Fitzgerald 1

Bryan Fitzgerald
Adam Padgett
English 102
March 30, 2016
What are the ethical concerns pertaining to animal testing in laboratories?
Mahatma Gandhi once said The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be
measured by the way its animals are treated. These words directly oppose how animals are truly
treated in the world today (McDonald 30). On the news, stories about animal abuse can be seen
almost every day, whether it is someone leaving their dog in a locked car with the windows rolled
all the way up on a hot summer day, a farmer storing their animals in tiny cages in their own feces
while they wait for the day in which they are taking back to the slaughterhouse, or even a famous
person using animals for entertainment by throwing them into a pin and making them fight to the
death. These cases of animal abuse are covered closely by the media and often televised, but these
cases are not the only types of abuse going on in the world today. Animals are also abused in
laboratories by having cruel tests performed on them by experimenters who are hoping to make
the next big breakthrough in cosmetics, the medical field, or some other area of study. For example,
in 2002 a colony of chimps was rescued from a medical research lab in San Antonio, Texas which
had reported multiple abuses to a sanctuary in Florida. These chimps were lucky to get out of the
testing because it has been reported that testing upon chimps included repeated blood tests, liver
biopsies, anesthesia, and injection with viruses in the hopes of finding a vaccine for hepatitis C.
Some people even say that chimps may not be the best biological model for humans since research
has shown that diseases such as cancer, viruses, and heart diseases develop differently than in

Commented [RJ1]: I like how you opened with a direct

quote

Fitzgerald 2
humans and chimps, so that brings up the question being is it really necessary to perform some of
these gruesome tests on these chimps since their immune systems deals with these diseases
differently than human immune systems and were there any real benefits to this testing (Long).
There are many problems with testing on animals as in the aforementioned story about the chimps;
however, many beneficial results have come from this testing. For example, Alan Lloyd Hodgkin
and Andrew Huxley performed many tests on the nerves of squids to begin to unravel the mystery
of nervous transmission and John C Eccles did research on cats spinal cords to eventually
demonstrate the nature of synapse. These scientists work greatly developed knowledge in the area
of nervous systems and it would not have been possible without their research on animals in
laboratories (Pycroft 34). Animals should be used less in laboratory testing because of the ethical
concerns involving the ways in which they are sometimes treated; however, medical testing on
animals should continue because there are still many things that can be learned about the human
body and how to medically serve it, but animal testing for things such as cosmetics is not necessary
and should be eradicated.
According to a paper written by WS Stokes, who works for the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection, public distress about how animals are mistreated
and abused in laboratory settings has led to many laws and policies and the implementation of the
3Rs of alternatives (Stokes 1297). In addition, another article written by Dominic J. Wells, who
works for the Department of Veterinary Basic Sciences in the United Kingdom, adds to the history
of the 3Rs concept by writing about the concepts creators, William Russell and Rex Burch.
Russell and Burch created this concept to create a new way of thinking about how animals should
be used in laboratories. In the words of Wells, They (Russell and Burch) argued that animal
experiments should be designed to reduce the number of animals used to a minimum, to rene

Commented [RJ2]: Thesis is really long and unclear. You

flip back and forth on which side you are on

Fitzgerald 3
the way experiments are carried out to make sure animals suffer as little as possible, and wherever
possible to replace animal experiments with nonanimal techniques. This concept, if
implemented would address both the ethical and economical concerns involved in animal testing
due to the fact that animal experiments are very expensive to conduct (Wells 14).
Nearly all countries have implemented laws or policies that include the 3Rs concept. For
example, Stokes wrote that In the United States, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) requires
compliance with AWA regulations for warm-blooded animals used in research and testing (Stokes
1298). Also F. Caloni, who works for the Department of Veterinary Sciences and Technologies
for Food Safety in Italy, wrote about the implementation of the 3Rs technique into Veterinary
schools. According to Caloni, the veterinary students at the University of Milan implemented the
principles of the 3Rs concept by using videos, films, mannequins and computer simulations instead
of animals to teach the veterinary students about animals. Caloni found that the students were
engaged in the alternative ways of teaching and he also wrote importance of the implementation
of the 3Rs in education, not only in the University, but also at the post-graduate level including
continuous education of professionals (post-academic training) and teachers praising the
inclusion of the 3Rs concept in teaching and calling for its further use. In contrast with Canolis
ideas about reducing the amount of animals being used in testing for medical schools, Walter E.
Howard, an Emeritus Professor in Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology at the University of
California, writes Those who oppose any use of live animals in medical schools need to consider
whether they would be willing to be the first animal and living flesh that their surgeon performed
emergency surgery on, when addressing the value of using real live flesh in medical schools
(Howard 203). Howard then goes on to write To me, the conquest of unsolved medical problems
such as cancer, AIDS, other infectious diseases, and genetic, developmental, neurological and

