in artificial environments, usually in rooms with no windows. Captivity and the things that are usually found in biomedical labs, like artificial lighting, noises made by people, and small spaces to live in, can stop animals from acting like their own species, which can cause stress and strange behavior.

Another big problem with translational reliability is that animal models and human diseases don’t match up well enough. Most human diseases are caused on purpose in animals, but animal models aren’t very useful because it’s so hard to make anything even close to the complexity of human diseases. Even if an animal experiment is well thought out and done in a standard way, the results may not work in the clinic because the animal experiment model is not the same as the human condition.

Even if a lot of similarities were found between an animal model and its corresponding human disease, differences in physiology, behavior, pharmacokinetics, and genetics between species would make animal studies less reliable, even if a lot of money was spent to improve them.

In spinal cord injuries, for example, the results of drug testing depend on the species and even the strain within a species. This is because there are many differences in neurophysiology, anatomy, and behavior between species and strains. Different strains of rats and mice are very different in how their spinal cords get hurt, how they heal, and how quickly they get better. A systematic review found that the results of testing how well methylprednisolone works to treat spinal cord injuries varied a lot between species, even in the most standardized and methodologically sound animal experiments. This suggests that some of the big differences in the results are caused by things that are built into the use of animals.

If the results of experiments on animals aren’t clear, they may lead to clinical trials of substances that are biologically wrong or even harmful. This puts patients at unnecessary risk and wastes valuable research resources.

Animal studies of toxicity don’t tell us much about how drugs will hurt people. As we’ve seen in some of the examples above (like stroke, HRT, and TGN1412), people have been hurt a lot because the safety and effectiveness profile of a new drug based on animal experiments misled researchers.

As a result, clinical trial volunteers have higher hopes and a false sense of security because of a mistaken belief that testing for safety and effectiveness on animals is accurate.

Gleevec is an example of an effective drug that could have been thrown out because of bad animal tests. This drug, which is used to treat chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), caused serious side effects in at least five species tested, including severe liver damage in dogs. But liver toxicity was not found in tests on human cells, and clinical trials confirmed that humans did not have significant liver toxicity. Gleevec is a success story of predictive human-based testing, which is good news for people with CML. Many useful drugs that people have been using safely for decades, like aspirin and penicillin, might not be around today if the current rules about animal testing had been in place when they were made.

Laboratory mice, rats, reptiles, birds, and amphibians are excluded from the Animal Welfare Act’s minimum protections. Animals may breath deadly chemicals, be imprisoned in restraining devices for hours, have holes drilled into their heads, have their skin burnt off, or have their spinal cords crushed before dying in laboratories.

Nonhuman animals have been shown to sense pain. According to evolutionary scientists such as Marc Bekoff, all animals have the same neural system, chemical transmitters, perceptual skills, and emotional states, all of which contribute to the sensation of pain. Even if we don’t know if animals feel pain in the same way we do, it doesn’t imply they don’t.

---

Many scientific studies of animal experiments must now be examined, and ethical concerns as well as the research quality of animal experiments have been raised for discussion. At the moment, experts all around the world agree on the “3R principles” that should be observed while treating experimental animals. The “3R principles” stand for “Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement.”

These rules are intended to prevent the use of innocent animals in studies. We actively develop alternatives, emphasizing on improving the quality of experiments, so that animals that have to conduct experiments can conduct experiments in a comfortable, animal-friendly, and safe environment, and improve the accuracy of scientific experiment results by improving the animal welfare of experimental animals.

“Good experimental animal care can lead to high-quality research.” Hawkins also mentioned a well-known Alzheimer’s disease test animal control group. One was a mouse in a regular breeding box, while the other was a Mice with an enhanced habitat. It was eventually discovered that mice bred in an enriched environment produced more reliable experimental results.

In other words, improving animal wellbeing can enhance scientific research by bringing animal performance closer to human emotions, making animal trials more relevant.

Hawkins’ (Penny Hawkins) perspective is normal utilitarian morality. As a scientist and animal advocate, she does not believe that scientific study is a necessary evil, nor does she believe that scientists are harsh and merciless when they treat animals inhumanely. She integrated the benefits and drawbacks of scientific experimentation and animal protection in her heart, and offered a solution that may balance animal welfare and scientific research.

Indeed, the topic of experimental animals is extremely difficult, both ethically and scientifically, and there is now no consensus. Hawkins’ opinions, however, are not on opposing sides of the debate, but rather encourage both sides’ efforts to compromise and discuss.

People are becoming more aware of how unreliable it is to apply results from experiments on animals to human biology and diseases. Animals and people are biologically and psychologically similar in many ways. One of the most obvious similarities is that both can feel pain, fear, and suffering.

On the other hand, there is evidence that very important physiological and genetic differences between humans and other animals can make it wrong to use animals to study diseases, treatments, drugs, and other things that affect humans. In the vast majority of biomedical science, animal models and animal experimentation in general aren’t good enough to predict what will happen in a human clinical setting. Because of this, people can get hurt in ways that don’t have to happen.

The data that show how unreliable animal experiments are and how they hurt humans and other animals disprove the long-held belief that animal experiments are necessary to improve human health and are therefore morally okay. Instead, they show that doing experiments on animals has big costs and risks for people. As I have said elsewhere, it is possible that animal research is, on average, more expensive and dangerous than it is good for human health.

When thinking about whether or not animal experiments are morally okay, we should ask if it is morally okay to deny people resources, chances, hope, and even their lives by looking for answers in what may be the wrong place. I think it would be better to stop testing on animals and put the money into making technologies that work better for people.