Caya 1

Lauren Caya

Peter Fields

English Composition 105

March 31, 2019

The History and Ethics of Product Testing on Animals

It comes as no surprise that humans believe the world is theirs for the taking, this

includes using animals for anything they desire. In doing so, these animals are often left

defenseless and forced to bend to humans’ will, making it important that humans use this power

responsibly and ethically. In recent years, animal protection agencies such as PETA, For Life on

Earth (FLOE), and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) have been working to

change the laws and regulations surrounding animal testing. Companies such as Covergirl are

now cruelty free, meaning they no longer test products on animals. Individuals with the same

beliefs as such companies strongly believe the harm brought upon these animals is not justifiable

by the benefits to humans, while others believe animal lives are less valuable, so testing on them

is not an ethical issue. It’s clear there are varying perspectives on this matter, and the ethics of

said practices by individuals and companies are consistently being challenged. Therefore, in

order to determine why humans believed it is acceptable to test on animals, one must first

understand the history of animal testing, the evolution of this practice, as well as the overall

impact testing has on the animals.

Throughout history, animals have been used for experimentation for medical research,

dating as far back as 384-322 BC (Hajar 42). Conversely, cosmetic testing on animals has only

been around since the early 1900s (Murnaghan). In the twelfth century, Arab physician, Ibn
 Caya 2

Zuhr, began the practice of using animals to perfect surgical techniques before performing them

on humans (Hajar 42). In 1937, a pharmaceutical company made a solvent called ‘Elixir

Sulfanilamide’, originally used to treat streptococcal infections (Ballentine). The company’s

leading pharmacist was not aware the solvent was poisonous, and added raspberry flavoring to

the drug, then simply put it out on the market, believing it was safe. More than 100 consumers

died due to poisoning from the elixir, which led to the public believing the product should’ve

been tested on animals first (Hajar 42). Following this, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic

Act of 1938 required new products to be tested on animals before they could be sold. Later on, in

the 1950-60s, a drug called thalidomide was found to be effective in the relief of insomnia, colds,

and headaches. It was also found to aid in morning sickness, causing many pregnant women

throughout the country to take the drug. This caused more than 10,000 babies to be born with

deformations or missing limbs, which lead to the drug being removed from shelves (Hajar 42).

Such events lead to the belief that animal experimentation should take place before humans can

use a product to aid in the prevention of human harm. As history progressed, and more people

were affected from the harmful side effects of new drugs, the federal government, with support

from the public, decided animal testing was the best way to protect human lives.

Concerns related to the humane treatment of animals has produced regulations in the

testing on animals. Although, like most laws, not all participating individuals follow all the

regulations to a T. The original law was aimed to set regulations for animal research, called the

Laboratory Animal Welfare Act which was passed by Congress in 1966. The law covered the

care for animals through transport, sale, and handling of the animals. It also provided licensing

for animal dealers, designed to prevent pet theft for the sale to research facilities (NCBI 29). This

original act did not cover all animals that were possibly being tested on. It only covered
 Caya 3

nonhuman primates, dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, and hamsters. Animals such as birds, rats,

and mice have been permanently excluded. The National Research Council decided birds, rats,

and mice are not to be categorized as ‘animals’ in terms of the Act, and it would be too costly to

include these animals due to the extra expenses of regulation and inspection (NAVS). The

Laboratory Animal Welfare Act was not only aided by the Animal Welfare Institute, but also

public outcry based on the concern of pet theft. This act is enforced by the USDA through the

inspection of laboratories and is now known at the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which has been

amended four times (1970,1976, 1985, 1991). Each time the act was amended, the standard of

animal care was elevated (NCBI 29-30). However, an issue with the AWA is the lack of

protection and regulations for animals such as birds, mice, and rats. According to NCBI,

“Despite numerous efforts by the animal protection community to change the AWA to include

rats, mice, and birds, an amendment was recently passed by Congress to permanently exclude

rats, mice, and birds used in research from coverage by the Animal Welfare Act” (30). A

common misconception of the AWA is that the law protects animals against all harm and abuse

within the laboratories, however this is not true. The law simply sets up guidelines and regulation

for specific animal’s care, it does not protect the animals against harm from the actual

experiments (NAVS). Although organizations such as PETA and NAVS actively work to end

animal experimentation, there are still those who believe it is the best way to find treatment

options for human patients. Those for animal testing believe, “Without these preliminary studies

in vitro and in vivo in selected animal species it would be unethical to test still unproven

chemicals in humans” (Garattini and Grignaschi 32). With this, one must consider the ethics

behind animal testing if it is unethical to test on humans.

