Critical Thinking Paper: Animal Testing

Virginia Henrici

CAP 9
Blue Group
April 24, 2016

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, part of the United States Department of
Agriculture, must ban the use of animals in testing because hundreds of millions of animals are

mistreated each year, animals responses to experimentation vary greatly from humans, and there
are now alternative methods to analysis. Animal testing is used in a wide variety of practices,
such as in medical research, experimentation with products, and dissection labs in schools. Over
100 million animal species are experimented on each year, including mice, rats, birds, fish, and
rabbits. However staggering the number is, it does not reflect the millions of vertebrates in the
United States that are...not required to be reported (Animal Testing; An Introduction). In some
cases, there is no way to avoid animal experimentation. Departments such as the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration require the analysis with animals of
products that are labeled as pesticides such as lawn fertilizers, weedkillers, and
antimicrobials (Product Testing: Toxic and Tragic). Although there is no law in the United
States that requires cosmetics and household products be tested on animals, there are countless
numbers of animals who are killed or suffer from these avoidable trials. Animal testing needs to
be abolished before the number of animals killed each year grows.
Animal analysis has been a common practice for over 2,000 years, but the purpose of
investigations has changed over time. More recently in the United States, activists have criticized
animal testing and have aided in the passage of a new law to protect animals. There are many
organizations that protest the harm done to animals during experiments and that spread
awareness throughout the United States. In 1966, the Animal Welfare Act was passed, which set
minimum standards of care and housing for dogs, cats, primates, rabbits, hamsters and guinea
pigs in the premises of animal dealers and laboratories (Animal Welfare Act). The act does
not protect mice, rats, or fish, and the regulations that the law does place on the protected species
are not powerful. The act has not significantly reduced the amount of animal testing in this
country, thus the USDA must take action.

Each year, million animals are killed and tortured in testing nationwide while being
confined in cages and treated poorly. In medical testing, an example of experimentation is
carcinogenicity studies, during which a rodent is given a dosage of a test substance that can
allow them to develop cancer and grow tumors (Carcinogenicity). A well-known type of
product analysis is the draize eye and skin irritation and corrosion tests (Product Testing:
Toxic and Tragic). This method involves dripping a test product into a rabbits eye or rubbing it
onto ones skin, which can cause many harmful effects, including blindness. Although the results
of these tests may be helpful to humans, they are cruel to the animals who are harmed
relentlessly. In addition to the trials, the animals experience stress from everyday life in the labs.
They are forced to spend their lives in barren cages, unable to make choices or express natural
behaviors. Almost all laboratories confine animals to unnatural environments of concrete and
bars, limiting them to no natural air or sunshine. The majority of animals living in labs develop
stress from the harsh conditions, such as small, crowded cages, lack of enrichment, loud noises,
and bright lights out of sync with natural lighting. A study of chimpanzees restrained in labs
revealed that the primates began to acquire stress-induced psychosis. They began frantically
spinning around and around in their cages, biting open wounds, mutilating themselves, and
ripping out their own hair, all because of the chronic psychological distress they must endure
(Harm and Suffering). Millions of animals are killed and driven insane because of the horrible
conditions and torture they face.
Many times the experiments performed on animals are unhelpful because they respond
differently than humans might. Although some animals have similar DNA to humans, there are
critical differences in how our genes actually function. Mice are used more frequently than any
other test subject because of their genetic similarity to humans. Even though their DNA is almost

identical to humans, corresponding genes can behave differently. The disruption of a gene in
one strain of mice is lethal, whereas disruption of that gene in another strain has no effect
(Akhtar). In general, many tests are not reliable because different strains of mice do not always
correspond with each other. In addition to animals responses varying from humans, the
conditions that the animals are placed in cause bias and the results are not accurate. An
experiment is completed by taking healthy beings from a completely different species,
artificially inducing a condition that they would never normally contract, keeping them in an
unnatural and stressful environment, and trying to apply the results to naturally occurring
diseases in human beings is dubious at best (Animal Testing Is Bad Science). According to
the Food and Drug Administration, over 90 percent of drugs that pass animal testing fail in the
human test trial period (U.S. Food and Drug Administration). Countless animals suffer through
testing for their contributions that amount to nothing because they arent reliable subjects.
Recently, new discoveries in science and technology have been made that allow
experiments to take place without the use of animals, which could be a solution to this growing
problem. New alternative methods are primarily based on biochemical assays, on experiments
in cells that are carried out in vitro (in glass), and on computational models and algorithms
(Rogers). Instead of using the median lethal dose method, LD50, of testing chemicals on animals
until 50% of them perished, the IC50, half maximal inhibitory concentration, is used in which
data is gathered from human cells that are exposed to the same chemicals. An institute in
Harvard produced organs-on-chips, which contain human cells grown in a state-of-the-art
system to mimic the structure and function of human organs and organ systems (Alternative to
Animal Testing). These chips can be used for disease research, drug testing, and toxicity
testing. There are also advanced computer models that researchers can use to simulate human

