Skinner 1

Blair Skinner

Professor Lisa Grundy

English 112

20 March 2019

Animal Experimentation for Medical Advancement

Animal experimentation is when live animals are used to test the safety or effectiveness of

topics ranging from medication to household products. These animals are a cautionary measure

before human trials are conducted. Advocates believe animal testing is necessary for medical

advancement. However, critics argue that the testing is unethical and unreliable.

Animal trials helped discover solutions to medical problems such as macular degeneration

and the effects of penicillin. Scientists used animals to perfect macular relocation, which is the

movement of the retina to a new location, to stop macular degeneration. Animals were chosen over

human cadavers because the animals could verify if the eyesight was fully restored whereas a

cadaver could not. Penicillin could have been discovered using humans, however, the length of

time to discover it would have been much longer due to the cost of human experimentation.

Humans need 3,000 times more penicillin to treat than a mouse (“Medical Benefits”). Animal

testing is crucial to observe new surgeries and get medication to market as soon as possible.

Is progress worth the torture? Animal welfare advocates argue that animal testing is an

unnecessary harm. Experiments where the animal is intentionally harmed are considered Category

E experiments. Some examples of Category E experiments are the application of electrical shock

that the animal cannot escape and paralysis of a conscious animal. Category E is the most extreme

and requires special permissions however, the lesser categories do not afford the animals too much

more comfort. Two categories down in Category C, animals can be bred for unknown phenotypes
 Skinner 2

possibly producing birth defects and the unused offspring may be euthanized. These offspring are

killed because they do not fit the criteria instead of being adopted out. Those pose obvious health

risks and ethical concerns, but the less obvious psychological harm is equally detrimental. The

stress from mistreatment effects the trials’ data :

A happy animal is readily able to cope with the stressors to which it is subjected. Unhappy

animals have to put up with distressing conditions beyond their control which result in

behavioral and physiological disabilities … these un-controlled variables make them

unsuitable subjects for scientific studies. (Poole 122)

The animals are bred in captivity with no resemblance of their natural environment, or worse, they

were captured and sold to laboratories by Class B dealers. Class B dealers also known as random

source dealers are beginning to dwindle in number over the past several decades since

microchipping has become more prevalent and household pets were discovered in labs. Whether

the animals in these experiments ever knew a healthy environment or not their natural instincts

remain present. Rats, mice, and birds bred for experimentation are not currently protected in the

United States’ Animal Welfare Act (“Rats, Mice & Birds.”). Labs do not have to report animals

that are not protected in the Animal Welfare Act. The lack of legal protection means these animals

have no standard quality of living and scientists have little incentive to find alternative methods.

Experimenters continue to harm these animals using the justification of well this is how it has

always been. Traditionally, researchers have distanced themselves from the animals so compassion

does not get in the way of progress. However, research has proven that “Almost invariably, the

person's attitude to each species improved as a result of experience with the species” (Fon T. Chang

15). The more positive a researcher feels about the tested animals the more attentive they will be
 Skinner 3

to those animals so if the animal is in distress they will be more likely to notice. This is beneficial

to both the researcher and researched.

Even when the animals are treated appropriately the reliability of data from animal tests

has a shaky foundation. Animals testing continues to be used because humans and certain animals

share similar biological systems and genes. People have varying reactions to different medicines,

for example some people break out in hives when exposed to a medication and for other people

the medication works as intended. By using large case studies researchers can come up with the

average response to the medication. Using a completely different species for example a mouse

which has, “67 known discrepancies in immunological functions” and expecting their body to

respond the same as a human would is absurd (Langley,G., 2). In a study published in the British

Medical Journal, several treatments which proved effective in animal trials either did not improve

the condition or made the condition worse in human trials. One instance is the effect of Tirilazad

on ischemic stroke, “Tirilazad was associated with a worse outcome in patients with ischemic

stroke. In animal models, tirilazad reduced infarct volume by 29%” (Comparison of Treatment, 1).

Before alternative methods were discovered animal studies were close enough to the human

response but now there are more reliable methods.

Alternative methods to animal testing are human volunteers, computer models, using

donated human tissue, and cell cultures. These methods take longer however, if we valued animal

lives half as much as we value other human lives these alternative methods would take roughly the

same amount of time. Human trials are dangerous because we do not want to see someone suffering

yet, we have trials designed to intentionally place animals in pain. People who already have the

disease should have a right to try alleviating their pain instead of breeding animals to live in pain

with maybe possibly curing it. Similar to the right to die bill people should also have a right to
 Skinner 4

keep living when nothing else seems to work. In 2018, Congress passed the Right to Try bill in

which terminal patients are given the opportunity to try experimental drugs. Democrats that voted

against the bill believe that access to the experimental drugs gives terminal patients false hope

because the drugs could worsen the patients’ condition. However, without the drugs these patients

have a nearly certain death. Before human trials are conducted computer-models can stimulate

how the body will process the treatment. The models are based on existing research. By comparing

the data, the computer shows the probability of different reactions. This method is quick and

inexpensive but, if the disease is relatively new then more direct research on the diseased area(s)

must be conducted. Direct research with the diseased area can be through donated human tissues

or cell cultures. By using donated human tissues researchers can compare the diseased to a healthy

counterpart. This allows an accurate study of the biological systems. The tissues are donated after

surgery or upon someone’s death. This also allows people to feel like they are helping to solve the

very disease they are affected by, instead of letting the tissue go to waste. However, if donations

are in short supply cell cultures can be used to mimic the bodily responses. Cell cultures have

progressed from a simple cell in a petri dish to three dimensional models. These models can assess

the impact of a medication on various types of tissue. Without an increase in animal testing laws

the new three-dimensional models would not exist.

Animals are used for testing because they are viewed as lesser beings and are easy to obtain.

This mentality has slowed the progress of alternative and occasionally more beneficial methods

such as: computer models, using donated human tissues, and cell cultures. Providing rats, mice,

and birds protection in the Animal Welfare Act will not only increase the animals’ quality of living

but also lead to more reliable experiments and methods.

 Skinner 5

Works Cited

“Comparison of Treatment Effects between Animal Experiments and Clinical Trials: Systematic

Review.” Bmj, vol. 334, no. 7585, 2007, p. 1-6, doi:10.1136/bmj.39097.585880.be.

Fon T. Chang, Lynette A. Hard; Human-Animal Bonds in the Laboratory: How Animal Behavior

Affects the Perspective of Caregivers, ILAR Journal, Volume 43, Issue 1, 1 January

2002, Pages 10–18, https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.43.1.10

Langley, G. (2009). The validity of animal experiments in medical research. RSDA, 1, 161-8

“Medical Benefits.” Speaking of Research, Speaking of Research, 3 Apr. 2018,

speakingofresearch.com/facts/medical-benefits/.

Poole, Trevor. “Happy Animals Make Good Science.” Laboratory Animals, vol. 31, no. 2, 1997,

pp. 116–124., doi:10.1258/002367797780600198.

“Rats, Mice & Birds.” Animal Welfare Institute, awionline.org/content/rats-mice-birds.

Recognition and Alleviation of Pain in Laboratory Animals. National Academies Press,

2009. EBSCOhost,ezgcc.vccs.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx

?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=308622&site=ehost-live&scope=site.