thesis statements about animal testing

Animal Testing Thesis Statement

Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to support animal experimentation is a personal one. There are valid arguments on both sides of the issue, and it is up to each individual to decide what they believe is right.

Animal testing is the use of animals in experiments and development projects to determine the toxicity, efficacy or side effects of substances such as drugs, chemicals, cosmetics, vaccines and other products. In many countries around the world animals are still suffering in laboratories with little hope for relief. According to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), federal law regulates the treatment of animals in research, exhibition, transport, and by dealers.

The AWA does not extend to birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, which together account for more than 95% of all animals used in research.(1)Animal Experimentation Up 80 Percent In Last Decade) There has been an increase in the use of animals in experiments, although the number of rats and mice used has decreased slightly.

To export a reference to this essay please select a referencing style below:

Related essays:

Reproduced with permission from student

January 26, 2004

Public Speaking 220

Katherine E. Oleson

Title: “The importance of understanding the controversy around animal testing”

Topic: animal testing

General Purpose: to inform

Specific Purpose: to inform the audience about what animal testing is, and explain the alternative practices to it

Thesis Statement: Animal testing is a highly controversial topic that has divided people into group that either support animal testing or oppose it altogether, and another one that advocates the use of alternatives.

Organizational plan: Categorical

I. Introduction

• Attention getter: How many of you use here use razors to shave? How many of you wear makeup? How many of you have been on antibiotics at some time in your life? If you raised your hand or answered “yes” in your head to any of these questions, then this speech concerns you. Animal testing has been used as a mechanism in the advancement of medicine, household products, and the cosmetic industry in the United State s for nearly 60 years. With between 17 and 70 million animals killed each year in U.S. laboratories, the growth in animal experimentation has sparked much debate.
• Thesis: Animal testing is a high controversial topic that has divided people into groups that support animal experimentation, oppose it altogether, or advocate the use of available alternatives.
• Preview: Today I am going to tell you about some of the main ideas that are involved in the debate surrounding animal experimentation. Along with providing you a background about animal testing, I will educate you with information about both the benefits of animal testing and the disadvantages of animal testing.

<Transition> I will start out by illustrating the historical background of and the legislative reasons behind its use.

• While there is a law in effect that regulates the condition of animals used in experiments, the legality of these tests is not enforced.
• The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) is the federal law that governs the humane care, handling, treatment, and transportation of animals used in laboratories (PETA, 2004).
• No law requires animal testing for cosmetics and household products, and both the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Food and Drug Administration does not require any particular product test.

<Transition> Even though there is not strict regulation that can force companies into using animals as their means of testing, proponents of animal testing support its use for the efficiency it offers that other types of testing do not.

• Supporters of animal testing feel that because the animals are handled in a civilized manner, their use in making medical breakthroughs and guaranteeing product safety justifies animal testing.
• Various medical advances have been made thanks to animal testing that would otherwise have not been achieved.

a.        Barbara Davies, deputy director of the Research Defense Society, reports that “All you have to do is think of any major medical advances of the last 100 years to see the benefit of animal testing,” (Morrison, 2001).

b.       Because of animal research we have anesthesia, hip replacement, kidney dialysis, and a vaccine for acute Hepatitis B, and without animal testing doctors would not have the chemotherapy to save 70% of children who now survive acute lymphatic leukemia (Americans for Medical Progress Educational Alliance, 2002).

• Advocates of animal experimentation argue that laboratory testing is not as common or cruel as it is conveyed by the common public.

a.        Of all the areas in animal use, including agriculture, pet, sports, and animal research, the standards of welfare and veterinary care laid down are the highest for animals kept in labs for research (Haugen, 2000).

b.       In 1999, 57 percent of vertebrate animals in labs covered by the Animal Welfare Act experienced no pain or distress, and of those that do undergo moderate to severe pain, 34 percent were relieved by anesthesia or analgesia, and only 9 percent tested suffered from unrelieved pain or stress. (The Center for Laboratory Animal Welfare, 2004).

3. Product testing is crucal to guaranteeing consumers that they can securely use everyday products without experiencing side effects.

a. Scientists defend testing on animals because they are conducted in the name of protecting consumers, while manufacturers rely on animal testing to verify the safety of the product and protect them from lawsuits (McCoy, 1993).

b.  Researchers call attention to the fact that only 20 percent of animals used in laboratories are used to evaluate the safety of consumer products (The Center for Laboratory Animal Welfare, 2004).

c. If no testing is performed on a product, the producer is legally responsible to print a warning on the product label reading: THE SAFETY OF THIS PRODUCT HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED, which may turn away potential buyers and in a snowball effect the manufacturers, scientists, and researchers are left without jobs (McCoy, 1993).

<Transition> Although I have presented several reasons in support of animal experimentation, there are also a number of strong arguments that oppose it.

• Those against the current means of animal testing undermine it as a malicious procedure of yielding inaccurate results that could be more effective and scientific with the use of alternatives.
• Opponents allege testing on animals leads to unreliable and unscientific findings that harm or kill humans 61% of the time after being deemed safe (Americans for Medical Progress Educational Alliance, 2003).

a.        Plavix, which is taken by more than three million patients, passed all required animal tests and was considered safe for humans. Now it is causing bleeding, anemia, and kidney failure in some clients (Cohen, 2001).

b.       Medications such as aspirin kill cats, and penicillin kills guinea pigs, yet guinea pigs can safely eat strychnine, one of the deadliest poisons for humans that is safe for monkeys to consume (Haugen, 2000).

• Animal testing is a vicious process that inflicts stress and physical pain that can very well be avoided.

a.        The Eye Irritancy Test involves immobilizing rabbits from stocks where only their heads project and dropping different substances into their eyes usually with no anesthesia to test the damage to the eye tissue over a course of generally 72 hours (PETA, 2004).

b.       With the Acute Toxicity Test a substance is usually forced by tube into the animals stomachs or through holes cut into their throats to determine the amount of a substance that will kill a percentage, even up to 100 percent, of a group of test animals (PETA, 2004).

• Challengers of animal testing say alternatives are the future, and that since they are available they should be persued.

a.        A study by the American Medical Association found that 75 percent of Americans are against using animals to test cosmetics (Haugen, 2000).

b.       While the expansion and recognition of using alternatives is slowly growing, over 500 companies have already shunned animal testing (PETA, 2004).

i.                      Colgate-Palmolive is one of the largest companies that’s reduced its use of animal testing and their research facility has reduced the use of animals for experimentation by as much as 90 percent (McCoy, 1993).

c.        Through epidemiology (population research), in vitro experimentation, and clinical studies we have discovered our most valuable information about the origins of cancer, the efficiency of treatments, and the prevention of cancer (Cohen, 2001).

<Transition> Both sides of this debate have valuable arguments that should be taken into consideration when shaping your opinion and when deciding the future of animal testing.

III. Conclusion

• Signal: Considering how detailed and supported the statements of the challengers and advocates of animal testing are, the outlook of animal testing will take much time and deliberation to make an educated decision. It is important that we the public stay informed and active as we are the consumers of these products.
• Summary/Review: As you have seen, those who agree with animal testing cite the medical breakthroughs, the necessity of animal testing in determining safety, and the humane treatment of animals as reasons to support their position. In contrast, those who disagree with animal experimentation see it as unreliable and unscientific, cruel physical harm, and want alternative practices to be more widely used.
• Closure: Billions of dollars are funded each year in the animal testing industry, so next time you go to the store to buy makeup, medication, or even toothpaste, make a well-informed decision about whether or not you support animal experimentation.

Americans for Medical Progress Educational Alliance. (2003). Animal Research . Retrieved

January 25, 2004, from Americans for Medical Progress Educational Alliance Web site: http://www.amprogress.org/Issues/issuesmain.cfm

Cohen, M. (2001 April). Human lives not saved by lab animals . Seattle Post-Intelligencer . A19.

Retrieved January 22, 2003, from UMI Proquest Direct.

Haugen, D.M. (2000). Animal experimentation . San Diego: Greenhaven Press.

McCoy, J.J. (1993). Animals in research, issues, and conflicts . United States: Impact.

Morrison, N. (2001, February). Animal rights and wrongs. Northern Echo . 08. Retrieved January

21, 2004, from UMI Proquest Direct database.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). (2004). Factsheets . Retrieved January 21,

2004, from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Web site: http://www.peta.org/mc/facts.html

The Center for Laboratory Animal Welfare. (2004). Laboratory Animal Welfare . Retrieved

January 21, 2004, from the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Web site: http://www.labanimalwelfare.org/

Animal Testing Essay Guide + Topics

Whether you are taking a position for or against animal testing in your essay, here are some helpful hacks, tips, and tricks you can use to ace your paper.

Animal testing is a controversial issue of global scope. However, with pandemics and outbreaks being a common phenomenon and the rise of the cosmetics industry, many animals are used in scientific research. Also known as in-vivo, animal experimentation, or animal research, animal testing entails using animals in different levels of experiments to investigate the reactions, performance, and potency of various medications, drugs, cosmetic products, and foods.

Use in both biological, medical, and now beauty studies, animal testing has gained comprehensive coverage. When writing persuasive or argumentative essays, you are likely to be given an animal testing research topic for your essay. The interest of commercial bodies and pharmaceutical companies and the ethics surrounding everything that occurs around us makes writing an animal testing argumentative or persuasive essay interesting.

When we asked 100 students who had ordered custom persuasive or argumentative animal testing essays from our website, they confessed that writing the essay only seems easy at its face value. However, it becomes complicated as they plan, conduct research, and write animal research papers. Do not fear, though because, you can either get an argumentative essay expert to write your essay or a model essay for you. Alternatively, use this guide to write a paper that will check all the boxes that your professor or instructor supposes you cannot.

What to include in your introduction?