biology and the progression of developing diseases. There are various ways to replace animal
testing, and almost all of these methods are capable of producing information about the
biological effects of a test compound that are as accurate as-and in some cases more accurate
than-information collected from studies in whole animals (Rogers). It is more efficient to direct
the time, money, and effort used in animal testing toward alternative practices that do not involve
animals.
In conclusion, animal testing is problematic. Although animal testing has more recently
been considered unjust and is not widely accepted, there is one benefit. Animal testing has led to
the vaccines and cures of some major diseases such as polio, which was a widespread virus in the
late 1900s (Animal Testing). Animal testing was useful back then, but now with modern
advances and practices that dont require animals and achieve the same or better results, there is
no reason that researchers should continue to use these creatures. In conclusion, the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service must ban animal testing because there are hundreds of millions
of animals developing major health problems, most tests on animals are not helpful in the long
run, and there are many new and improved medical experimentation techniques that offer more
accurate results.

Works Cited
Akhtar, Aysha. "Why Animal Experimentation Doesnt Work. Reason 3: Animals Arent Little
Humans." HuffPost Science. TheHuffingtonPost.com. Web. 15 Mar. 2016.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aysha-akhtar/why-animalexperimentatio_b_3997568.hml>.
"Alternatives to Animal Testing." PETA. PETA. Web. 14 Mar. 2016. <http://www.peta.org/

issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-animal-testing/>.
"Animal Testing." ProCon.org. ProCon.org. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.
<http://animal-testing.procon.org/>.
"Animal Testing; An Introduction." SoundEarth.com. Web. 12 Mar. 2016.
<http://soundearth.com/SafeClean/?p=101>.
"Animal Testing Is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint." PETA. PETA. Web. 13 Mar. 2016.
<http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-badscience/>.
"Animal Welfare Act." Animal Welfare Institute. Animal Welfare Institute. Web. 15 Feb. 2016.
<https://awionline.org/content/animal-welfare-act>.
"Carcinogenicity." AltTox.org. Humane Society of the United States and Procter & Gamble. Web.
15 Mar. 2016. <http://alttox.org/mapp/toxicity-endpoints-tests/carcinogenicity/>.
"Harm and Suffering." NEAVS. New England Anti-Vivisection Society. Web. 14 Mar. 2016.
<http://www.neavs.org/research/harm-suffering>.
"Product Testing: Toxic and Tragic." PETA. PETA. Web. 14 Mar. 2016.
<http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/Animals-usedexperimentation-factsheets/product-testing-toxic-tragic/>.
"U.S. Food and Drug Administration." PETA. PETA. Web. 15 Feb. 2016. <http://www.peta.org/
issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/us-government-animal-testing-programs/fooddrug-administration/>.

Annotated Bibliography
Akhtar, Aysha. Why Animal Experimentation Doesnt Work. Reason 3: Animals Arent
Little Humans. HuffPost Science. TheHuffingtonPost.com. Web. 15 Mar. 2016.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aysha-akhtar/why-animalexperimentatio_b_3997568.html>.
This source helped me because it told how unreliable testing on animals is, especially
mice, since
every strain of them is varies and has different responses to the same substances.

Alternatives to Animal Testing. PETA. PETA. Web. 14 Mar. 2016.

<http://www.peta.org/ issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-animaltesting/>.
This source was helpful because it described many possibilities for alternative options to
animal
testing, including options that have already been developed.
Animal Testing. ProCon.org. ProCon.org. Web. 11 Mar. 2016. <http://animaltesting.procon.org/>.
This source helped me develop my three arguments and find support for each of them.
Animal Testing; An Introduction. SoundEarth.com. Web. 12 Mar. 2016.
<http://soundearth.com/SafeClean/?p=101>.
This source helped me learn a brief, but detailed, background of animal testing and
helped me
understand the topic well.
Animal Testing Is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint. PETA. PETA. Web. 13 Mar. 2016.
<http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-badscience/>.
This source helped me understand why animals should not be used as test subjects. The
source
shows says that placing the animals in unnatural environment will not produce accurate
results.
Animal Welfare Act. Animal Welfare Institute. Animal Welfare Institute.. Web. 15 Feb.
2016. <https://awionline.org/content/animal-welfare-act>.