Fitzgerald 4
psychiatric conditions justify the current use of animals in research (Howard 203). This idea that
animals should be used in medical schools is interesting and it is beneficial to have the next
generations of surgeons perform their first procedures on animals rather than living things;
however there are also many aspects of medical schooling that instead of using animals could use
computer simulations or other alternative methods.
According to W S Stokes, authorities have approved many about 63 alternatives to animal
testing, including computer simulation and in vitro studies, but when speaking about the
implementation of these alternative methods Stokes writes however, such efforts have not yet
measurably impacted animal use for regulatory testing and are not likely to do so for many years
or even decades (Stokes 1297). Stokes then goes on to explain the cause of the large delay
between approval and implementation of these alternative methods when he writes Before new
tests can replace animals, they must be shown to provide equivalent or improved protection as the
animal test that they are proposed to replace. The test must then be accepted by regulatory
authorities and implemented by regulated industry in order to actually avoid the use of animals
(Stokes 1297). This method that the authorities use to approve these alternatives to animal testing
is very time consuming and should be shortened to ensure that as many animals as possible can be
saved from being tested upon. The information from F Calonis paper mentions that students
support the alternative method when he writes The students approach to alternatives was very
positive and relevant for ethical and practical reasons. Moreover the students found the economic
advantages and the decrease of environmental impact using alternatives relevant aspects. They
would like to implement them not only in Veterinary Toxicology but in all the disciplines where
are possible to apply (Caloni 13). The information that Caloni gathered from the students that
took part in this study about the implementation of alternative methods of testing in Veterinary

Commented [RJ3]: Which side are you on?

Fitzgerald 5
schools shows that the students themselves support the alternative methods to animal testing. Even
though these methods would reduce the number of animals subjected to testing and still give
valuable information some writers such as Walter E Howard would suggest that animals continual
use is the only way in which testing should occur by writing Its wishful thinking that we can find
answers to many health and behavior questions without using animals and tests (Howard 203). In
response to Howard, animals should be used in some instances, but there are many different
benefits from using alternative methods of testing.
The only problem with the use of these methods is the time that it takes to get the methods
approved by the appropriate authorities. According to W S Stokes, there are many reasons that the
process of getting an implementation is so long. Stokes addresses the first of these barriers when
he writes First, industry must be assured that government agencies will accept data from accepted
alternative methods. This just means that the new methods have to go through two screenings that
both verify if the alternative method provides accurate data, one by the industry and then one by
the government agency. He then states A second impediment to implementation relates to the use
of internationally accepted alternative test methods, referring to the problem that companies often
opt out of methods that have been approved internationally because they only trust information
approved by their countrys agencies. Finally, he writes A third impediment to implementation is
that reviewers and other staff in regulatory agencies are not always aware of or familiar with
accepted alternative methods, meaning they are less likely to speak about or endorse some
methods because they simply do not understand them (Stokes 1299).
As mentioned earlier, there are many governmental agencies that endorse the 3Rs method
and efforts to support the humane treatment of animals. For example, many researchers at the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, which is one of the largest conferences in

Fitzgerald 6
the United States, supported the continued use of animals in testing by saying the animals used
in testing are treated humanely (McMillan 1). In his paper Franklin D McMillian, who works for
the Best Friends Animal Society located in Kanab, Utah, analyzes the frequent use of humanely
and its actual meaning when describing the treatment of animals during laboratory testing.
McMillans paper brings up interesting points such as Specifically, how are we defining
humane? If animals are forced to endure the sufferings that toxicity studies, disease, and
countless other experimental designs cause, then what definition of the word allows us to say that
the animals are being treated humanely? He then mentions According to the Random House
Websters Unabridged Dictionary (2005), humane is defined as characterized by tenderness,
compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, especially for the suffering or distressed,
which adds to the interesting discussion involving the word humane (McMillan 2). The word
humane does not hold up to its definition and it is often used as a scapegoat for those who support
the continued use of animals in research and testing. For example Howard writes humanely as
possible when describing how animals should be used in testing (Howard 203). After the
analyzing the use of the word humane in respect to animals and testing, one should ask isnt the
most humane way to treat animals involved in testing to remove simply them from the
laboratories?
NH Franco and IAS Olsson analyzed the awareness of the 3Rs in their research by asking
Do you know the 3Rs of animal research? to a sample of people. The results from their study
are 58% of respondents admitted to be completely unaware of the 3Rs, 21% claimed to know but
failed to name the 3Rs correctly, and 20% properly named these principles. The level of awareness
varied signicantly (P<0.001) between courses, as well as through the years and dierent venues.
Knowledge of the 3Rs was neither inuenced by age, gender nor by number of years of experience