 Caya 4

During laboratory testing, animals are subjected to many forms of physical pain, such as

force feeding and inhalation, food and water deprivation, and infliction of burns and other

physical harm. One test routinely tested on animals is the Draize Eye Test. This is used by

cosmetic companies to test the irritation caused by products, usually involving rabbits. Their

eyes are help open with clips, sometimes for days on end, this is meant to keep them from

blinking away the product being tested (ProCon.org). Experiments such as this, tends to leave the

test subject with immense pain, or even blind. If an animal is put through this test and they end

up blind, they wouldn’t be able to be used again for this test, and those performing the test would

need to move on to the next animal. When animals are no longer needed for testing, many are

“humanely” euthanized. A common mode of euthanizing is a form of the Gas Chamber. The

animal is put into a small chamber that is then filled with carbon monoxide. Another method is

using a sedative or anesthetic, similar to those used to put down pets at a veterinary office. Other

common approaches are decapitation, snapping their spine, brain irradiation, or electrocution

(Murnaghan). Although these are meant to be fast and relatively painless, some forms could take

longer. For example, when a person is put on Death Row for crimes they have committed, some

are executed by Electric Chair, which could take anywhere from two minutes to 15+ minutes, the

larger the executed, the longer it will take. Because this method tends to be used on larger

animals such as sheep and cattle, it could take a relatively long time for them to pass on.

Although the animals euthanized in a gas chamber are most likely smaller than humans, and

would take less time to die inside, it takes an average of 10-18 minutes for a human to die (NBC

News). The forms of “execution” for the animal test subjects are meant to be quick and painless,

however, they are not necessarily quick and painless every time.
 Caya 5

Despite the fact psychological tests on animals may seem necessary to understand the

development of humans and related primates, it may not be the most ethical of experiments. In

the 1950s, psychologist Harry Harlow conducted experiments on maternal deprivation of rhesus

monkeys. These were not only seen as landmarks in primatology, but also in the evolving

science of attachment and loss (Kozlow). While the monkeys were infants, they were taken away

from their mothers to understand what the need for physical affection has on a developing mind.

This signified the debate over which is more important, nature vs. nurture. Harlow’s studies

found, “…mother love was emotional rather than physiological, substantiating the adoption-

friendly theory that continuity of care—“nurture”—was a far more determining factor in healthy

psychological development than “nature”” (Kozlow). Although Harlow’s experiments were

aimed to show psychological effects, this is not the only form of tests that have a psychological

effect on animals. While being held in preparation for the tests to come, the animals are often

over crowded or completely isolated, left in small, empty cages (Queen’s Animal Defense).

Many animals subjected the such traumas display symptoms similar to humans with Post-

Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). An article in Scientific America discusses how, “”retired”

Chimpanzees used for HIV, hepatitis, and behavioural experiments are being formally diagnosed

with PTSD, anxiety disorder, and depression” (Queen’s Animal Defense). Many people believe

animals do not have the same emotional capabilities as humans, but studies and findings such as

this prove that they are capable of emotions similar to humans. With tests and studies now

showing that animals are developing psychological disorders that were previously considered to

only affect humans, the ethical standpoint on animal experimentation must be reexamined.

Although there is plenty of information on the legal side of animal testing, there is not

much information on the physical effects testing has on the animals. There are articles out there
 Caya 6

about the physical trauma the animals go through, but not the effect the trauma has on the

animals in the long run. Most studies and articles are more focused on the issue that the effects

drugs and other products have on animals, but not necessarily signify the effects said products

will have on humans. Therefore, in order to understand the full effect animal testing has on the

subjects, research must be conducted to measure the effects traumatic testing conditions have on

the animals. By doing so, it is taking research a step further, past the “what” is being done to

animals and brings it to the “how” it affects them.

There is little to no information on the physical affect product testing has on the animals

used as test subjects. Although there are laws such as the AWA in place to protect the care of the

animals and to regulate how testers acquire their test subjects, there are no laws limiting the

physical and psychological trauma the animals can go through during the testing process. Along

with the lack of protection, there is also a lack of firsthand accounts. Those who work with the

animals, or even those who perform the tests, are the ones who see what is happening, and their

testimony could strengthen, or even weaken, the argument for ending animal testing. Both of

these gaps signify a huge, fundamental flaw in the ethical practice of testing on animals.

With this information being left out, the public is blind to what is going on, and with no

one talking about this, it is simply getting swept under the rug. These animals are often forgotten

about by the general public, leaving them without people fighting for their rights. This

information is also important in getting the complete picture. Without it, society does not get the

whole story of what the animals are going through during the testing process, and what happens

to them later in life, assuming they are not euthanized. Like any other subject, one cannot

develop an adequate, well-informed opinion or stance on the subject of animal experimentation

 Caya 7

without knowing the pros/cons of using this method for research, and the causes/effects the

testing itself has on the animals. While being deprived of knowing what affects testing has on the

animals, people cannot determine if ethical boundaries have been crossed or not.

As with many subjects, news outlets show events/stories from their proclaimed political

standpoint, and, sometimes, only cover stories that are in line with their beliefs. Meaning, if a

news outlet is known to take a Republican viewpoint, they will not cover stories of events such

as Brett Kavanaugh’s accusations of sexual assault. When it comes to animal testing, no one

wants to talk about it. Companies that participate in the practice of using animals for product

testing do not publicize their involvement in the practice. This is because they are aware there is

a large community not only within the United States, but around the globe, against animal

testing, and with backlash from these groups, said companies could experience a significant

decrease in sales. Then, there are others who prefer to live in ignorance. If they are not told that

the products they use have been tested on animals, they are OK to go along using them.