When writing an animal testing introduction, avoid wasting too many words. Instead, write an introduction that attracts your readers, piques their interest, and keeps them glued to the end. This means that you should have: (a) hook , (b)background statement (where you explore the problem at hand), and (c) your animal-testing thesis statement.

Most of the top essay writers on our website revealed that they usually search for animal testing essay examples online for inspiration : it helps get a general atmosphere surrounding a controversial topic. With such a background, they can develop a thesis statement that defines their stance and the scope of their animal research essay.

Here are some excellent ideas for your first sentence or the hook:

• Statistics of animals killed annually for research
• Facts on animals are mostly used
• The position of the society
• Catchy facts
• Controversial statements on animal research
• Shocking facts about animal testing, e.g., Surprisingly, as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal reports, almost 100 million animals are killed in just the laboratories in the U.S. for research such as biology lessons, experimentation, food, drug, and cosmetic testing. Imagine how the statistics will skew upwards if we considered the entire world's population of animals killed every hour.
• Rhetorical questions : you use this to make the reader intrigued to read more about the topic. For example, Would you rather use a drug tested on a volunteer human or other animal-safe alternative research approaches, and one that is effective or use a drug tested on animals whose failure rate is slightly high? or Do you believe that morality should be enforced in medical research, especially when animal rights are infringed?

The background of your animal testing research paper introduction can include:

• Definition of animal testing
• The extent of animal testing.'
• The historical context of animal testing
• Breakthroughs of animal testing
• Expert opinion over animal testing
• Description of the problem
• The debate surrounding animal testing

Animal Testing Essay Outline/Structure

Your outline will depend on whether you are writing pro-animal testing or against animal testing research paper. Here is a generalized example of the outline for an animal testing essay.

A well-structured animal testing essay will automatically earn you marks. In most cases, it follows the conventional five-paragraph essay format divided into the introduction, main body, and conclusion.

The introduction and conclusion are each 10% of the word count, while the main body is 80%. You have to format your paper in APA, MLA, or Harvard format as your professor requires. To understand the formatting requirements, read the prompt and rubric of the animal testing essay keenly.

Remember to maintain a single idea per every body paragraph. That idea must reflect in the topic sentence of the paragraph to enable your audience to distinguish your major arguments.

The contents of the body paragraphs must also support the thesis. If there is a counterargument, make it known in your second last paragraph that precedes the conclusion.

Introduction

• 10% of the word count
• Begin with a stellar hook sentence
• Provide background to your chosen topic
• Have an outstanding thesis statement
• Transition to the main body of your essay
• Comprises 80% of the word count
• It can be three paragraphs for short essays or more for a long-form research paper
• Provide the history of animal testing, if necessary.
• Look at the roles of regulation and legislation in preventing animal cruelty.
• Explore the different bodies involved in preventing or lobbying against animal testing.
• Explore the breakthroughs of animal testing
• Explore the different alternatives to animal testing: why they can work or why they cannot
• Each paragraph should have its idea
• Transition to your conclusion
• Provide a summary of the paper
• Highlight your significant arguments and counterarguments
• Offer recommendations, if necessary
• Rephrase your thesis statement and show how evidence has supported it in your essay.

Alternative Methods to Animal Testing to include in your paper

Cruelty-Free International argues that non-animal testing methods are cheaper, reliable, and more effective. You can recommend some of these alternatives in your animal testing research paper or essay, considering they elongate the discussion on this seemingly controversial topic.

• Computer modeling
• Cell cultures
• Human tissues
• Volunteer studies
• Use of egg embryo
• Use of unicellular organisms
• The LAL tests
• In vitro methods

Now, when writing an argumentative essay about animal testing, especially if you take a stance against it, listing these alternatives can strengthen your arguments. Look at this model animal testing essay and craft yours along the same line.

Tips for Concluding your Animal Testing Essay

There is no different way to end an animal testing essay, as it is the same as ending any essay. Thus, when you read our cheat sheet for ending an argumentative essay , you will understand that the main thing is to have a definitive conclusion.

The conclusion is not the place to introduce new ideas. Instead, you will summarize the main points of the essay and restate the thesis in a revamped version. Show your writers the connection between your main arguments and the recommendations you are making. If there is a counterstatement, explain your rationale for it.

When writing the conclusion, make it clear, concise, and coherent. For example, an excellent animal-testing essay conclusion will have the introduction sentence, the summary of the main body, and the closing sentence.

Strive to leave your reader yearning for more : you get to tickle the best grades even from that stingy professor. Weave together the concluding paragraph with appropriate sentence transitions and do not overdo it. Keep everything simple, and you will win the main marks assigned to a reasonable conclusion.

Now that we have everything explained, we can look at some of the main topics you can use as titles for animal testing papers.

Examples of Controversial and Latest Animal Testing Essay Topics

We asked our top writers to suggest some topics they think fit well for an animal testing essay. We got a total of fifty entries that you can select and write something about. If you are stuck and want an essay sample urgently, we can write such an essay for you in a few hours, thanks to our website that helps students write essays ASAP . You can choose from these animal testing essay titles:

• Animal testing should be banned
• Animal testing is not ethical
• Pros and cons of animal testing
• Alternative methods to using animals in drugs development
• Controversy in using animal testing in medical and cosmetic research
• Neglected interests and inhuman practices during animal testing
• The cruelty of animal testing
• Horrors of animal testing
• Accidents during animal testing
• Ethics of transporting caged animals for animal research
• The future of animal testing, given the advancement in biotechnology
• Medical animal testing should be banned
• Should guinea pigs be used for lab work research?
• New, better, and innovative treatments for humanity
• Using animals in medical research is ethical and essential
• Science and the murder of one hundred million animals annually
• Importance of animals in clinical trials
• Importance of animal testing in vaccine development
• Is animal testing necessary for human survival?
• Animal testing as an experimentation industry
• Effectiveness of animal testing
• Exploring the role of Cruelty-Free International Organization
• Role of religious bodies in advocating for animal-testing-free society
• The Americans for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) organization
• Ethical issues in animal experimentation
• How animal cruelty affects the ecosystem
• Animal models in vaccine development
• Defining animal cruelty
• Treatment versus rights of animals
• Are animal model results safe for humans?
• Migraine Treatment and Animal testing
• Dinitrophenol drug for overweight and Animal testing
• Anti-arthritis Treatment and Animal Testing
• Animal use in unmanned war drones
• Positive and negative outcomes of animal testing
• Role of media in influencing animal testing
• The politics of deception in animal testing
• Problems associated with animal testing
• Animal testing should be controlled and not stopped
• Licenses that are required for one to conduct animal testing
• Role of Big Pharma in advancing animal testing.
• Can plants be used as an alternative to animal testing?
• Impacts of animal testing on ecology
• How does animal testing affect the economy?
• Can animal testing result in bioweapons?
• Use of technology to predict diseases and outcomes rather than animal testing.
• Are the rights and feelings of animals considered in animal experimentation?
• Are animals used in tests free?
• Reasons rats, rabbits, and pigs are widely used in animal testing
• Can volunteer human beings replace animals in medical research?
• The best approach to take care of animals used in experimentation
• Breakthroughs after animal testing
• Animal testing and the cosmetics industry
• History of animal testing
• Role of CDC in animal testing research
• Role of WHO on animal testing authorization

Where and how to get help with your Animal Testing Essays?

In our article, we have extensively referenced our custom essay writers who can help you ace your animal testing essays. If you feel that the guide cannot help you break down the essay or are short of time, you can pay someone on our website to write one for you. When you buy an argumentative essay from our website, we assign it to a pro writer who will research, draft, and write the paper from scratch.

Our bespoke essay service ensures that every paper is done as though you would have done it. This means that the writer cites every animal testing journal article, credible website, or relevant scholarly resources as you would have done. They do this when they summarize, paraphrase, or quote from the sources.

Therefore, you are guaranteed 100% original and plagiarism-free animal testing essays. Furthermore, whether you are for or against animal testing, we have a writer who can write your argumentative essay outline, annotated bibliography, research paper, and essay.

They can take an ethical stance or argue based on what society or professionals/experts think about the issue.

Trust us with your paper because we have done this time and again : written untraceable papers for students. Our writers are fast, accurate, respectable, and experienced. They know how to score the top grade on the rubric. All the papers we have done have been used as best argumentative essay samples on should animal testing be banned? yours could be the next one.

Are you a student with weak English and need help? Our ESL writers can craft a paper that sounds like someone who does not grasp English. Alternatively, our ENL writers also know how to tone down an English paper. After all, we serve both ESL and ENL clients. Go to our home page, click on order now, place your order and pay for it, and wait as we complete it for you.

Gradecrest is a professional writing service that provides original model papers. We offer personalized services along with research materials for assistance purposes only. All the materials from our website should be used with proper references. See our Terms of Use Page for proper details.

How to Write an Animal Testing Essay: Tips for Argumentative & Persuasive Papers

• 🦮 Things to Know About Animal Rights Essay

📜 Animal Testing Argumentative Essay

🗣️ animal testing persuasive essay.

• ⚖️ Animal Testing For & Against Arguments
• 🦥 Animal testing Essay Sample
• 🐾 15 Awesome Titles for Animal Testing Essay

🦮 Animal Rights Essay Writing Guide

Here’s an introduction to animal testing essay writing. This topic is full of controversies and nuances that you need to know.

1. Animal Testing Essay Challenges

It might seem complicated to stay professional while writing about a sensitive topic. What should you consider before you start to write an animal testing essay?

Be ready to:

• Provide trustworthy facts and numbers. As this topic is debatable, you need to choose scientific data sources. All the evidence that supports your thesis should be credible and accurate.
• Keep your writing ethical. Avoid using biased information, overly emotional language, and stereotypes. Instead, use inclusive language without ambiguous interpretations.
• Regard an opposite opinion. It is essential to understand the issue from different perspectives. Include an opposing point of view to show your competence and the depth of your research.
• Overcome a moral dilemma. There is a lot to debate about animal testing, and you might not find a perfect solution. Therefore, be prepared to find the middle ground.
• Keep up with the scientific progress. As so much research constantly updates, you need to be aware of the last changes. It will help you to include only relevant data in your paper.

