Melody Hernandez
Professor McClure
Writing 39C
24 May 2018
Advocacy Project
A survey conducted by the The United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service in 2016 found that there has been a 15% increase in nonhuman
primate use for research, testing, or experimentation in the United States as seen in Figure 1.
Moreover, the USDA, has reported a total of 38,633 nonhuman primates bred and held captive
for future use in research and experimentation purposes (National). It is important to note that
nonhuman primates represented only 9% of animals protected under the Animal Welfare Act and
Figure 1. Nonhuman Primate Use in the U.S. for Research, Testing, and Teaching. National
Anti-Vivisection Society.
Ultimately, the need for animal experimentation for purpose of medical research has
increased throughout the years prompting the importance of protection of animals such as the
rhesus macaques under regulations such as the Animal Welfare Act and its several amendments
Hernandez 2
serve to protect Animal Welfare. Thus, for the purposes of this paper it is important to note that
throughout the history animal testing for purposes such as medical research there have been two
dominant perspectives on this issue being Animal Rights versus Animal Welfare. Animal Rights
or Animal Liberation calls for the moral rights animals deserve. On contrary, the Animal Welfare
differs because it aims “to minimize the suffering of exploited animals but has not fundamentally
challenged the view that animals are essential resources” (Animal 251). Although, this view is
concerned for the welfare of the animal it ultimately consists of decisions that benefit the human
With the help of social pressure resulting from the early Animal Rights Movement, The
Animal Welfare Act was first passed by Congress in 1966 due to the growing concern for the
protection of family pets from thefts. Furthermore, it was not until 1985 that the Animal Welfare
Act incorporated the Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act along with principles of
humane experimentation technique proposed by William Russell and Rex Burch in order to
cause as little distress or pain to the animal, and to replace animal subjects with the use of
alternative methods (Russell & Burch 4). Ultimately, this amendment increased the standards of
humane care for animals held in labs such as providing nonhuman primates with an adequate
physical environment that would promote their psychological health (“Public Law 99-198”).
Additionally, it is evident that the Three R’s played a considerable role in this amendment since
it calls for the prevention of the duplication of experiments, reduction or replacement of animal
subjects, and methods that decrease pain and distress (“Public Law 99-198”).Therefore, this act
required researchers to establish Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees that would be
responsible for implementing the Three Rs. To elaborate, the role of these committees are to
Hernandez 3
review and research specific programs in regards to upholding animal welfare and to inspect
these facilities every six months (Ibrahim 207) . However, as seen with the Silver Springs
Monkey Case and University of Wisconsin’s unethical testing, the Improved Standards for
Laboratory Animals Act failed to protect species such as rhesus macaques from unethical
experimentation on several occasions within the past decade. With that being said, the use of
animal experimentation for medical research purposes imposes unnecessary harm and suffering
as the result of Andrew C. von Eschenbach, a commissioner of the Food and Drug
Administration stated, “Today, nine out of 10 compounds developed in the labs fail in human
studies. They fail, in large part because they behave differently in people than they did in animal
or laboratory tests” (Armstrong 314). Furthermore, Susan J. Armstrong, Professor of Emerita and
Environmental Ethics specialist at Humboldt State University argues, “With its 92 percent
Although animal experimentation advocates have argued for the benefits of animal
experimentation for medical research the value of human-tissue in vitro, stem-cell research, and
scientific research has found that animal models are not always efficient in medical research and
that alternative methods of testing are useful for conducting the same experiments without
harming animals. Thus, this prompts the idea that animal experimentation must be abolished as it
is the only way to prevent further suffering as a result of its inefficiency and the Animal Welfare
suffering. Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, built the foundation on
the morality of the human race’s actions towards animals by stating “self-interest should guide
no morality” (Practical 69). Thus, as humans we should stray away from our usual actions that
are rooted in self-interest and orient our actions towards those that would hold other’s interests in
consideration as much as their own. This prompts the idea of the “speciest” which “allows the
interests of his own speciesism to override the greatest interests of his own species to override
the greater interests of members of other species” (Animal 9). Although, many critics have posed
counterarguments to this view on the basis that animals do not hold the same capacities such as
intelligence as human beings it is morally wrong that as humans we justify our actions based on
the belief that our need for innovations surpasses the interests of nonhuman animals. The idea
that humans are dominant over nonhuman animals is congruent with the idea of speciesism
because historically the human race has been willing to perform cruel and painful experiments
for the purposes of medical innovations. Moreover, Singer asserts, “No matter what the nature of
the being, the principle of equality that its suffering be counted equally with the like of
suffering...of any other being” (Animal 9). It is important to note that because humans and
nonhuman animals share the ability to suffer they should be granted equal moral consideration.
