Introduction
Considerations of rights are usually applied to humans, and the rights of animals are primarily dismissed. In social sciences, human rights have been extensively studied; however, the treatment of animals in society can reflect development, social norms, and expectations. People may have different views and attitudes toward animals – while some value them as companions that should never be harmed, others view them as potential means of processing medical techniques and advancing experimental research. Because of this, it has been historically more straightforward to use animals in research intended to test products’ safety.
Despite the difference in perceptions of animal testing and the methods being used, it is a fact that animals are being exploited at research facilities, especially in the production of cosmetics, household items, and some drugs (Radi, 2023). Even though successful animal testing has abundant benefits, the impact on animals, such as their pain, suffering, and even death, should not be considered worthy sacrifices. Therefore, animal testing should be banned in the United States, with the rest of the countries to follow, because animals’ rights are violated, and the pain and suffering they endure are immeasurable. In contrast, testing in itself is unnecessary because of the available alternatives.
Animal Rights
As the issue of animal testing has been explored for decades, more scholars have considered applying the concept of animal rights. For instance, Tom Regan, a professor of philosophy at North Carolina State University, noted that “animals had a basic moral right to respectful treatment […] This inherent value is not respected when animals are reduced to being mere tools in a scientific experiment” (as cited in Lengauer, 2020, p. 88). Animal rights are a significant argument against animal testing because dogs, mice, rats, rabbits, and others can feel pain, think, and experience physical pain, which makes them similar to humans.
However, since animals cannot choose whether to participate as research subjects, their rights are being violated. In turn, the testing outcomes may often not meet researchers’ expectations, especially in terms of drug development. According to different studies conducted by Cruelty-Free International (2023), using animals to identify whether or not a medication will be safe for humans offers statistically insignificant insights. Another example from research is that out of ninety-three side effects of drugs, only nineteen percent could have been predicted with animal testing (Cruelty-Free International, 2023). These results indicate that animal testing could be exceedingly unreliable because of the differences between humans and animals.
Nevertheless, research agencies continue subjecting animals to painful or damaging research because the rights of humans are placed above. It is morally wrong to infringe upon the rights of animals regardless of the potential benefits to people because the implied risks are not morally transferrable to those who have no freedom to choose to take those risks. Importantly, as animals do not understand why they are used in research, they cannot provide consent to be used as sacrifices for advancing human welfare and technology. This means that humans make conscious decisions about animals’ fate in the research context, with their rights and quality of life being taken away. For this reason, experimentation on animals must be terminated because it violates the rights of living creatures.
Pain and Suffering
Concerns over animal pain during testing contribute to the argument for banning animal testing. According to the statistics offered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, around 820,800 animals, including dogs, cats, guinea pigs, and other animals, are used in research in the country and covered by the Animal Welfare Act (Chen, 2018). Of those animals, around 71,370 are subjected to consistent pain, and these numbers do not include rats and mice, which are not protected by the law but are being used in testing (Chen, 2018). These living creatures feel pain in the same ways humans feel, and they can even scream from the negative sensation. In instances when animals are used in lab research to test for the toxicity of products, they especially experience pain and can even die in the case of adverse outcomes.
Examples of the cruelest experiments with toxicity include the Draize and the LD50 tests. In the LD50 test, animals are hooked up to tubes that insert large volumes of the test product into their stomach until death occurs (Dunnuck, n.d.). In the Draize test, the substances being tested are placed in the eyes of an animal, which is extremely painful and causes blindness, scars, or even death (Dunnuck, n.d.).
In addition, creatures that cannot say no to experimentation can experience convulsions, internal bleeding, diarrhea, vomiting, or paralysis(Singer & Harari, 2023). Even though both tests have been gradually phased out in the past several years, their use has not been eliminated. This means that animals will continue experiencing severe pain when exposed to experimentation in the lab setting, which is why any research involving animals should be banned, as it will allow not to waste any more lives.
