Animal Suffering in the Name of Science

By Sammi Barland

Research involving animals for medical purposes is increasingly being considered unethical and ineffective, with people divided over whether it's really necessary for research. Many people think it's important for scientific and medical progress, but others question how reliable the results really are and if it’s worth the suffering of animals. ⁤⁤Humane alternatives to animal testing are becoming readily available as technology advances, making animal testing increasingly unethical and no longer necessary.

According to the Humane Society International, animal testing is described as “procedures performed on living animals for purposes of research into basic biology and diseases, assessing the effectiveness of new medicinal products, and testing the human health and/or environmental safety of consumer and industry products” [1]. Scientists prefer working on animals due to their genetic, anatomy, and physiology similarities with humans. Typically mice, rabbits, dogs, fish, monkeys, and pigs [2]. Millions of animals each year endure horrific treatment such as being beaten, blinded, blown up, tied up, nailed down, sliced open, shot, starved, forced to inhale tobacco smoke, drink alcohol, and consume hard drugs such as heroin. They are often left to suffer for extended periods, and very few are given pain relief or any form of care throughout the process. Almost all of these animals are killed during or after the experiments and their bodies are just discarded in the trash [3].

“It was only years later that I began to regret what I had done.” 
             -Paul Gazda

Paul Gazda is a former animal experimenter who researched the effects of punishment on rats and pigeons. In an interview with PETA, he explains that the animals he would test on were confined in small cages in a room with no windows. They’d be deprived of food and water for 23/24 hours a day so they’d be more motivated to perform when food or water is used as a reward. If the animals had learned the experiment, the data would no longer be reliable so the scientists would give the animals an electric shock and after, record the changes in data. He would go on to explain that animals would only live as long as the experiment was in progress. The whole group would be murdered after the experiment was completed. The university he worked for taught him that causing animals to suffer and die is “just how science is done.”
Many people argue about the ethics of testing on animals. Much like humans, activists say that animals have the right to live without suffering and to treat all living creatures with respect. Their argument is based on “morality.” Scientists say that since animals do not possess cognitive capabilities on the same level as humans, therefore they cannot be included in the “moral argument” against animal testing [4]. Often, this leads to a disturbing disregard for animals' experiences in research. Similarly to humans, animals develop conditions like PTSD, anxiety, and depression which can alter gene regulation, immune function, central nervous system, cardiovascular disease, and brain development, structure, and function [5]. Not only do the animals suffer pain and stress, but the exposure to the stress affects the scientific reliability of data [6]. For example, stressed rats develop chronic inflammatory conditions and intestinal leakage, which leads to a disturbance in the data [7]. In 1959, growing awareness of animal’s ability to experience pain led to the ‘four Rs’ principle (Reduction, Refinement, Replacement, and Responsibility) [4]. Reduction: Limits the amount of animals used in research, Refinement: Editing the procedure to reduce pain and distress in animals to improve their overall welfare, Replacement: Advocate for using alternatives to animals in research if available, and Responsibility: Commitment to promote animal’s best interest [4]. However, while many institutions strive to adhere to the four Rs, issues can occur where they might be capable of following these rules like regulatory requirements (institutions requiring researchers to test on animals even if there are other options), lack of training or education, lack of financial resources, and researches often face pressure to produce research quickly which leads to prioritizing speed over ethical consideration [8] [9].

“This was the method being used by my department back then, and I thought it was normal, not realizing that there could have been alternatives to using animals.”                                                                    
—Pilar Vinardell, Ph.D. Former Experimenter Becomes Animal Activist

Dr. Vinardell began her career in science by conducting toxicology research experiments on laboratory animals such as rabbits and mice. She started researching how she could replace animals in her experiments with non-living subjects and still get the same results. In an interview with PETA, she explains that when students enter the university she teaches at, they’re told animal testing is necessary which is why she teaches courses to educate young scientists about alternative methods. Therefore when the students eventually enter the lab, they might change their attitudes toward animal testing.

Ethical concerns increasingly arise over whether animal testing is even necessary when there are alternatives to animal testing through new technology. One promising option is tissue bioprinting, a form of 3D printing that generates living tissue, closely resembling human tissue [10]. This option is not only more ethical, it is more affordable than testing on animals [10]. Organoids are organs grown from stem cells. So far, scientists have been able to mimic miniature versions of brains, kidneys, lungs, intestines, stomachs, and livers using organoids [11]. Organ-on-a-chip is another technological alternative that involves “growing cells within minuscule chips that mimic the structure and behavior of human organs” [10]. New technological advancements offer promising alternatives to animal testing. Since this technology is designed to mimic human organs and tissues, it provides a more accurate representation of humans than rabbits, monkeys or mice would. While also minimizing or eliminating the suffering of animals.