This source provided a brief overview of the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 and why it is
not
substantial for the protection that the animals need.
Biomedical Research. NEAVS. NEAVS. Web. 15 Mar. 2016.
<http://www.neavs.org/research/biomedical#_edn13>.
This source is helpful because it describes how animals are used in medical research and
gives
very detailed descriptions.
Carcinogenicity. AltTox.org. Humane Society of the United States and Procter &
Gamble. Web. 15 Mar. 2016. <http://alttox.org/mapp/toxicity-endpointstests/carcinogenicity/>.
This source is helpful because it told me how carcinogenicity tests are performed on
mice, which
was information I needed for a specific part in my paper.
Collins, Francis. Experiments on Animals: Overview. PETA. PETA. Web. 15 Feb.
2016. <http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-usedexperimentation-factsheets/animal-experiments-overview/>.
This source was helpful because it provided specific numbers and information of the
animals that
are tested on each year.
Croswell, Alexis. 5 Reasons Testing on Animals Makes No Sense. One Green Planet.
One Green Planet, 4 Dec. 2013. Web. 15 Mar. 2016. <http://www.onegreenplanet.org/
animalsandnature/5-reasons-testing-on-animals-makes-no-sense/>.

This source was helpful because it gave me ideas of why animal testing should be
banned.
Hajar, Rachel. Animal Testing and Medicine. PMC. Web. 15 Feb. 2016.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3123518/>.
This source was helpful because it described the history of animal testing from as far back as 300
BC.
Harm and Suffering. NEAVS. New England Anti-Vivisection Society. Web. 14 Mar.
2016. <http://www.neavs.org/research/harm-suffering>.
This source was helpful because it provided a detailed description of what everyday life
was like
for animals in labs, including the conditions they were faced with and the stress they were
put
through.
How Animals Are Used. AAVS. AAVS. Web. 15 Mar. 2016. <http://aavs.org/animalsscience/ how-animals-are-used/>.
This source was helpful because it provided examples of different ways animals were
used such
as testing, research, and dissection.
Mak, Isabella, Nathan Evaniew, and Michelle Ghert. Lost in translation: animal models
and clinical trials in cancer treatment. NCBI. 15 Jan. 2014. Web. 14 Mar. 2016.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3902221/>.
This source was helpful because it described why animals are not reliable models to use
in

searching for cures and advances for cancer treatments.

Product Testing: Toxic and Tragic. PETA. PETA. Web. 14 Mar. 2016.
<http://www.peta.org/ issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-usedexperimentation-factsheets/product-testing-toxic-tragic/>.
This source was helpful because it fully described many different types of tests that were
conducted on animals and it also stated that cosmetics are not required to be animal
tested.
Rogers, Kara. Scientific Alternatives to Animal Testing. Encyclopedia Britannica.
Encyclopedia Britannica, 17 Sep. 2007. Web. 15 Feb. 2016.
<http://advocacy.britannica.com/blog/advocacy/2007/09/scientific-alternatives-toanimal-testing-a-progress-report/>.
This source helped me because it provided examples of new scientific methods than can
replace
animal testing, such as IC50.
Scutti, Susan. Animal Testing: A Long, Unpretty History. Medical Daily. IBT Media,
27 June 2013. Web. 13 Mar. 2016. <http://www.medicaldaily.com/animal-testing-longunpretty- history-247217>.
This source was helpful because it provided a description of many different physicians
and
scientists from Greek times, as well as more modern ones from the 16th century. Her
information
was very detailed.

Testing. AAVS. AAVS. Web. 12 Mar. 2016. <http://aavs.org/animals-science/howanimals-are- used/testing/>.

This source was helpful because it provided many examples of the types of animal tests
being
performed and gave descriptions for each one.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. PETA. PETA. Web. 15 Feb. 2016.
<http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/us-government-animaltesting-programs/food-drug-administration/>.
This source was helpful because it provided the information that almost all drugs that are
tested
on animals do not work properly on humans.