What Are Ethical Issues When Animal Testing?

Animal testing is known by several names: vivisection, animal experimentation and animal research, among them. Vivisection, by far the most controversial of all the animal experimentation methods, involves the cutting and surgical intervention of animals without the benefit of anesthesia. In most cases, surgery is conducted on animals that are conscious and sentient. Researchers say that anesthesia may skew the results, thereby explaining away the lack of compassion for animals undergoing painful procedures. The ethical issues involved in animal testing revolve around philosophy, economics and results.

  1. Philosophy

    • Beagles are sometimes used to test sunburn treatments. Their fur is shaved and their bare skin is subjected to severe burning.

      There are those who are against animal testing strictly on the basis of their belief system. Those who subscribe to an animal-rights philosophy believe that animals are here for their own purpose. They are not here for humans to wear, use for entertainment, eat or experiment on in laboratories. Animal welfarists, on the other hand, believe that animals are here for human beings to dominate, and as long as people treat animals as humanely as possible while they are alive, it's perfectly acceptable for humans to use them for their fur, their meat, scientific contributions and entertainment. It's simply a matter of philosophy. If one subscribes to an animal-rights philosophy, then no amount of reasoning can convince him that animals can be used in research since this perspective is from a place of ethics.

    Economics

    • People's lost pets are sometimes sold to laboratories by people called "bunchers" who sell lost and abandoned animals to research facilities.

      In 2009, the National Institute of Health budgeted nearly $29 billion for animal research. This expense of billions of dollars and millions of animal lives lost is in the name of a largely unregulated industry. In fact, 90 percent of the animals used in animal research are not covered under the Animal Welfare Act. Economically, this does not make sense since experimenters rarely publish results of failed animal studies. Therefore, scientists who may be replicating and duplicating experimentation efforts do not have access to information on how ineffective those experiments are, wasting valuable time, money and animal lives.

    Ethical Considerations

    • An animal's composition is different than a humans. Chocolate, a human staple in most households, is toxic to dogs.

      According to Stop Primate Testing, in 2009 more than 211,000 primates were used in animal experimentation. Because primates are our closest living relatives, with 98 to 99 percent of our DNA matching up, some believe that this is a good reason to test on them. Critics, however, point to that DNA close match as evidence that we should not. Since they are so human like, and therefore share certain traits with humans, including sentience, it is unethical to be inflicting so much pain and suffering on our closest living relatives, especially without great benefit. Furthermore, the use of primates has caused untold human hardship since so many diseases being tested on primates could have been cured using other means when the primates failed to actually contract the disease, as what happened with AIDS/HIV research.

    Cosmetic vs. Medical

    • In one experiment, beagles were forced to smoke while attached to smoking machines. Predictably, they developed lung cancer.

      While some people believe that all animal testing is wrong, almost everyone can agree that cosmetics and product testing should be eliminated. With so many advances in the field of non-animal alternatives in cosmetic and product testing, there is simply no good reason to continue to inflict serious suffering on live animals in the name of product safety. However, an argument can also be made for the cessation of animal testing in medical research facilities. Dr. Robert Sharp, Scientific Director of International Association Against Painful Experiments on Animals, lists 101 ways in which animal testing has misled scientists when he investigated research facilities. These examples are definitive proof that animal testing has not given humans the information they seek in curing diseases.