Alternatives to Animal Testing
The availability of alternatives further supports the argument against animal testing and for its abandonment. According to NIH (2022), continuous research is taking place to reduce animal use and improve the overall welfare of animals. Specifically, such methods include stem cell research, mathematics, computational models, testing tissues and cells in cell cultures and test tubes, 3D tissue cultures, and others. While NIH (2022) states that the current alternative methods cannot replace animal testing, there is evidence that if a company wants not to engage in animal testing, it will find ways to reach this goal.
Such companies as the Body Shop, Aesop, Bath & Body Works, Burt’s Bees, CosMedix, Dermalogica, Dr. Dennis Gross Skincare, E.L.F. Cosmetics, Eco Tools Cosmetic Brushes, Kevin Murphy, NYX Los Angeles Inc., and hundreds of others have stopped testing on animals or have never tested. In light of the increased attention of some consumer groups to animal testing, abandoning the practice could be seen as a favorable reputational decision for brands. In contrast, brands under the Estee Lauder umbrella continue animal testing to guarantee the alleged high quality and safety of their products.
Unreliable Experiments
It is important to provide examples of the dangerous implications of animal testing because they illustrate that some experiments, although successful in animals, may not have the same outcomes in humans. For instance, Vioxx, a medication used for treating arthritis, was successfully tested in monkeys and five other animal species (Cruelty-Free International, 2023). However, when administered to humans, the drug was estimated to cause around 140,000 heart attacks and 60,000 deaths across the world (Cruelty-Free International, 2023).
In addition, when human volunteers were involved in a trial of a new monoclonal antibody treatment (TGN1412) at Northwick Park Hospital in the United Kingdom, they experienced a severe immune reaction. They almost died (Cruelty Free International, 2023). In contrast, the animal test, which involved monkeys given a dose five hundred times higher than humans, failed to forecast the severe side effects in people. These examples show that despite the advancement of animal research, it is imperfect and has limitations, especially in drug research. Studies on animal toxicity are insufficient predictors of toxic effects on humans.
Even though it has been argued that at least some information gathered during animal experiments is better than no information about specific products, this argument fails to consider that misleading information can cause severe consequences, which means that some information is not always better than nothing. In addition to contributing to animal suffering, the use of non-predictive animal testing can also result in human suffering because it produces misleading data and results in the possible abandonment of proper medical treatments. The already existing medications that have shown efficacy may be replaced by the allegedly efficacious treatment tested on animals. Imprecise results stemming from testing on animals can lead to clinical trials of biologically harmful substances, thus exposing humans to unnecessary risks and wasting resources.
Conclusion
To conclude, the argument for banning animal testing is supported by sub-arguments regarding the violation of animals’ rights, the pain and suffering that living creatures endure, the availability of alternatives, and the potentially adverse implications of animal testing on humans. Despite the limited benefits of animal testing, the current state of technological advancement does not allow for justifying the continuation of experiments that allow for the random torture and execution of tens of thousands of animals annually.
The examples of cosmetics companies that refuse to test on animals show that creating safe products for humans and animals is possible. From the social sciences standpoint, the interactions between humans and animals characterize the stage of society’s development. All animals should be treated with dignity and respect, and such a right to decent treatment cannot be upheld when humans exploit animals for their benefit.
References
Chen, I. (2018). How much pain should animals endure for science?The Atlantic. Web.
Cruelty Free International. (2023). Arguments against animal testing. Web.
Dunnuck, H. (n.d.). Save the animals: Stop animal testing. Lone Star College. Web.
Lengauer, E. (2020). Tom Regan’s philosophy of animal rights: Subjects-of-a-life in the context of discussions of intrinsic and inherent worth. Problemos, 97, 87-98. Web.
NIH. (2022). When are alternatives to animals used in research? Web.
Radi, S. (2023). Public awareness of the impact of animal testing in the cosmetic industry. IntechOpen. Web.
Singer, P., & Harari, Y. N. (2023). Animal liberation now: The definitive classic renewed. Harper Perennial.