2. Animal Testing Essay Tips

Here are some tips to make your writing experience easier:

• Use academic research databases to look for evidence.
• Study the background and the development of the issue.
• Don’t hesitate to verify your data using other publications.
• Be objective when providing your arguments and evidence.
• Create an outline before writing your first draft.
• Create several versions of your essay to select the best one.
• Read papers that cover the same topic.
• Study the opposite point of view.
• Spend some extra time on proofreading and editing.

3. Animal Testing Essay Strategies: Argumentative Vs. Persuasive

Argumentative and persuasive essays on animal testing might seem somewhat similar. Here, we will describe the differences between these two types.

Argumentative Essay

An argumentative essay’s primary purpose is to convince the audience that your position is valid and worth attention.

• It requires profound research. You need to study the terminology and updates while exploring the issue.
• Its main bases are logic and evidence. Avoid emotional appeals even if they make your arguments sound stronger.
• It implies research of both sides. You will need to include an opposing argument and show its relevance.

Persuasive Essay

A persuasive essay convinces its audience using both facts and emotional response of the readers to prove one’s opinion.

• It is less formal. The tone is more relaxed. Choose facts that instantly appeal to your audience.
• Its primary basis is opinion. You will rely on the choice of words and strong arguments rather than on evidence.
• It focuses on one perspective. You have to convince readers that your way of thinking is the only option. Reviewing other positions is optional.

Now that you know the differences, we will look at each type. Here, we will explain how to prepare for writing and create an animal-testing argumentative essay outline.

What Is Animal Testing Argumentative Essay About?

An animal testing argumentative essay discusses the pros and cons of animal testing giving preference to one of the sides. You should state whether animal testing is necessary in your thesis and provide at least two arguments to support your claim. Then you will need to include at least one counterargument to show another perspective.

Animal Testing Argumentative Essay Outline

There are several types of organization for an argumentative essay: classical, Rogerian, and Toulmin. Rogerian is the most suitable one for this topic. This type of organization requires drawing attention to different opinions while promoting your arguments.

3 Tips for Animal Testing Argumentative Essay

Follow these tips to make your essay better:

• Choose an arguable topic. Something that is not obvious. It should puzzle your readers and make them interested in what you say.
• Stick to your thesis. It is the basis of your paper. You need to support every word of your thesis in body paragraphs.
• Think about your audience. Knowing who your readers are will help you choose the writing tone. It also determines the need for more or fewer explanations and background information.

Here is another pattern for developing your animal rights essay . Read the paragraph below to figure out how to write an excellent animal testing persuasive essay.

What Is Animal Testing Persuasive Essay About?

An animal testing persuasive essay is focused on one side of the issue. Here, you choose if you are for or against animal testing and prove your opinion. Appealing to conscience, sense of intelligence, or your readers’ emotions is your best instrument. You need to sound convincing to make your audience accept your perspective.

Animal Testing Persuasive Essay Outline

In this case, you need to focus on solid arguments supporting your viewpoint. It will determine the way your audience reacts to your writing.

3 Tips for Animal Testing Persuasive Essay

What do you need to do to write a better persuasive essay?

• Show your empathy. It will affect your readers’ experiences and create an emotional bond between you.
• Repeat yourself. Work with paraphrasing and figures of speech. Strategic repetition is an effective tool to remind your readers about the message you are trying to convey.
• Use rhetorical questions. Puzzle your audience by asking them something controversial. At the same time, your argumentation should promote your position as an answer.

⚖️ Animal Testing Essay: For & Against

Here, you will find the pros and cons of animal testing . You can use these arguments in argumentative and persuasive essays.

I. Arguments FOR Animal Testing

Here is why animal testing should be allowed:

• Many life-saving medicines rely on animal testing . According to the California Biomedical Association, animal research helped almost every medical breakthrough in the last century . Millions of human lives depend on animal testing. It helps treat breast cancer, tuberculosis, leukemia, and many others.
• There is no alternative to testing vaccines . Scientists needed animal testing to ensure that a vaccine doesn’t make a virus more dangerous. During the global pandemic of 2020, researchers used genetically modified mice to develop vaccines. There was no other way to ensure people’s safety.
• Animal testing prevents risking lives of human volunteers . If we test medicine or cosmetical products on toxicity, we can’t use people. Human trials also possess risks of side effects, but it could be worse without animal testing.
• It ensures the safety of the products we use . China does not even allow to put cosmetical products on the market before animal testing. We use more and more cosmetical products every day. There are more and more of them on the market. That is why we need to ensure that every product we use is safe for us.
• We need animal testing to make drugs for animals as well . Scientists use animal testing to develop medicines, vaccines, and medical devices.

II. Arguments AGAINST Animal Testing

The reasons why animal testing should be stopped:

• Not all of the testing results apply to people . Many anatomic, cellular, and metabolic differences make animals poor models for us. So some drugs that pass animal testing can eventually fail on people.
• There are alternative testing methods . Skin-producing technologies such as tissue bioprinting and human skin cells growth can replace animal testing. Of course, it is not possible for all the products, but these technologies can significantly reduce the use of animals.
• It does not guarantee 100% safety . Human bodies might react differently to the same ingredients. When drugs do not show any side effects or harmful consequences on animals, they still might be dangerous for humans.
• The demand for cruelty-free products increases . People know about the inhumanity of animal testing and choose to buy cruelty-free products. Politicians are also concerned and take measures against animal testing. European Union, Australia, and South Korea banned cosmetics tested on animals. That is why cosmetical brands give up animal testing and switch to other options.
• Inhumane treatment and bad conditions . Animals suffer from food and water deprivation, inflicted burns and other wounds, and CO2 asphyxiation. Also, many of them have their eyes open for hours to test cosmetic products. Animals deserve ethical treatment as they cannot protect themselves from humans.

🦥 Animal Testing Essay Sample

Read an animal testing argumentative essay example below. You can use it as a reference to your writing.

Should Animal Testing Be Banned Essay

As technological progress moves on, we need to move on too. Some practices that were considered normal should be reviewed in the 21st century. We need to choose animal welfare and moral standards over inhumanity. Animal testing should be banned because it is cruel, expensive, and inefficient.

Animals suffer when scientists use them as test models. Some live in small cages and do not have enough space for motion. Others are forced to eat or drink something unnatural for them. It is common for animals to experience pain because of skin and eye burns, itching, or other side effects in the worst cases. For example, during the Draize test, researchers put chemicals into rabbits' eyes to see the reaction.

Keeping and breeding animals need money. It implies costs for space, food, and other maintenance expenses. As animal tests are not always reliable and need several attempts, the price for developing a successful drug can exceed one billion dollars. Every time you buy a pill or a cosmetic product tested on animals, you pay for animal testing.

Animal testing does not guarantee identical results for humans in most cases. The failure rate for animal testing is higher than 95%. There are also many controversies because the reactions of animals and people to certain ingredients can be opposite. For example, penicillin can kill guinea pigs but helps people. Aspirin is dangerous for pets but relieves human headaches.

To put it all together, animal testing is immoral in the 21st century. It is inhuman, not accurate, and pricey to the companies. It would be better if they invested the money in new technologies to replace animal experimentation. All in all, we pay for these products as customers. We have a right to choose whether or not we want them to be tested on animals.

🐾 Titles for Animal Testing Essay

Last but not least. Below we’ve collected some of our best animal testing essay examples. Use them for inspiration, or try our free research title generator .

• Is Animal Testing Really Needed?
• Animals in Research, Education, and Teaching.
• Animal Experiments: Benefits, Ethics, and Defenders.
• Animal Experimentation: Justification Arguments.
• Animal Testing Ban: Counterargument and Rebuttal.
• Genetically Modified Animals and Implications.
• Animal Research, Its Ineffectiveness, and Amorality.
• Equal Consideration of Interests to Animals.
• The Ethics of Animal Use in Scientific Research.
• Debates of Using Animals in Scientific Analysis.
• Animal Testing in Scientific Experiments.
• Cosmetic and Medical Animal Testing.
• Pavlov’s Dog Experiment.
• Animal Testing for Medical Purposes .
• Duties to Non-Human Animals .
• Animal Testing in Biomedical Research .
• Animal-Based Therapy Overview and Analysis .
• Qualities That Humans and Animals Share .
• Effects of Animal Companions in Psychotherapy .
• Red Fluorescent Protein Transgenic Dogs Experiment .
• The Use of Animals for Research .
• Human and Animal Experiments in Psychology Studies: Implications for Society .
• Animal Studies: The Role in Behaviorism Development .

🔗 References

• Suggestions for Developing Argumentative Essays
• 8 Persuasive Writing Tips and Techniques
• Animal Testing – Pros & Cons – ProCon.org
• The Debate on Animal Experimentation – Sather Health
• Importance of Animals in Human Lives | Sciencing
• Are There Any Benefits to Animal Testing? Get the Facts | PETA

Research Paper Analysis: How to Analyze a Research Article + Example

Film analysis: example, format, and outline + topics & prompts.

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Animal Rights — Thesis Statement For Animals Deserve Rights, And Their Rights

Thesis Statement for Animals Deserve Rights, and Their Rights

• Categories: Animal Rights Animal Welfare

About this sample

Words: 671 |

Published: Mar 5, 2024

Words: 671 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Thesis statement, history and debates, development and resolution.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues Environment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 531 words

4 pages / 1668 words

4 pages / 1656 words

3 pages / 1235 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Animal Rights

The issue of whether animal testing should be banned has sparked intense debate among scientists, ethicists, policymakers, and animal rights advocates. This essay aims to analyze the arguments both for and against banning animal [...]

PETA, also known as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is a globally recognized organization that advocates for animal rights and aims to bring about change in society's attitudes towards animals. Since its [...]