Fitzgerald 7
with laboratory animals. One year after the course, the percentage of respondents from all courses
naming the 3Rs correctly rose (P<0.001) to 96% (Franco, NH, and IAS Olsson 53). These results
can be seen in Figure 1 below. These results show how little the general public knows about the
problems with animal testing and the 3Rs; however these results also show that after taking an
informational class on the 3Rs people learn a lot about the problems involving research.

Figure 1- Age distribution of course participants (a) and experience with laboratory animals (b)
for participants at the beginning of laboratory animal science (LAS) courses and in follow-up tests
(Franco, NH, and IAS Olsson 53).
The 3Rs method works to reduce, refine, and replace animals in research. In order to put
the 3Rs fully into practice people need to be educated about the many benefits to both humans and
animals when this method is implemented. Once educated the governmental agencies must enforce
this method by creating tighter restrictions on when animals should or should not be used in a
laboratory. Finally, the researchers themselves must pledge to follow these rules and regulations
by limiting the number of animals needed for their experimentation, reducing the amount of stress
on the animals that are chosen for experimentation and implementing alternatives to animals in
their tests. Animals should not be completely removed from the laboratories; however, to reduce

Commented [RJ4]: I like that you put a figure in here. Its

different

Fitzgerald 8
the amount of abuses and maltreatments that animals suffer, animals should only be used when
necessary, for medical research or medical school training.
Overall I think that the paper is good. You chose good, relevant sources and analyzed them well.
The only issue that I had with this paper is the thesis. It seemed kind of long and unclear to me,
and I was never really sure which side of the argument you were on.

Fitzgerald 9

Works Cited
Caloni, F. "RT03 Education And 3Rs: An Italian Experience In Veterinary Toxicology." Journal
Of Veterinary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 29.S1 (2006): 12-13. Academic Search
Alumni Edition. Web. 30 Mar. 2016.
Franco, NH, and IAS Olsson. "Scientists And The 3Rs: Attitudes To Animal Use In Biomedical
Research And The Effect Of Mandatory Training In Laboratory Animal Science."
Laboratory Animals 48.1 (2014): 50-60. Academic Search Complete. Web. 30 Mar. 2016.
Howard, Walter E.. An Ecologist's View of Animal Rights. The American Biology Teacher
56.4 (1994): 202205. Web.
Long, Judy. "In the Positive Side: What's Fair for the Chimps of the Alamogordo Primate
Facility?" Las Cruces Sun-News 27 Nov. 2010: n. pag. LexisNexis Academic
[LexisNexis]. Web. 2 Feb. 2016.
McDonald, Janet A. "Defending Those Who Cannot Speak: Civil And Criminal Prosecution Of
Animal Abuse." Florida Bar Journal 88.9 (2014): 30-32. Academic Search Complete.
Web. 30 Mar. 2016.
Mcmillan, Franklin D.. What Dictionary Are Animal Researchers Using?. Journal of Animal
Ethics 2.1 (2012): 15. Web.
Pycroft, Laurie, and Helen Marston "Is Animal Testing Necessary To Advance Medical
Research?." New Internationalist 444 (2011): 34-36. Academic Search Complete. Web.
30 Mar. 2016.
Stokes, W. S. "Animals And The 3Rs In Toxicology Research And Testing." Human &
Experimental Toxicology 34.12 (2015): 1297-1303. Academic Search Complete. Web. 23
Mar. 2016.
Wells, Dominic J. "Animal Welfare And The 3Rs In European Biomedical Research." Annals Of
The New York Academy Of Sciences 1245.1 (2011): 14-16. Academic Search Complete.
Web. 30 Mar. 2016.