Annotated Bibliography
The Horrors of Animal Testing and Its Alternatives
By Audrey Snapka
The Horrors of Animal Testing and Its Alternatives
By Audrey Snapka
“Alternatives to Animal Testing.” Cruelty Free International, crueltyfreeinternational.org/about-animal-testing/alternatives-animal-testing. Accessed 5 July 2024.
Summary
The webpage discusses in depth the possible alternatives to animal testing. Human tissues can be donated for study during surgery, and from cadavers. The organization claims that this method provides a “more relevant way of studying human biology and disease” rather than testing on animals. It discusses volunteer studies, and how scanning machines, brain imaging, and microdosing willing patients can be more effective than relating science to creatures that are so unalike to humans. Plus, human beings have the ability to communicate their feelings and symptoms. Scientists have been able to replicate parts of the human body through computer models, and Artificial Intelligence could be used to conduct “virtual experiments” from existing data.
Evaluation
The website provided multiple examples of medical breakthroughs that occurred without the use of animals, like Aspirin and the effects of anesthetic (laughing gas). It also gave statistics on how non-animal methods perform better than animal tests. For example, only 60 percent of substances that may harm a developing baby can be detected in animal tests, while tests using “human stem cells have a 93 percent sensitivity at detecting harmful substances.” This is an unbiased source as the authors note at the bottom of the webpage that the “science relating to animal experiments can be extremely complicated.” What is written represents their expert opinion based on evidence.
“Alternatives to Animal Testing.” National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/science/sya-iccvam. Accessed 5 July 2024.
Summary
The article can be accessed on the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) website. The NIEHS is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which is a federal agency within the United States. It is an informative piece about the existing alternatives to using animals as test subjects. The institute is committed to “replacing, reducing, or refining animal use in research.” Experiments can be performed “in vitro” (on cells outside of the body), “in chemico” (on a molecular level), and “in silico” (with mathematical modeling and simulation). It states the methods have proven to be far more accurate and time efficient.
Evaluation
This source corroborates the idea that animal testing is not only cruel, but outdated. It gives a board summary of these methods without confusing the reader with extensive medical jargon. However, there was conflicting information between this source and the academic journal “Not Tested on Animals’: The Future of Cosmetic Animal Testing in the U.S. and Beyond,” by law student, Jane Innis. The NIEHS claims that the Animal Welfare Act requires animal use approval and ensures alternative methods are used when possible. Innis claims that is not the case. There is a four-year publication difference between the two sources, and whether the Animal Welfare Act has been updated in that time is worth researching before citing either one of the sources.
“Animal Testing Facts and Statistics | PETA.” PETA, www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-used-experimentation-factsheets/animal-experiments-overview. Accessed 2 July 2024.
Summary
The webpage opens with the statistics of animal testing and the shocking number of animals that are used every year for medical discoveries, cosmetic testing, and even “curiosity driven experimentation.” That number is more than 110 million. The article has a hyperlink that guides the reader to another webpage that goes further in depth on these horrible experiments. However, this article focuses more on how animal use in testing is unreliable and costly. A single new pharmaceutical drug can take an average of 14 years for approval and can cost over one billion dollars. The ineffectiveness of animal testing is represented with multiple examples of diseases being cured in primates, but the tests have been unsuccessful in human trials. Lastly, it discusses how these experiments are funded, primarily by taxpayers, charitable donations, and lottery ticket buyers.
Evaluation
PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is known to be an extremist group, often presenting themselves as bias. The website page (and the hyperlink) is written for shock value. Its intention is purely to disgust the reader with the recorded experiments on animals. However, the article was full of interesting facts as to why animal testing is inaccurate. For example, cancer has been cured in mice for decades, but the science has not easily been translated to humans. Eighty-five HIV/AIDS vaccines have worked in monkeys, yet all have been useless in protecting humans. Although the well-known animal rights group may be extreme, using shock tactics, their foundation is still fact based. They provide a great resource for statistics, as they hold a huge database on the history of animal mistreatment.
Innis, Jane K. "Not Tested on Animals: The Future of Cosmetic Animal Testing in the U.S. and beyond." Suffolk Journal of Trial & Appellate Advocacy, vol. 25, no. 1, 2019-2020, pp. 92-108. HeinOnline, https://heinonline-org.libproxy.unm.edu/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/sujoriapv25&i=108.
Summary
The article gives a brief overview of the customary practice testing which animals undergo to assess the safety of cosmetic products for human use within the United States. It was written by a law student, Jane Innis, from Suffolk University Law School in 2020. She opens by exposing some of the horrible mistreatment of these animals, and what exactly these tests include for cosmetic purposes. To start, mice and rats are not legally considered “animals” under federal law. The animals used are restrained while chemicals are placed on the animal’s shaved skin or forced into their eyes to determine irritancy, force fed chemicals to identify potential health hazards, and often times given “lethal does” to determine how much of the product could be dangerous to humans. None of this is done with pain killers. She discusses many Acts and Bills that have been virtually ignored federally, and by most states in the country. California is the only state to pass any laws restricting the production and marketing of any product tested on animals. She concludes with the hope that the U.S. will reconsider the Humane Cosmetic Act on a federal level and take further steps to protect these voiceless creatures.