Thus, as we continue to face this debate on the morality of animal experimentation we should
consider the utilitarian view which is defined as “a cost-benefit analysis in order to create the
most favorable situation for as many subjects as possible” (Marie 90). Ultimately, through this
principle we can determine morality on the basis of what actions benefit the greater good as a
whole. Thus, through this approach to morality we ponder the extent to which our practice of
Hernandez 5
animal experimentation takes into account the interests of animals considering that through an
animal rights stance the humans needing the medical innovations can be considered a minority
group due to the poor rates of success in animal models which cannot prevent inevitable deaths.
Prompting us to question why we are willing to end several nonhuman animal lives for
experiments that have not produced feasible results and that can be replaced with alternative
testing methods.
Animal experimentation should be abolished in the United States and replaced with
alternative testing methods that are humane, effective, cheaper, and relevant to humans in
regards to its applicability. As seen in Figure 2, fields such as Chemistry, Physics, and Computer
Science can utilize alternative to animal experimentation for the purposes of medical
innovations. However, like any industry the medical research industry is driven by the
average of $140 billion each year for scientific research (Doss 158). This leads researchers to
conduct experiments by any means in order to obtain grant money despite the negative
consequences nonhuman animals experience. It is also important to note that the loopholes in the
Hernandez 6
Animal Welfare Act allow for flexibility in researchers conduction of experiments and treatment
of animals. Ultimately, despite the fact that several of these experiments are not producing viable
results they are continued due to the possibility of institutions receiving incentives in forms of
grants (Doss 158-161). Therefore, it is evident that despite the fact that we are capable of
utilizing effective alternative research methods greed drives the exploitation of innocent animals.
Our modern science revolution has allowed us to develop technology prompting the
production of effective tools such as in vitro testing, computer (in silico) modeling, 3D cell
culture models which can used for the prediction of effectiveness of medicine and toxicity while
In Vitro Testing
containing human cells which model the structure and function of the organ systems of humans
eliminating the need for animal models in disease research, toxicity testing, and drug responses
(PETA). Furthermore, these “organs on chips” are useful because they have the “ability to host
and combine the different cell and tissue types making up organs…[and] mimic human-specific
disease states, as well as identify new therapeutic targets in vitro” (Wyss). Thus, this technology
allows for a more accurate representation of disease and effects on the human body. Moreover,
to get a better understanding of how the organ systems in the human body are interconnected
researchers have developed a way to link the chips in order to get a holistic understanding of the
experimental process itself (Wyss). Moreover, this industry is projected to grow as researchers at
Harvard University are in the process of further innovating the technology to develop human
stem cells that are capable of differentiating on chips (Wyss). Thus, this mode of
Hernandez 7
experimentation is more humane, effective, applicable to human disease, and eliminates the need
Hernandez 8
Works Cited
www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-animal-testing/.
books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qiQlDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=ethical%2Bp
roblems%2Bwith%2Banimal%2Bexperimentation&ots=z22oldUwMi&sig=bqIlhA-Or1GLyzIQ
PCHKid_dmhQ#v=onepage&q=ethical%20problems%20with%20animal%20experimentation&
f=false.
Doss, Anthony M. “The Profit and Loss Report on Animal Rights: How Profit
Maximization Has Driven the Stagnation of the Legal Identification of Animals as Property.”
heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals%2Fsonengrs13&id=139.
wyss.harvard.edu/technology/human-organs-on-chips/.
Ibrahim, Darian M. “Reduce, Refine, Replace: The Failure of the Three R's and the Future
chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1391&context=uclf.
Publishers, 2005.
www.navs.org/what-we-do/keep-you-informed/science-corner/animals-used-in-research/nonhum
an-primates-in-research/#.Wv5cKi-ZNsM.
Hernandez 9
“Public Law 99-198, Food Security Act of 1985, Subtitle F - Animal Welfare.” United
www.nal.usda.gov/awic/public-law-99-198-food-security-act-1985-subtitle-f-animal-
welfare.
Rai, Jagdish. “Reduction of Animal Sacrifice in Biomedical Science & Research through
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319016418300690.
Russell WMS, Burch RL. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. London:
Methuen; 1959.
www.nal.usda.gov/awic/public-law-99-198-food-security-act-1985-subtitle-f-animal-welf
are.