Animal Testing

Tue & Thur (9:35AM-10:15AM)

Brown, Trequan

Tue & Thur (9:35AM-10:15AM)

Cale, Aubrey

Tue & Thur (9:35AM-10:15AM)

Gayden, Deandre

Tue & Thur (9:35AM-10:15AM)

Harris, Jah Niyla

Tue & Thur (9:35AM-10:15AM)

Hill, Armani

Tue & Thur (9:35AM-10:15AM)

Animal Testing

In the United States, an estimated 26 million animals are used every year in scientific research and to test products such as shampoo. Animals are used to develop medical treatments, determine the toxicity of medications and check the safety of products destined for human use.

Proponents of animal testing say that it has enabled the development of numerous life-saving treatments for both humans and animals. They say there is no alternative method for researching a complete living organism, and that strict regulations prevent animals from being mistreated in laboratories.

Opponents of animal testing say that it is cruel and inhumane to experiment on animals. They say that there are alternative methods available to researchers to replace animal testing, and that animals are so different from human beings that research on animals often yields irrelevant results.

Regulations

Animal testing in the United States is regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which was passed in 1966. The AWA defines "animal" as "any live or dead dog, cat, monkey, guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or such other warm-blooded animal."

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) reported that in 2010, 1,134,693 animals were used for testing. It didn't include rats, mice, farm animals or cold-blooded animals.

The USDA breaks down its data by three categories of pain type: animals that experience pain during the research but are given drugs to alleviate it; animals who experience pain and are not given drugs; animals who do not experience pain and are not given drugs.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the development of new medications. It requires that before they can be tested on people, the drug companies must test them on at least two species of animals to determine if they are safe.

Public Opinion

The anti-testing movement began in the United States in the mid-1960s following a Sports Illustrated story about Pepper, a pet dalmatian that was kidnapped and sold into experimentation.

A May 2013 Gallup poll found that 56 percent of Americans said medical testing on animals was morally acceptable, down from 65 percent in 2001. A total of 39 percent said it was morally wrong. Younger Americans are less likely to accept animal testing. A total of 47 percent of people aged 18 to 34 say that animal testing is morally acceptable, whereas 60 percent of people aged 35 to 54 and 61 percent of people aged 55 and older say it is morally acceptable.

Animal Testing In The 1800s And Early 1900s

Descriptions of vivisection, the dissection of live animals, have been found in ancient Greek writings from as early as 500 B.C.

In the 2nd century, the Roman physician and philosopher Galen dissected living animals to see how living organisms worked. His theories of medicine, which were based on his experimentation, were used throughout Europe for 15 centuries.

In the 17th century, English physician William Harvey experimented on living animals and discovered that the heart, not the lungs, circulated blood throughout the body.

As more people adopted pets, the anti-vivisection movement grew, primarily in England. In 1875, a group founded the Society for the Protection of Animals Liable to Vivisection.

In 1865, French physiologist Claude Bernard argued that experimenting on animals was ethical, because it benefited medicine and extended human life.

Queen Victoria was an early opponent of animal testing in England. Soon, the anti-vivisection campaign became strong enough to pressure lawmakers into establishing the first laws controlling the use of animals for research: Great Britain's Cruelty to Animals Act of 1876.

In 1959, "The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique" by zoologist William Russell and microbiologist Rex Burch laid out the principle of the "Three Rs" for using animals in research humanely: Replacement, which means replacing the use of animals with alternative research methods; Reduction, or minimizing the use of animals whenever possible; Refinement, which means reducing suffering and improving animals' living conditions. The "Three Rs" were incorporated into the AWA and have formed the basis of many international animal welfare laws.

The Modern Debate

In 1975, Australian philosopher Peter Singer published "Animal Liberation," which said that "speciesism" — the assumption that humans are superior to other species — was similar to racism, sexism and other forms of prejudice. Singer predicted that "one day ... our children's children, reading about what was done in laboratories in the 20th century, will feel the same sense of horror and incredulity ... that we now feel when we read about the atrocities of the Roman gladiatorial arenas or the 18th-century slave trade."

In 1981, a People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) activist worked undercover at the Institute for Biological Research in Silver Spring, Maryland. He took photographs of monkeys in the facility, who were kept in such horrendous conditions that they were tearing at their own flesh. The laboratory's director, Edward Taub, was charged with more than a dozen animal cruelty offenses.

A 2007 report by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences called for a reduction in the use of animal testing. It recommended instead testing on cells, although it did say that testing on animals would have to continue for the time being, because cells cannot yet stand in for an entire organism.

In 2013, the European Union banned the import and sale of cosmetic products that have been tested on animals. The United States still allows testing on animals for these products. China is the only major market where testing all cosmetics on animals is required by law.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) stopped breeding chimpanzees for research in 2007. In 2013, it announced that it would retire most of its chimpanzees — 310 in total — over the next several years. While the decision was welcomed by animal rights groups, opponents said the decision would have a negative impact on the development of critical vaccines and treatments. In 2015, the NIH announced that its remaining 50 research chimpanzees would be retired to the Federal Chimpanzee Sanctuary System.