The "Food, Inc.", documentary film, directed by Robert Kenner provides a comprehensive overview of the food industry in the United States. The film delves into various aspects of the food production process, including the [...]

Cats, often misunderstood and unjustly criticized, deserve our love and appreciation. As a pet lover and advocate, I firmly believe that it is time to put an end to the negative stereotypes surrounding cats. In this persuasive [...]

“Elephants in the wild travel up to 50 miles every day” and hundreds of those elephants are captured and bred into captivity (Dahl 1). Keeping them would be inherently cruel, for they would have to live the rest of their lives [...]

Animals kept in zoos, aquariums, and circuses are treated poorly by humans and inevitably suffer of disease, pain, starvation, and fear so they will perform seamlessly for the public. Animals are forced by their owners to carry [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

The service will be useful for

Students who find writing to be a difficult task. If you fit this description, you can use our free essay samples to generate ideas, get inspired and figure out a title or outline for your paper.

• Our Top Writers

Cruelty Free International

subtitle: Working to create a world where no animals suffer in a laboratory

breadcrumb navigation:

• About Animal Testing /
• current page Arguments against animal testing

Arguments against animal testing

Animal experiments are cruel, unreliable, and even dangerous

The harmful use of animals in experiments is not only cruel but also often ineffective. Animals do not naturally get many of the diseases that humans do, such as major types of heart disease, many types of cancer, HIV, Parkinson’s disease or schizophrenia. Instead, signs of these diseases are artificially induced in animals in laboratories in an attempt to mimic the human disease. Yet, such experiments belittle the complexity of human conditions which are affected by wide-ranging variables such as genetics, socio-economic factors, deeply-rooted psychological issues and different personal experiences.

It is not surprising to find that treatments showing “promise” in animals rarely work in humans.  Not only are time, money and animals’ lives being wasted (with a huge amount of suffering), but effective treatments are being mistakenly discarded and harmful treatments are getting through. The support for animal testing is based largely on anecdote and is not backed up, we believe, by the scientific evidence that is out there.

Despite many decades of studying cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, stroke and AIDS in animals, none of these conditions have reliable and fully effective cures and some don’t even have effective treatments.

The history of cancer research has been the history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades and it simply didn’t work in human beings.

Unreliable animal testing

• 92% of drugs fail in human clinical trials despite appearing safe and effective in animal tests, often on safety grounds or because they do not work.
• Urology drugs have the lowest success rate (only 4% are approved after entering clinical trials) followed by heart drugs (5% success rate), cancer drugs (5% success rate) and neurology drugs (6% success rate).
• Our research has shown that using dogs, rats, mice and rabbits to test whether or not a drug will be safe for humans provides statistically little useful insight. Our study also revealed that drug tests on monkeys are just as poor as those using any other species in predicting the effects on humans.
• A recent study found that out of 93 dangerous drug side effects, only 19% could have been predicted by animal tests.
• Another study showed that over 1,000 potential stroke treatments have been “successful” in animal tests, but of the approximately 10% that progressed to human trials, none worked sufficiently well in humans.
• One review of 101 high impact discoveries based on basic animal experiments found that only 5% resulted in approved treatments within 20 years. More recently, we conducted an analysis of 27 key animal-based ‘breakthroughs ’ that had been reported by the UK press 25 years earlier. Mirroring the earlier study, we found only one of the 27 “breakthroughs” had been realised in humans, and that was subject to several caveats.

Dangerous animal testing

• Vioxx, a drug used to treat arthritis, was found to be safe when tested in monkeys (and five other animal species) but has been estimated to have caused around 140,000 heart attacks and strokes and 60,000 deaths worldwide.
• Human volunteers testing a new monoclonal antibody treatment (TGN1412) at Northwick Park Hospital, UK, in 2006 suffered a severe immune reaction and nearly died. Testing on monkeys at 500 times the dose given to the volunteers totally failed to predict the dangerous side effects.
• A drug trial in France resulted in the death of one volunteer and left four others severely brain damaged in 2016. The drug, which was intended to treat a wide range of conditions including anxiety and Parkinson’s disease, was tested in four different species of animals (mice, rats, dogs and monkeys) before being given to humans.
• A clinical trial of Hepatitis B drug fialuridine had to be stopped because it caused severe liver damage in seven patients, five of whom died. It had been tested on animals first.

Animals are different

• Animals do not get many of the diseases we do, such as Parkinson’s disease, major types of heart disease, many types of cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, HIV or schizophrenia.
• An analysis of over 100 mouse cell types found that only 50% of the DNA responsible for regulating genes in mice could be matched with human DNA.
• The most commonly used species of monkey to test drug safety (Cynomolgous macaque monkeys) is resistant to doses of paracetamol (acetaminophen) that would be deadly in humans.
• Chocolate, grapes, raisins, avocados and macadamia nuts are harmless in humans but toxic to dogs.
• Aspirin is toxic to many animals and would not be on our pharmacy shelves if it had been tested according to current animal testing standards.

The science relating to animal experiments can be extremely complicated and views often differ. What appears on this website represents Cruelty Free International expert opinion, based on a thorough assessment of the evidence.

FIND OUT MORE ABOUT ANIMAL TESTING

Alternatives to animal tests are often cheaper, quicker and more effective.

Alternatives to animal testing

subtitle: Alternatives to animal tests are often cheaper, quicker and more effective.

Science Page

Established in 1898, Cruelty Free International is firmly rooted in the early social justice movement and has a long and inspiring history.

Our History

subtitle: Established in 1898, Cruelty Free International is firmly rooted in the early social justice movement and has a long and inspiring history.

Millions of animals are used and killed in the name of progress every year.

Facts and figures on animal testing

subtitle: Millions of animals are used and killed in the name of progress every year.

Animals used in laboratories are deliberately harmed, not for their own good, and are usually killed at the end of the experiment.

What is animal testing?

subtitle: Animals used in laboratories are deliberately harmed, not for their own good, and are usually killed at the end of the experiment.

Animal testing is carried out in a wide range of areas, including biological research, and testing medicines and chemicals.

Types of animal testing

subtitle: Animal testing is carried out in a wide range of areas, including biological research, and testing medicines and chemicals.

Science Publications

The Debate on Animal Testing Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Factors Attributed to the Rise in Animal Experimentation

Animal rights debate, animal liberation, recommendations, works cited.

Animal testing is described as a procedure involving vivisection and/or In vivo testing of animals for experimentation or research. In the pursuit of what is known as scientific progress, animals have fallen victims of distress in the process.

Throughout history, human has employed animals in carrying out various activities as beasts of burden, for companionship and food. However, animal testing was particularly developed along with medical inventions. It dates back during the ancient Greece, applied by Hippocrates and Aristotle, who established the structural and functional component of human body through animal dissections (Athanasiou & Darzi 208).

During the Cartesian philosophy at around seventeenth century, animal testing was employed with hardly any ethical issue arising as a result. Rene Descartes for instance, maintained that man possessed a mind and could feel pain while animals had none and therefore, could not feel pain. However, these perceptions were later opposed by Jeremy Bentham (Office of Technology Assessment, Congress 75).

The topic of animal testing has continued to trigger several ethical and legal issues in pursuit of questioning its legitimacy. Following the fulfillment of the procedures on animals, they are euthanized in efforts to reduce their suffering. Animals, like human can feel physical, psychological and emotional pain, and therefore, it is morally incorrect to facilitate their suffering due to continued experimentation with them.

Even with advocacy of humane way of treating these animals by animal rights groups, it is never enough since these experiments always causes them to suffer, which infringe on their rights. The purpose of this paper is to define animal testing within a historical context, establish ethical and legal issues surrounding the acts, discuss animal liberation movements, arguments in support and against the act of animal testing as part of the debate on animal rights and most importantly, alternatives to animal testing.

Generally, this paper shall try to question the legitimacy of animal testing and give a recommendation of alternative non-animal approaches.

Animal experimentation heightened when anesthetics were introduced in the medical field. Besides, the Darwinian Origin of Species defended the biological resemblances between animals and human hence resulting to a rise in animal experiments. Today, there has been a rise in demand for sophisticated animal models as well as rising controversial debates regarding animal experimentation.

These aspects contributed to the establishment of Laboratory Animal Science during the nineteen fifties, guided by 3R principles (Baumans pr.1). This is a multidisciplinary approach in the field, which has enhanced the animal testing standards and their welfare. There has been a rising concern in relation to animal welfare that has resulted to various legislations in various nations, with the UK approving the initial legislation on animal experimentation dubbed, the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876 (Athanasiou & Darzi 209).

Progress in the biomedical sciences resulted to a rise in animal testing in the twentieth century. However, this decreased in 1980s when the public became aware, strict laws were introduced and there was a rise in animal rights groups.

All the same, animal experimentation has risen in the twenty-first century attributed to the progress made in genetic engineering of animals. Currently, seventy-five to a hundred million vertebrates are used annually for scientific research as well as testing of drugs, vaccines, cancer research, diagnostics, among others (Baumans pr. 2).

According to Baumans, “Averagely, 50% of the laboratory animals experience minor discomfort (e.g., single blood sampling), 30% moderate (e.g., recovery from anesthesia) and 20% severe (e.g., toxicity tests)” (pr. 2). Animal tests have been criticized by questioning the right of man to use them for his benefits even when they have been proven unreliable.

Animal rights activists have opposed the act on the grounds that it is immoral and violates the rights of these animals. However, the morality of the procedure is downplayed since it is outweighed by the fact that these procedures are ethically approached through carrying out a self-analysis of the motives involved, either personally or scientifically.

The process incorporates recognizing that animals suffer and therefore, this should be minimized as much as possible in relation to ethical values employed. Animals have their own rights and if a procedure infringes on these rights, it forms the ground to criticize its morality. The case of morality should not examine the benefits incurred by humans since a violation of rights is by its own an independent concept to rule out the procedure on moral basis.