One of the most significant failures of animal testing is its alarming inability to predict how humans will respond to the drugs. Drugs from animal testing to human treatments have a failure rate of 92%. This is because the safety concerns for humans cannot be replicated or observed in animals [12]. Thalidomide is a famous example of a drug that passed animal testing but created one of the biggest pharmaceutical disasters in history. In 1961 a drug was administered to help treat morning sickness in pregnant women. After 5 whole years of the drug being on the market, it was discovered that it had been responsible for babies being born with deformed limbs and defective organs [13]. Thalidomide was tested in multiple (non-pregnant) animal species, which showed that even when taken in extremely high doses, the drug was not harmful [13]. It had never been tested on pregnant animals before it was tested on pregnant women. When thalidomide was finally given to pregnant rats and rabbits, immediate damage was seen in their embryos and offspring [13]. Thalidomide represents the serious issues of animal testing and prompts us to question putting animals through unreliable and unnecessary testing processes.

Blog Post author, Sammi Barland's original artwork depicting a rabbit having three medical testing procedures: Draize eye test, Draize skin test, and a tick study.

There are a lot of concerns about ethics, effectiveness, and necessity surrounding animal testing in medical research. Even though some argue that animal testing is essential for scientific advancement, in reality, it often causes unnecessary suffering to animals and fails to reliably predict human outcomes, with 92% of drugs passing animal tests ultimately failing in human trials. There are more accurate and ethical options through tissue bioprinting, organoids, and Organ-on-a-Chip technology. Something you can do at home is go to this link: Center for Humane Economy - Support the FDA Modernization Act 3.0 and send an email to your legislator by filling out the form. The FDA Modernization Act 3.0 aims to advance medical development by promoting alternatives to animal testing. It would reduce the reliance on animal models for testing, while also accelerating the approval process for new drugs and enhancing ethical standards in research.

Sources

[1]       Humane Society International, “About Animal Testing,” Humane Society International, Oct. 21, 2012. https://www.hsi.org/news-resources/about/
[2]       A. Domínguez-Oliva, I. Hernández-Ávalos, J. Martínez-Burnes, A. Olmos-Hernández, A. Verduzco-Mendoza, and D. Mota-Rojas, “The Importance of Animal Models in Biomedical Research: Current Insights and Applications,” Animals, vol. 13, no. 7, p. 1223, Mar. 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13071223.
[3]       “Shibboleth Authentication Request,” Mnsu.edu, 2024. https://login.ezproxy.mnsu.edu/login?auth=shibboleth&url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/time-stop-science-product-testing-on-animals/docview/3044337244/se-2?accountid=12259 
[4]       A. K. Kiani, “Ethical considerations regarding animal experimentation,” Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene, vol. 63, no. 2 Suppl 3, pp. E255–E266, Oct. 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2022.63.2S3.2768.
[5]       J. Bailey, “Does the Stress Inherent to Laboratory Life and Experimentation on Animals Adversely Affect Research Data?,” Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 299–301, Dec. 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/026119291704500605.
[6]       E. Akkaya and H. Reşit Güngör, “The dark side of the animal experiments,” Joint Diseases and Related Surgery, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 479–483, Jul. 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.52312/jdrs.2022.719.
[7]       A. Akhtar, “The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, vol. 24, no. 04, pp. 407–419, Oct. 2015, doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000079.
[8]       D. M. Azilagbetor, D. Shaw, and B. S. Elger, “Animal Research Regulation: Improving Decision-Making and Adopting a Transparent System to Address Concerns around Approval Rate of Experiments,” Animals, vol. 14, no. 6, p. 846, Jan. 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14060846.
[9]       J. C. Graham et al., “Fostering Animal Welfare and Advancing 3Rs Principles through the Establishment of a 3Rs Advisory Group,” Animals : an Open Access Journal from MDPI, vol. 13, no. 24, p. 3863, Dec. 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13243863.
‌[10]     Animal Testing: Fostering Animal Welfare with Cutting-Edge Drug Testing. (2023, Oct 19). BioSpectrum,https://login.ezproxy.mnsu.edu/login?auth=shibboleth&url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/animal-testing-fostering-welfare-with-cutting/docview/2879047922/se-2
[11]     J. Barbuzano, “Organoids: A new window into disease, development and discovery,” Harvard.edu, Nov. 07, 2017. https://hsci.harvard.edu/organoids
[12]     Marshall LJ, Bailey J, Cassotta M, Herrmann K, Pistollato F. Poor Translatability of Biomedical Research Using Animals - A Narrative Review. Altern Lab Anim. 2023 Mar;51(2):102-135. doi:10.1177/02611929231157756  Epub 2023 Mar 7. PMID: 36883244
[13]     W. Jarrett, “Sixty years on: the history of the thalidomide tragedy,” Understanding Animal Research, Dec. 02, 2021. https://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/news/sixty-years-on-the-history-of-the-thalidomide-tragedy

Author Bio

Sam Barland is a student at Minnesota State University, Mankato majoring in Earth Science and minoring in Communication Sciences and Disorders. Sam Barland is studying to get into the meteorology field and become a meteorologist. When not working or studying, Sam enjoys painting and volunteering to teach math skills to children.