Introduction

Animal experimentation 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. People are now calling for a change in the practice. There is not a single solution to animal testing, however, with a mixture of new scientific methods we can completely eliminate the need for animal suffering. This proposal will discuss the necessary beginning steps in changing animal experimentation for the better and provide the public with fact-based information on the shortcomings of animal testing.

Proposed Solution

The issue of animal experimentation is an urgent one. Not only are we, as humans, subjecting these creatures to a life of torture but we are not gaining anything from them. It is a useless practice that has not furthered scientific data in a long time, and we must change that.

The first step in solving the national extortion of animals is recognizing the severity of this issue. These animals are sentient beings. We must think about more than ourselves, and ask “would we want to be subjected to this?”

Next, we must force a change in legislation. The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) is the primary legislation in place for regulating consumer food, drug, and cosmetic products. The FD&C does not require the use of animal tests to determine the safety of these products, however, it does not provide any regulation. It opens the door for manufacturers to assess the safety of their products through any method the companies “deem reasonable” (Innis,93). The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) does not require these animals to be given pain relief or veterinary care and their living conditions are poorly regulated (PETA). With pressure from the public through petitions and boycotting consumer products known to be tested on animals, politicians will be forced to amend these laws. Active petitions can be found through PETA’s website, the Humane Society, “Cruelty Free International,” and many more webpages.

Another crucial step is to implement more humane alternatives. It is undeniable we still need a method of testing; however, we have the capability to do so without harming defenseless creatures. Many methods have been proposed and are currently being studied. Scientists are experimenting with human cells, “in vitro,” collected from volunteers, during medically necessary surgeries and cadavers, rather than unwilling animals (NIEHS, Cruelty Free International). They are studying animal behavior from afar, rather than forcing a reaction, and getting more accurate results (Reardon). We are also able to use Artificial Intelligence and the “in vivo” collection of data (from past experiments on animals) to determine the toxicity and possible effects of certain substances (Kojima et al. 2). The journal by Hajime Kojima, “A Step-by-step Approach for Assessing Acute Oral Toxicity Without Animal Testing for Additives of Quasi-drugs and Cosmetic Ingredients” gives us a step-by-step process in using this approach to achieve accurate results ethically. Scientists are now able to replicate parts of the human body through computer models and conduct “virtual experiments” (Cruelty Free International). There is not a single, simple solution to animal experimentation, however implementing these studies as customary practice will end the torment and mistreatment of these animals.

Cost & Benefits

Replacing animal experimentation with less invasive and cruel procedures will not cost the public a single dime. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the United States federal agency for medical research, has stated that animal testing is a “costly, complex, and time-consuming process” (PETA). Many Americans are unaware that a budget of twenty billion dollars is allocated, every year, for testing new medications, medical procedures, and food and cosmetic products on defenseless animals (PETA). The funding already exists, it just needs to be assigned elsewhere - to alternative testing. In fact, the U.S. government could greatly benefit from outlawing animal testing completely. Funding to house and feed the animals will no longer be required, and the fines collected from companies breaching Animal Welfare Laws would provide the government with funds for other pressing issues.

Now, of course, new science will need to be pursued. However, existing replacement procedures often cost substantially less, and are far more accurate. A single medication can cost over one billion dollars and ninety-five percent of tests on pharmaceutical drugs fail when they reach human trails (NIEHS). That is because even when we induce these animals with diseases in a laboratory, their biology is never the same as ours. Testing substances on human cells can be upwards of ninety-three percent more accurate (Cruelty Free International).

The greatest benefit of implementing alternative procedures is it will mend the moral compass of humanity. U.S. citizens can feel better knowing that the products they use were not created by victimizing animals.

Conclusion

Animal experimentation is a superfluous, outdated, and ineffective method of science. As human beings we have an obligation to change those methods; not only for our own benefit, medically and financially, but for the wellbeing of those powerless animals thrown in cages and tortured in the name of “science.” If you would like to help change the legislation regarding these practices, please refer to PETA’s webpage listed below, where you can sign a petition.

New Deal in Research Promotes Good Science, Eliminates Animal Experiments | PETA

References

“Alternatives to Animal Testing.” Cruelty Free International, crueltyfreeinternational.org/about-animal-testing/alternatives-animal-testing. Accessed 5 July 2024.

“Alternatives to Animal Testing.” National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/science/sya-iccvam. Accessed 5 July 2024.

“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.

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.

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.

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.