This is where the supporters of animal testing fail since they don’t base their morality argument on violation of rights but on its consequences. This implies that the benefits incurred by humans are a justification of animals to suffer. They insist that the benefits to humans outweigh the detrimental effects caused to animals, which is a consequentialist argument since it emphasizes on the impacts of the action under the question.

However, some procedures are so inhumane such that the benefits incurred by human cannot justify the harms caused to the animal research subjects. Consider the following argument; if a procedure is more harmful when conducted, it is morally incorrect to conduct it.

More so, Singer maintains that “whenever experimenters claim that their experiments are important enough to justify the use of animals, we should ask them whether they would be prepared to use a brain-damaged human being at a similar mental level to the animals they are planning to use” (76). In the recent past, ethical debates regarding animal testing are common regarding the principles to impose on different animal species.

However, many have agreed that animal testing in medical as well as scientific research is beneficial to man when animal suffering is minimized. On this note, peter singer maintains that there lacks basis to employ animals for them to suffer, which is a utilitarian perspective. Researchers have pointed out that the biological differences that exist between human and animals results to unreliability of such tests. Animal tests have a lower quality and must be conducted hand in hand with clinical trials on human (Athanasiou & Darzi 210).

On the other hand, those in support of animal experiments claim that almost all medical accomplishment and breakthrough in the recent past, is based on animal testing. In addition, some have gone ahead to argue that computer simulations cannot define the association amid different cells and environment, which calls for animal experimentations since they are able to achieve this.

However, critiques of the procedure points out that these results could be misleading even in animal tests and this impedes scientific progress. Similarly, imposing regulations against animal testing would imply that animals would no longer be used for toxicological experimentation of new drugs.

It could also imply the application of human to determine their safety. Animal tests are agued to assist in determining if a certain drug should be tested on humans and not the efficacy of the drug. If the drug proves lethal to animals, it means it cannot be used on humans. If it proves otherwise, clinical trials can be initiated on humans. These are some of the reasons that those who support the idea of animal experimentation put forward to justify the act, often triggering a conflict of interests.

It is generally agreed that animal’s life is valuable and should not be mishandled. This aspect has led to regulations being imposed to regulate the issue. It has thus, been a controversial issue for policymakers, some of who states that animal suffering is inhumane and therefore, they put forward euthanasia as mean to minimize animal suffering.

It is clear that most, during the scientific experiments and studies, animal suffering is inevitable and in turn ends up dying. Therefore, euthanizing these animals has been seen as a means of reducing depression, pain and infections that may result since some of these animals can neither respond to medication nor feed or breed, which makes them useless.

Euthanizing these animals is meant to trigger a swift unconsciousness, followed by death with little or no agony or suffering. These methods include use of gases like carbon monoxide, decapitation, cervical dislocation, maceration, irradiation, electrocution, captive bolts, pithing, quick freezing and air embolism with or without anesthesia (Athanasiou & Darzi 212).

Animal liberation or animal rights regards to the notion that animals have to be considered similar to human with respect to their interests. The issue has been approached from contrasting philosophical stances. The protectionist Peter Singer emphasizes a utilitarian aspect of suffering and its effects and not on the idea of rights.

Conversely, the abolitionist Gary Francione maintains that animals require just a single right i.e. a right to property. All the same, animal liberation advocates come to an agreement that animals have to be considered as non-human individuals belonging to a certain moral setup and not as foodstuff, research subjects, source of entertainment or even for clothes. Peter Singer initiated the animal liberation movement in which he overlooked the theoretical explanations of rights with regard to animals (Office of Technology Assessment, Congress 76).

In his book, Singer maintains that animals’ interests have to be prioritized since they can feel pain and distress, arguing that the impression of rights is meant to express the importance to put animals into consideration. Singer made popular the application of the concept of speciesism in his description of oppressive handling of animals.

Speciesism is described as “unjustified bias that favors one’s own species over the other” (Singer 287). The utilitarian approach; ‘the greatest good for the greatest number,’ can only be the sole way to quantify ethical behavior. He maintains that there lacks any justification as to why this should not be applicable to animals.

Singer disregards rights as an ethical idea, which is not dependent on the utilitarian idea founded on interests. He embraces rights as a derivative of utilitarian principles, especially that of decreasing suffering in animals. According to him, animal rights currently differ from those of human in his view in Animal Liberation (1975).

Here, he insists on speciesism in that there is discrimination of animals as a result of their having to be associated with a different species. He ascertains that any being, which can suffer should be considered equally (Office of Technology Assessment, Congress 83). Failing to do so can be likened to racism and gender justice (Singer 85).

According to his arguments, animals should possess rights since they have a potential of feeling pain more in comparison to their intelligence. This is to say that animals depict a much less intelligence as compared to an average man, while individuals who have a severe intellectual challenge likewise portray a reduced mental capacity.

It is even possible that particular animals such as primates portray intelligence in learning symbolic languages almost similar to infants. As a result, intelligence is not justifiable on the grounds of awarding animals a lower thought than the mentally challenged persons. Singer also rejects the notion of taking animals as the source of food and advocates for a vegetarian diet.

More so, he disregards vivisection, particularly when the benefits incurred are less than the harm inflicted on the animal subject. Singer ascertains that there lacks moral basis for failure to award equal consideration with regard to animal and human interests of having a potential to suffer. Animal’s research has shown that animals are capable of feeling pain and suffering, but they lack a language to express their distress, unlike human (Singer 286).

However, these aspects are criticized by Carl Cohen, who rules out the concept of personalizing animals. He maintains that holders of rights have to be in a position to understand rule of duty governing them. They have to comprehend probable conflicts amid their own interest and justice during application of such regulations. It is solely on the society of ‘beings’ with potential to self-restrict ethical judgments, when the notion of rights is properly invoked (Cohen & Regan 27).

He, therefore, opposes Singer’s argument, which implies that mentally retarded persons cannot come up with moral judgments. Then, it should not be applied as the distinctive trait to determine whether animals should be given rights. Cohen argues that to examine an ethical judgment, it should not be applied to each person but rather, to a potential of all members of the overall species (Cohen & Regan 41).

Animal experimentation has composed a huge industry, which comprises of the chemical, pharmaceutical, learning institutions as well as other scientific oriented industries. Animals used in these experiments are subjected to physical pain and psychological trauma during different procedures such as toxicological testing.

Moreover, in learning institutions, veterinary practice and medical research incorporate use of animals for educational purposes. Computer programming, In vitro approach, statistical approaches, application of cell cultures in research, or even clinical research using humans are some of the alternatives to use in experimentation. However, these alternatives have proven futile due to reluctance in embracing them, inadequate funding or simply being against change.

These alternatives, when embraced in this scientific research as well as for education purposes, animal rights are safeguarded. May be, the most important question to ask is if these animal experiments are really reliable. This is because they could give different responses to that of human body.

It is, therefore, important to note that their suffering during the testing could even compromise the results. Consequently, the essence of having to make animals suffer to benefit human is questionable if there are other alternatives that could be used instead, and give even more accurate results.

Food Drug Admiration enacted FD&C Act, which was a promulgation of other interrelated laws. The Act allowed cosmetic manufacturers to do everything within their power to guarantee the safety of the product for human before they are put in the market.

These companies have employed animal testing to achieve this aim of ensuring safe ingredients in their products. FDA however, advocates that the benefits extracted in the animal tests should be optimized by using the least number of animals, which should be handled humanely in whatever way possible.

The agency has collaborated with others to draft alternative means of toxicological tests within the American nation thus advocating for Refinement, Reduction as well as Replacement of animal experimentation (Athanasiou & Darzi 210). Reduction means using the least number of animals possible to reach the desired results by researchers, enhancing experimentation procedures and analysis as well as sharing the results with different researchers.

Refinement involves minimizing animal suffering by refining procedures involved, through less invasive procedures, improved medical attention, and living conditions. Replacement entails the use of alternative techniques, which includes testing on cell cultures, clinical tests on human volunteers, computer programming and epidemiological research studies when similar results can be achieved if animal subjects were used (Baumans pr.3).

Although beneficial, animal tests are not always accurate since they might give a different response in humans to that of animals (Athanasiou & Darzi 210). Therefore, an ethics committee should be established in every nation to determine the ethical aspects of animal testing in relation to research proposals put forward.

From this perspective, animal tests should only be embraced when the benefits incurred outweighs their suffering. Moral review of the procedures of animal testing is important in enhancing the standards of animal experiments since their welfare is crucial to attaining a reliable outcome.

It is often assumed that animal experiments are integral to scientific and medical progress. As a result, the current debate over animal testing is characterized by cacophony of views. However, there appears to be an agreement that animals should be treated humanely.

They have been awarded the same stance as human by Singer while critiques like Cohen refute the stance. In my opinion, animals should possess similar rights as humans and if they are capable of suffering like human, then it is an obvious call that the cause of suffering should be withdrawn.

However, unlike humans, animals can neither assume duties nor possess discretion, which awards rights an idiosyncratic role in ethics. On this note, consistency maintains that animals should be awarded rights once they are awarded to infants or mentally retarded individuals who have no discretion, a concept asserted by Cohen.

Singer, however, disregards the idea of man alleviating himself over other species and therefore, condemns his exploitation to animals. Besides, animals have a potential to suffer, and therefore, they should be relieved their suffering just as humans, which comprise of a utilitarian approach to the issue.

Considering human suffering, while neglecting that of animals is a violation of the canon of equality. This is a simple concept of humane treatment of animals as their moral authorization, which has continued to raise a conflict of interest all over the world (Office of Technology Assessment, Congress 83).

Athanasiou, Thanos & Darzi, Ara. Key Topics in Surgical Research and Methodology . Heidelberg: Springer, 2010. Print. Baumans, Van. Use of animals in experimental research: an ethical dilemma. Gene Therapy, 11, S64–S66. doi:10.1038/sj.gt.3302371. Nature Publishing Group, 2004.