Evaluation
Although the article is primarily legal focused, it is useful in understanding exactly why proposals to protect animals have been ignored. We cannot easily defend something that is not considered as “sentient beings.” It is a reliable source for discussion on the disgusting treatment of these animals, however, it did not give any input on viable solutions. There is an undeniable necessity for animal testing that was not discussed in depth (e.g., clinical trials.) Testing on animals for medical reasons, even in the state of California, is exempt of any animal protection Bills. This article was merely a recap of the legality of animal testing, nothing more.
Kojima, Hajime, et al. “A Step-by-step Approach for Assessing Acute Oral Toxicity Without Animal Testing for Additives of Quasi-drugs and Cosmetic Ingredients.” Current Research in Toxicology, vol. 4, Jan. 2023, p. 100100. EBSCOhost, https://doi-org.libproxy.unm.edu/10.1016/j.crtox.2022.100100.
Summary
The academic journal was written by a total of sixteen people, and it is apparent why such a big collaboration was needed as it is an immense amount of information. Quasi-Drugs are essentially a cross between pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, with a much milder effect on the human body, and Japan requires animal testing for approval of these substances. Scientists have now discovered oral toxicity in Quasi-Drugs can usually be assessed “in vivo” rather than on animals. It uses a database of existing substances along with their histories of being used in food consumption to determine if similar substances pose any kind of threat to humans. If no such data exists, or previous data points to LD (Lethal Dose) levels of 50 > 2000mg/kg the substance cannot be tested using this approach ethically. In vivo testing is a great competitor to animal testing; however, it is not a guaranteed replacement.
Evaluation
This source is by far the most complicated of all the sources. It is filled with medical terms, acronyms, and levels consisting of specific measurements. It is an exceedingly difficult read for someone who has no prior knowledge of pharmaceutical testing procedures. However, the journal contained a detailed photograph depicting the steps for using in vivo data in toxicity tests, which made it clear how results can properly be attained, and when the test would not be suitable. It will be useful in providing a scientific explanation; however, it is limited to one specific test. Using this as a primary source would be a mistake, but as an additional source for added context it is great.
Reardon, Sara. “Rodent Tests for Psychiatric Drugs Get a Rethink.” Science (New York, N.Y.), vol. 383, no. 6689, Mar. 2024, p. 1279. EBSCOhost, https://doi-org.libproxy.unm.edu/10.1126/science.adp3269.
Summary
Antidepressant drug studies have used the Forced Swim Test (FST) since 1977. The test consists of a rodent being dropped into water, with no available escape, to see how long the poor creature will swim. Scientists have believed that a depressed animal will give up easily. When antidepressants and electroconvulsive therapy is administered beforehand, the rodent often swims for longer. Many researchers question this method; not only is it unethical, but it is also not dependable. Rodents and human beings suffering from depression are vastly different in every aspect. The test has also proven the animal’s intelligence level, as many of them quickly learn that they will be rescued once they stop swimming. There have been few methods proposed to replace this test, one of which recommends using transponders implanted in the animal’s necks, along with cameras to monitor them in more natural behavior tests. A mouse’s happiness can be measured by its consumption of sugar water, as well as their resilience can observed through their social interactions with other (bigger) mice.
Evaluation
It is absurd that humans have based an entire science off a rodent’s ability to swim. The periodical displays how ridiculous that assessment is, while asserting that we would learn more by evaluating the animal’s natural behavior. The rodent’s stress levels during the FST could skew the results. The source discusses multiple tests that could replace the FST, while also concluding that humans and rodents do not have much in common. It shows the reader how human gain at another living beings’ expense should not be legal and should not be accepted by science.
Abstract
Testing on animal subjects has undoubtedly given humans many medical advances. However, it is often unnecessary and cruel. For decades, defenseless creatures have been exploited for our selfish benefit. Pharmaceutical companies have based an entire category of medication on a mouses ability to not drown. We have used these creatures to detect skin irritants by giving them chemical burns and forcing painful substances into their eyes. They receive no pain medication or anesthetic. Then they are discarded of; often with a “Lethal Dose Test,” to assess how much of a substance is dangerous, or simply killed by asphyxiation or decapitation. People are now calling for a change in the practice. Many methods have been proposed and are currently being studied. Scientists are experimenting with human cells, collected from volunteers, rather than unwilling animals. They are studying animal behavior from afar, rather than forcing a reaction, and getting more accurate results. With Artificial Intelligence and the vast collection of data we have (from past experiments on animals), we no longer need to be using these horrible methods. There is not a single solution to animal testing, however, with a mixture of these new methods we can completely eliminate the need for animal suffering.