Cohen, Carl & Regan, Tom. The Animal Rights Debate . Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001. Print.

Office of Technology Assessment, Congress. Alternatives To Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education . Washington, D.C: DIANE Publishing, 1986. Print.

Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals . New York: Random House, 1975. Print.

• Active Listening Skills in the Healthcare Environment
• The Right to Life and Active Euthanasia
• Medical Research on Animals Should be Forbidden by Law
• Criminal Justice Experimentation: Threats to Validity
• Laboratory Experiments on Animals: Argument Against
• Singer’s Views on Voluntary Euthanasia, Non-voluntary Euthanasia, and Involuntary Euthanasia
• Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
• Tuskegee Experiment: The Infamous Syphilis Study
• Ethical Issues in the Health Sector
• Elements of Negligence and Their Effects
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, March 20). The Debate on Animal Testing. https://ivypanda.com/essays/testing-on-animals/

"The Debate on Animal Testing." IvyPanda , 20 Mar. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/testing-on-animals/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'The Debate on Animal Testing'. 20 March.

IvyPanda . 2019. "The Debate on Animal Testing." March 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/testing-on-animals/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Debate on Animal Testing." March 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/testing-on-animals/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Debate on Animal Testing." March 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/testing-on-animals/.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Public perception of laboratory animal testing: Historical, philosophical, and ethical view

The use of laboratory animals in biomedical research is a matter of intense public debate. Recent statistics indicates that about half of the western population, sensitive to this discussion, would be in favor of animal testing while the other half would oppose it. Here, outlining scientific, historical, ethical, and philosophical aspects, we provide an integrated view explaining the reasons why biomedical research can hardly abandon laboratory animal testing. In this paper, we retrace the historical moments that mark the relationship between humans and other animal species. Then starting from Darwin’s position on animal experimentation, we outline the steps that over time allowed the introduction of laws and rules that regulate animals’ use in biomedical research. In our analysis, we present the perspectives of various authors, with the aim of delineating a theoretical framework within which to insert the ethical debate on laboratory animals research. Through the analysis of fundamental philosophical concepts and some practical examples, we propose a view according to which laboratory animals experimentation become ethically acceptable as far as it is guided by the goal of improving humans and other animal species (i.e., pets) life. Among the elements analyzed, there is the concept of responsibility that only active moral subjects (humans) have towards themselves and towards passive moral subjects (other animal species). We delineate the principle of cruelty that is useful to understand why research in laboratory animals should not be assimilated to a cruel act. Moreover, we touch upon the concepts of necessity and “good cause” to underline that, if biomedical research would have the possibility to avoid using animals, it would surely do that. To provide an example of the negative consequences occurring from not allowing laboratory animal research, we analyze the recent experience of Covid-19 epidemic. Finally, recalling the principle of “heuristics and biases” by Kahneman, we discuss why scientists should reconsider the way they are conveying information about their research to the general public.

1 |. INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the use of laboratory animals in biomedical research has been a matter of intense public debate. The most recent statistics suggest that about half of the Western population, who generally are sensitive to this discussion, are in favor of animal testing, but the other half oppose it. Over the years, the European Union (EU), Canada, the United States, and several other countries have introduced laws to regulate the use of laboratory animal testing. These laws are generally well balanced and have been promulgated after consulting the main stakeholders (i.e., researchers, patient associations, associations for the protection of animals, and so forth) who are sensitive to this matter. Unfortunately, despite these efforts, the public debate has often suffered from misleading information that is disseminated by individuals or groups who oppose animal testing. Researchers have neglected to respond to such aggressive media campaigns with adequately effective communication. A prototypical example is the widespread use of the term “vivisection” that is used in an effort to stigmatize laboratory animal testing, notwithstanding the fact that science abhors vivisection, which is an illegal behavior that was banned by law and abandoned decades ago. Something similar is also happening in the case of vaccination, against which false information campaigns have been launched by groups of people who are generically identified as “Anti-Vaxers.” These groups deny the success of vaccination strategies to eradicate several serious infectious diseases, such as smallpox and poliomyelitis, although such opposition to vaccination carries an incalculable risk of severe public health damage.

The recent SARS-CoV2 pandemic and its social and political impact and dramatic consequences on public health systems are bringing new attention to the value of biomedical research. This situation provides an opportunity to replace disinformation with a constructive debate on the importance of animal testing and vaccination. In recent decades, much has been done to protect the rights of laboratory animals, but it is also clear that, based on present knowledge and available technologies, in specific research fields it is not possible to completely abandon in vivo animal testing by replacing it with alternative methods. The present work outlines historical, ethical, and philosophical aspects that stem from the recognition that animal testing is essential to advance biomedical research; it is required for the development of drugs and vaccines that meet both human and veterinary needs.

2 |. ANIMALS AND HUMANS: AN HISTORICAL VIEW

From an evolutionary perspective, we as Homo sapiens started our journey through time much later than several other species. Since the moment we developed our fine-tuned biological structures and uniquely complex central nervous system, we became “transcendent” beings ( Table 1 ). We started to symbolize ( Table 1 ), develop complex abstract thinking, and act accordingly. This high cognitive abilities are unlikely so well developed in other animal species, and this is what makes us different from them.

Definition of the philosophical concepts as used

We can use memories to attribute meanings, interpret the present, and think in perspective to anticipate the future. Through evolution, we also progressively acquired high cognitive faculties that are utilized to explore ways to improve our living conditions. We learned to use objects as tools and employ other animals to reach our aims, which is oftentimes linked to survival instincts but in some other cases independent from them, such as in the case of arts or companionship.

Animal domestication and breeding have been fundamental to the development of cultural and social human structures. Through domestication and breeding, humans could become sedentary because it was possible to have food and help without the need to hunt or be nomadic. The first animal that was domesticated was the dog, which was “the culmination of a process that initiated with European hunter-gatherers and the canids with whom they interacted.” 1 After the dog, other animals were also domesticated, such cows, pigs, and sheep, which were bred for food, clothes, or help with strenuous work, mostly in agriculture. Later, horses and several other animals became important to guarantee the functioning of increasingly complex societies.

In parallel, humans have learned to use animals for less immediate and urgent purposes. Domestication has become a way to select some completely captive species to be used for other purposes, such as companionship, entertainment, and scientific research. To develop new knowledge and improve peoples’ lives, particularly relevant has become the use of animals in the fields of medicine, pharmacology, biology, physiology, and cognitive psychology, among others.

In the age of Hippocrates, 2 the dissection of human corpses was prohibited, and animals were used to study human anatomy by analogy. “The parallels between human and animal physiology and pathology were noted long ago, and the practice that we today call ‘animal research’ is rooted back to the period of the ancient Egypt and Greece.” 3 During the 17th century, modern science, still in its infancy, was influenced by ideas of one of the most prominent philosophers of the time, Renée Descartes. According to his thinking, animals resemble material machines that lack intellect or spiritual elements, which are possessed by humans only. As a consequence of this vision, beginning in the 17th century, the use of animals in science steadily increased. In the 19th century, Charles Darwin published his most fundamental work, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life , 4 in which he showed profound similarities between human and nonhuman animals. In the 20th century, thanks to the irreplaceable contribution of laboratory animal experiments, new branches of science, such as pharmacology and immunology, were developed.

At the time of Hippocrates, Aristotle, and Galen and generally until the 18th century, animals were used for experiments without moral or legal restrictions because it was considered the only possible and legitimate way to avoid using humans. In the later 17th and 18th centuries, a moral debate began. Darwin himself was immersed in the public controversy about the use of live animals for scientific purposes. Opinions ranging from not allowing experimentation on animals to testing them if no pain was inflicted and finally to let the animal feel pain. Darwin, being an animal lover, although conflicted, found vivisection justifiable only for true physiological investigations but not simply for “mere damnable and detestable curiosity.” In 1875, Darwin was one of 53 witnesses called by the Royal commission to testify on the practice of using live animal testing. In his statement, he emphasized that progress in physiology was possible only with the aid of experiments on living animals, but that the animals must be rendered insensible to pain.

Public awareness of the need to control the use of experimental animals progressively increased, leading to the promotion of specific legislation, such as “An Act Against Plowing by the Tayle, and Pulling the Wool Off Living Sheep,” which was passed by the Parliament of Ireland in 1635 and was one of the first known laws on animal protection. In the 20th century, because of the explosion of biomedical sciences, the use of animals for laboratory testing increased enormously, creating conditions for the establishment of a new area of research, laboratory animal science. “This is a multidisciplinary branch of science aimed at contributing to the quality of experiments in which animals are used and at improving their welfare. It encompasses the biology of laboratory animals, their environmental requirements, genetic and microbiological standardization, prevention and treatment of disease, experimental techniques, anesthesia, analgesia and euthanasia, alternatives to their use, and ethics.” 5

3 |. THE USE OF LABORATORY ANIMALS TODAY

Experiments on laboratory animals today are conducted at the global level for different scopes and in different fields of study. Laboratory animals are employed to model humans’ and other animals’ pathologies, develop new pharmaceutical products, produce vaccines, and perform toxicological studies. A recent report indicated that in 2015, 37 countries, for which statistics are available, reported the use of 41.8 million experimental procedures (defined according to the European Union Directive 2010/63/EU; article 3,1) performed on laboratory animals worldwide. 6 The most widespread use of experimental animals occurs in China, with an estimated number of 20,496,670 procedures, followed by Japan and the United States with an adjusted number of approximately 15,000,000 procedures each. By far, the most commonly used animals are mice and rats, followed by birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and cephalopods. Significantly fewer dogs and monkeys are used, mostly in China and the United States. In total, the number of dogs and monkeys used in the 36 countries that communicated the data was 112,265 and 92,431, respectively. 6 Another statistical report indicated that, between 2014 and 2016 in Europe, the total number of procedures conducted on laboratory animals has been rather stable ranging from 10,356,578 to 10,853,401. 7

In all countries, animal experimentation is strictly controlled by specific laws and can only be conducted in compliance with them. A general principle that underlies these laws and that is also valorized by the internationally recognized and accepted guidelines of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals 8 is the “Replace, Reduce, Refine” (3R) principle, 9 , 10 which was first suggested by the English researchers William Russell and Rex Burch in 1959. 11 According to the 3Rs, experimental procedures must always respect the following three basic principles.

• According to “replace,” any time possible, the use of animals should be replaced with in vitro or in silico tests 12 , 13 or with invertebrates 14 – 16
• According to “reduce,” the number of animals used should always be kept to the absolute minimum that is needed for a specific experiment. The information that is gathered per animal should always be maximized to reduce the number of animals used as much as possible.
• According to “refine,” researchers must study and adopt a series of methods to improve laboratory animals’ welfare, such as caring about their housing conditions and minimizing pain, suffering, and distress.

The 3R principles are currently considered the most efficient and morally acceptable way to guarantee animals’ rights on the one hand and advance scientific progress on the other.

In the United States, animal testing procedures were for the first time regulated by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) of 1966, which has been amended four times (1970, 1976, 1985, and 1991). The AWA is integrated in the Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on the Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals that was published in 1985 and is periodically updated. The PHS policy requires research institutions to establish and maintain appropriate measures to ensure the adequate care and use of animals that are involved in animal testing and research.

In Europe, the use of laboratory animals for research was first regulated by EU Directive 86/609EEC and more recently by Directive 2010/63/EU 17 that applies to all live nonhuman vertebrate animals, including independently feeding larval forms, fetal forms of mammals from the last third of gestation during normal development, and live cephalopods (Art. 1 [3]). The 3R principles are one of the main inspirational elements of 2010/63/EU. After the EU Directive was promoted, EU member states had to comply with it by establishing their own national laws to regulate the care and use of laboratory animals, authorize research protocols for animal experimentation, and supervise proper application of the norms. Proposed research projects, in addition to guaranteeing animal welfare, must use the lowest neurologically evolved species within the constraints of the experiment and the lowest number of subjects possible. 2010/63/EU is a well-balanced directive that was passed after years of discussion between various stakeholders, including researchers, patient associations, and animal protection associations.

Unfortunately, the translation of this EU Directive into national laws has generated some differences between EU member states. Italy, for example, introduced its “D.Lgs.vo 26/14” in 2014, which consists of an unprecedented restrictive interpretation of 2010/63/EU. Additionally, contrary to EU legislation, the use of laboratory animals for xenotransplantation experiments or studying substances of abuse is prohibited, thus creating a significant negative bias in the biomedical research potential of Italy compared with other EU member states. It is worth mentioning also the example of Germany that, in addition to translating the EU Directive into a national law, similarly to Switzerland has implemented the principle of animal protection in its constitution.

4 |. ANIMAL RIGHT ACTIVISM

Undoubtedly, animal right movements have contributed to important progresses towards the establishment of a balanced relationship between humans and other animal species. For example, they have contributed to enhance the awareness of the scientific community to the use of laboratory animals in biomedical research. They provided a significant contribution to the promulgation of laws that balancing between the different views allow an adequate protection of laboratory animals without hampering biomedical research. Moreover, they have had a critical role in promoting the recognition of equality between humans and other animal species, so that in some cases, the principle of protection of animal rights has been introduced in national constitutional laws.

On the other hand, it should be condemned when animal right activism leads to inappropriate initiatives, often by single or small groups of individuals, that acting against the law strikes research centers and hospitals or attempt to discredit science. There are examples of scientists that due to alleged accuses by animal right activists have been illegally hindered in their research or have been removed from some of their responsibilities and then found innocent by the court. Occasionally, assaults on research centers, universities, and hospitals have been organized to free the laboratory animals. These actions have detrimental consequences not only for the institutions but also for the animals that bred in captivity and are not able to survive in natural environments.

Beyond these considerations, it is clear that the use of laboratory animals in science is a matter of intense public debate that is based on legal, moral, and ethical evaluations. To adequately address this issue, it is important to structure the discussion within a well-defined theoretical framework.

5 |. THEORETICAL VIEWS

It is not easy to find concordance between opinions in ethical debates. General scientific data that unquestionably support any one of the different positions may not be sufficient. Consequently, a particular empathy-based position is perceived as a universally valid philosophical position. As Immanuel Kant pointed out, however, the only universally relevant moral statement is one that, under the same conditions, can be recognized as valid by anyone who is endowed with reason. 18

The ethical debate about animal rights is one example in which a universally valid moral statement is difficult to imagine—multiple diverse positions are worthy of consideration. 19 For example, such authors as Peter Singer and Tom Regan, although starting from different points of view, have provided arguments that support the thesis that it is wrong to use animals. Other authors, such as the utilitarian Raymond G. Frey and Peter Carruthers, embrace contractualism and stand for the practice of laboratory animal testing.

In Animal Liberation , 20 Singer applies the “Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests.” According to this principle, humans and other animal species must have the same interests and rights. Singer criticizes what he calls “speciesism” ( Table 1 ), a morally wrong practice of treating one animal species as morally more important than others. Singer anchors this equality principle between members of different species to the experience of suffering, which is common to people and animals. According to this utilitarian perspective ( Table 1 ), everyone who feels pain and suffering naturally wants to avoid them; consequently, provoking pain is cruel and disrespectful of others’ rights.

Regan instead bases his defense of animal rights on a deontological argument ( Table 1 ), according to which the concept of the “intrinsic value” of a subject-of-a-life, a definition that cannot only be applied to humans but also to animals. In fact, animals are living beings, and this is sufficient to assert that, like humans, animals should never be considered objects. These two different but convergent theoretical approaches support a common position according to which the use of animals for food or testing has to be avoided as a morally unacceptable practice.

Like Singers, Frey 21 , 22 supports the principle of utilitarianism, but he comes to an opposite conclusion. According to him, animals, in contrast to humans, are not aware of “interests,” beliefs, or desires; therefore, it is wrong to attribute the same value to humans and other living species.

Another opponent of the equalitarian vision is Carruthers, 23 who justifies the use of animals based on the fact that they do not have the same mental capacity as humans. According to Carruthers, animals can have beliefs and desires and engage in practical reasoning in response to them. Animals can feel pain and fear and can suffer, but they are not “rational agents” because they are not able to govern their behavior in accordance with universal moral rules that are obeyed by most members of a community. Hence, no animal has the “moral standing” that only humans have. According to Carruthers’ conclusion, because animals do not have the same moral status ( Table 1 ) as humans, they cannot have the same rights. In other words, he states that moral agents ( Table 1 ) like humans (i.e., subjects who have moral responsibilities) must postpone responsibilities toward animals to promote their interests. Carruthers further pushes his position to the extreme by asserting that “a duty not to slaughter your neighbor’s dog might be an instance of a duty not to damage others’ property.” 19

As can be seen, general discussions about whether it is right or wrong to use animals in scientific research can lead to many disagreements and unsatisfactory conclusions for anyone. The fundamental question is why we should care about human rights more than animal rights. There is likely no unique or universal answer to this question, and there are equally sustainable and even opposing ethical positions on this matter. When engaging in this debate, it would be useful to concentrate as much as possible on a few elements.

6 |. ACTIVE AND PASSIVE MORAL SUBJECT AND RESPONSIBILITY

The first element to consider is that the moral sense is a human characteristic that makes individuals of our species “active moral subjects.” Conversely, the behavior of nonhuman animals is to a large extent instinctual. Hence, animals should be viewed as “passive moral subjects.” They are unable to recognize their own moral status and their own rights. Thus, being human an “active moral subject,” he also has the prerogative to recognize rights to other living subjects. The human being is thus the only “responsible” agent ( Table 1 ). He has the responsibility to respect animals’ rights but without neglecting his own and those of his species. Moreover, from a slightly different point of view, according to Hans Jonas, 24 human responsibility requires that the respect of nature and other species is a human duty more than other species’ rights.

7 |. ANIMAL TESTING IS NOT CRUELTY

Another element to consider is the concept of cruelty because, in most cases, animal experimentation is perceived as a cruel practice by the general public. Of course, for humans, it is a moral imperative to abhor cruelty. We should not harm animals by using them for experimentation if this means to be cruel. However, is the use of laboratory animals cruel when they are used for the “right purpose”? Are we performing acts of cruelty, or are we fulfilling a necessity? Cruelty must be condemned as a wrong behavior; to do so, however, we must first clearly define it.

We think that the first element that makes an act cruel is awareness ( Table 1 ). To be considered cruel, a person must be aware of the fact that he is harming someone or something else by provoking unnecessary pain or suffering. Without awareness, there is no cruelty. So, for example, a person who does not have the mental faculties to recognize others’ suffering should not be judged as cruel. The second element that we consider important is the ability to “symbolize” the act, which we already described as the capacity to attribute to it a specific meaning and value.

The third condition for an act to be considered cruel is that it must be done freely , without a reason, scope, or need, and only with an inner intention of satisfying some personal pleasure, such as the pleasure of inflicting harm only for the sake of it. The difference between a non-cruel act and a cruel act resides in the intention behind it. If the intention is informed by a very strong need that requires that act and that act only, with no other possible alternatives, then the act could be considered non-cruel even if it is harmful to others. Instead, if the intention that motivates an act that causes harm to another individual is based on a personal interest or satisfying unnecessary pleasure, then the act can be judged as cruel. One of the arguments against animal research is that it is freely enacted cruel behavior. Based on the elements delineated above, animal testing can be considered cruel only if a scientist acts in the absence of a necessity and if he uses an animal to satisfy a personal desire to harm or experience pleasure from harming. On the contrary, it cannot be considered cruel if the work of a scientist reflects the necessity of improving humans’ and other species’ lives.

8 |. ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION IS A NECESSITY AND A “GOOD CAUSE”

Of course, we must also reflect on the concept of “necessity,” which directly derives from the concept of “need.” A need is opposite to the desire for an unnecessary pleasure. Ethical and bioethical norms recommend the avoidance of unnecessary pleasure if it harms others’ rights, but they cannot suppress a natural need. If animal testing is the only way (or the most appropriate way) to improve the condition of people and their pets who suffer or save their lives, then this can be viewed as a legitimate need.

Another element to consider is the principle of “good cause.” As animal rights’ supporters contend, a cause that is good for humans may not be good for other animal species that are employed for that purpose. Conversely, what is not a good cause is not necessarily a bad cause either. Under ethically controlled circumstances, even if the cause could not be good for the animals that are used because, for example, they do not themselves benefit from being used, it is not necessarily bad in absolute terms. Testing drugs on laboratory animals is also useful for developing medications to ameliorate or save the lives of our pets and other nonhuman animals in general.

This argument should be carefully considered by those who believe that ethics cannot be speciesist, and it cannot consider only what is best for humans because, as explained above, laboratory animals are also used to protect and improve the lives of other animal species.

9 |. CAN BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH AVOID USING LABORATORY ANIMALS?

In addition to the ethical and theoretical perspectives that are discussed above, in which we sought to clarify that experimental research is a necessity and not cruel, we should also consider the practical reasons why biomedical research cannot avoid the use of animal testing.

As mentioned previously, the use of laboratory animals adheres to the principle of “good cause,” and it is conducted in compliance with laws that are promoted to guarantee animals’ rights. The 3R principles are the basic principles that have inspired current laws that regulate the use of laboratory animals. Consistent with the 3Rs is a commitment to engage in animal testing only when valid alternatives are unavailable. The main possible alternatives to in vivo tests are in vitro cell and tissue cultures or in silico computer-assisted experiments. 25 These alternative methods are indeed largely practiced in biomedical research, and their use has greatly contributed to the reduction of laboratory animals. Nonetheless, the complexity of various organs (e.g., the brain) and difficulty mimicking the function of a human organism in vitro or in silico make it impossible to fully replace in vivo laboratory animal testing. In fact, in most cases, the only way to study pathologies that afflict both humans and other species is by replicating them in animal models. The efficacy and toxicity of new drugs and vaccines, at some point in their development, can only be studied in living animals. 26 Testing a drug on a single cell or using an in silico approach (or both) would certainly help identify important characteristics of molecules that make them viable or not for further development. However, verification of their efficacy and safety profile is possible only if animal testing is performed. The alternative to this is an unsustainable risk (and thus unethical) to develop treatments without proven safety and efficacy. To prevent these risks, drug regulatory agencies stipulate that any new medication, vaccine, or cure in general must be tested in laboratory animals prior to entering the clinical stage.

The history of thalidomide offers the most famous example of what can happen if drugs are developed in the absence of adequate preclinical testing. In 1957, this drug was commercialized to treat insomnia, headaches, and nausea after having been tested only in rodents, but never during pregnancy. Unfortunately, it was extensively used by women to treat nausea and vomiting during pregnancy. 27 During that period, an unprecedented number of cases of phocomelia and other birth defects occurred in all 46 countries where the drug was marketed. Years later, thalidomide was identified as the cause of this disaster and subsequently withdrawn from the market. This led to some controversies about the predictive ability of animal experimentation. 28

The dramatic experience with thalidomide is often recalled to support positions against the use of laboratory animals in biomedical research. However, two facts need to be considered. The first is the logical fallacy and hasty generalization of the assertion that animal testing on thalidomide was not predictive and therefore any animal testing is not predictive. In fact, there are several other cases in which the use of laboratory animals has been very important for the early detection of drug toxicity. The second and most important fact, when the story of thalidomide is viewed from a different perspective, demonstrates the importance of using laboratory animals in preclinical research. The problem with this drug arose from the insufficient evaluation of its toxicity in laboratory animals, from the fact that all of the experiments were conducted in rodents (which were shown to be less sensitive to thalidomide compared with other species, including humans) and from the lack of tests during pregnancy. Hence, what caused the problem was not the poor predictive validity of animal testing but rather the inappropriate animal model that was used and insufficient preclinical investigations of the drug.

This dramatic experience led to the establishment of new guidelines and laws to regulate the preclinical testing of drugs. For example, these new guidelines stipulated that any new molecule or vaccine must be tested on at least two different animal species before moving to the clinical stage. Thanks to advances in the optimal use of laboratory animals, the risks for humans can be minimized by detecting the toxicity of new drugs very early during development. Recent data indicate that approximately 80% of compounds that are under development fail to enter the clinical stage, and approximately 40% of them are stopped after a lack of tolerability or signs of toxicity are found in laboratory animals. 29

10 |. CONCLUSIONS

Although the moral debate about using animals for scientific research is far from providing universally acceptable answers, we tried to address it from different points of view, both theoretical and practical ones. To go even deeper into the matter, we think that it is also important to explore some practical examples. For instance, let us consider the recent experience with the SARS-Cov2 pandemic that began around December 2019 in Wuhan, China, and spread worldwide in less than 3 months. We rapidly learned how dangerous this virus is. In the absence of effective medications or specific vaccines, several countries implemented what they viewed as necessary measures to control further spread of the disease. Such measures included lockdowns and social isolation to protect their populations and give biomedical researchers sufficient time to develop effective treatments.

As “active moral subjects,” we can decide whether to use or not use laboratory animal testing to advance research on SARS-Cov2. A hypothetical scenario can be constructed in which we choose not to practice laboratory animal testing for biomedical research. Our knowledge of the disease would progress much slower. Based on current scientific knowledge, new drugs or vaccines could not be developed. To reduce the risk of infections, we would likely be forced to live in social isolation for very long periods of time, from months to years.

One alternative might be to simply ignore or disregard the epidemic and maintain our usual lifestyles. In such a scenario, the disease would rapidly spread, many people would become infected, and many casualties would arise, especially in less developed countries where healthcare systems are relatively poorly developed and insufficiently organized to face this infectious disease. History has taught us that this indeed happened several times in the past during plague, smallpox, and cholera epidemics. These catastrophic events were followed by even more dramatic experiences, including long-lasting famines and wars, that impoverished entire populations and killed millions of people. One such example was the so-called “Black Death,” a fatal pandemic of bubonic plague that devastated whole populations in Europe, Africa, and Asia between 1346 and 1353 and resulted in 75–200 million deaths.

Thanks to advances in science, however, today medications and vaccines can be developed in relatively short periods of time, thus mitigating the impact of SARS-Cov2 that otherwise could be catastrophic. Acting rapidly and efficiently in biomedical research means that we need to use laboratory animals. In addition, existing medications that we are using to mitigate the consequences of SARS-Cov2 infection, such as drugs or vaccines that are approved for humans or other animals, were developed after extensive testing in laboratory animals. Is it an acceptable moral decision not to use them because they were initially tested in animals?

For ethical reasons, an individual with full cognitive capacity can decide not to use drugs that were developed from animal testing. This is an acceptable position because individuals possess full cognitive capacity. More complex is when such a choice is made by people who suffer from cognitive impairments, psychological instability, or other cases of compromised judgment.

Moreover, an unacceptable position would be when an individual’s conscientious objection is imposed on other people to limit their access to drugs or other medical treatments. For example, the “novax” position is not ethically acceptable because reducing the number of people who are vaccinated consequently heightens the risk of spreading an infectious disease in the whole population, with severe consequences especially for those who, because of specific circumstances (i.e., immunodepression), cannot be vaccinated.

Unfortunately, unfair or misleading information, characterized by high emotional loads, that depict laboratory animals as victims of human progress has a tremendous impact on this ethical debate, and public opinion can be easily swayed by it. As Daniel Kahneman 30 , 31 pointed out in his theory of heuristics and bias, particularly in complex situations, when it is difficult to provide an exhaustive answer (i.e., in ethical debates), humans engage in cognitive processes that “substitute” the original question with an alternative one that is easier to answer. For example, if the question is, “How many laboratory animals are you willing to sacrifice to advance human knowledge about a certain disease and develop a new medication?” then the alternative question is, “How much emotion do I feel when I save the life of animals that are otherwise used for laboratory testing?” The answer to this latter question does not respond to the original one but provides a rapid solution to the ethical dilemma.

If this is the cognitive process that contributes to biasing public opinion toward the protection of animal rights to the detriment of societal progress and human health, then scientists should probably reconsider the way they are the vehicles of information about their own research work. To communicate rational information and statistical data on how many human lives biomedical research can save by developing a new medication will probably not work. But if the ethical question is posed differently, such as, “How many people who suffer from untreatable disease are you willing to save by allowing laboratory animal testing?” then the heuristic questions will be, “How much emotion do I feel when I save human beings who suffer from a disease that threatens their lives?” At the margin between these two views is the fundamental role of responsibility, which links the needs of being responsible for the rights of both humans and other animals to create a liminal space we call ethics. In this space, every action must be pondered, and appropriate questions need to be asked to find the right balance when engaging in open and healthy debate. The example of SARS-Cov2 is both real and recent and tells us that our responsibility is to act consciously to find an optimal balance between protecting animal rights and the obligation to act in an attempt to advance human society and improve the quality of life of our own species. So we believe that it is an opportunity for science to pose the right questions to raise public awareness about the importance of animal testing in biomedical research.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported by National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism grants AA014351 (F.W. and R.C.) and AA017447 (M.R. and R.C.), ERA-NET neuron Psy-Alc (R.C.), the Eva-Maria and Rutger Hetzler Foundation (R.C.), and the FAR from the University of Camerino (R.C.). We thank Michael Arends for editing the manuscript.

Funding information

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Grant/Award Numbers: AA014351, AA017447