However, once they are informed that their favorite products are tested on animals, they may

begin to stop using these. Although there are many people who prefer to not use products tested

on animals, there are people who, even though they are aware of these practices, they are not

willing to give up their favorite beauty products. By doing so, they are choosing to support these

companies, which means those companies will not push to end animal testing. Another reason

the information of physical and psychological affects testing has on animals is unknown, could

partly have to do with the government. Many people believe the US government hides

information from the public, whether it be their involvement in certain issues, or events that have

happened within the country. That being said, if the US government has a significant role in
 Caya 8

animal testing, or the hiding of information, they wouldn’t want the public to know due to the

ethical concerns.

The gap in information should be filled because it could potentially reduce the negative

psychological and physical effects these tests have on animals. Doing so, would better educate

the public, and possibly create more policies moving forward. Americans love their animals. If

they saw the affects testing has on animals, especially household favorites such as dogs and cats,

many would fight to abolish the practice. Essentially, the public would be informed. There are

plenty of alternatives to animal testing, but currently it is simply the “easiest” form of product

testing. Many individuals believe if animal testing did not exist, humans would be the test

subjects, or there would be no advances in the medical field; however, this is not the case.

Alternatives to animal testing include cell cultures, human tissues, computer models, and

volunteer studies (Cruelty Free International). By using animals without their consent, it robs

them of their freedoms. They do not have a chance to defend themselves and have a say in what

is happening to them. Therefore, it is humans’ responsibility to give them a voice and stand up

for the little guy.

A way to receive the missing information is to interview those who work in the labs.

With their first-hand account of what is going on behind closed doors on a regular basis, the

public will be informed. Because the people working in the labs are the ones who see what

happens to the animals, talking to them would reveal any truths of the testing process that have

been hidden or masked, up until this point. Another way to obtain this information is to examine

the animals that have been previously used for research. When labs are shut down, their animals

are sometimes rescued, and later adopted. Some animals may leave in perfect health, but this is
 Caya 9

not always the case. Studying animals that have left testing facilities years ago, and those who

left within the last year would show a broad range of effects, the long-term consequences, if any,

and how it impacts the animals later in life. Certain factors that would need to be considered are

the mental health of the animals, the physical effects the testing had on them, and their social

acceptance of humans. Understanding these three factors and how they interconnect would give

those making the observations a better comprehension of the overall impact testing has on the

animals in the lab. A third factor that would need to be measured, along with the short-term and

long-term effects, is the rate of animals being euthanized. If a certain lab is euthanizing its

animals at a relatively fast rate, there is a reason for this that needs to be examined. Once this

information is retrieved, there would be many ways to get the information to many audiences.

The media such as news broadcastings and newspapers would be able to put out the information

as they please, while scholarly articles written on the topic would present the concrete facts.

Although the public would not get the whole picture from whichever platform they receive their

news, they would have more information than in the past. With the public informed, they will

have the chance to decide if animal testing is an issue they want to support and work to change,

go on living their lives as they were, or participate in any other way to deal with the matter at

hand.
 Caya 10

Works Cited

"Alternatives to Animal Testing." Cruelty Free International,

www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/why-we-do-it/alternatives-animal-testing. Accessed 31

Mar. 2019.

"Animal Testing." ProCon.org, 2 Nov. 2017, animal-testing.procon.org/. Accessed 28 Feb. 2019.

"The Animal Welfare Act." National Anti-Vivisection Society, 2019, www.navs.org/what-we-

do/keep-you-informed/legal-arena/research/explanation-of-the-animal-welfare-act-

awa/#.XKD9qutKjjA. Accessed 31 Mar. 2019.

"The Double Trauma of Animal Experimentation." Queen's Animal Defense, 12 Apr. 2013,

queensanimaldefence.org/2013/12/04/the-double-trauma-of-animal-experimentation/.

Accessed 28 Feb. 2019.

"Failure of Animal Protection Laws and Regulations." National Anti-Vivisection Society, 2019,

www.navs.org/the-issues/failure-of-laws-and-regulations-to-protect-

animals/#.XG3JM5NKjq0. Accessed 20 Feb. 2019.

"Firing Squad to Gas Chamber: How Long Do Executions Take?" NBC News, 25 Mar. 2015,

www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/firing-squad-gas-chamber-how-long-executions-take-

n329371. Accessed 31 Mar. 2019.

Garattini, Silvio, and Giuliano Grignaschi. "Animal Testing Is Still the Best Way to Find New

Treatments for Patients." European Journal of Internal Medicine, vol. 39, 1 Dec. 2016,

pp. 32-35 Accessed 20 Feb. 2019.

Hajar, Rachel, M.D. "Animal Testing and Medicine." Heart Views, vol. 12, no. 1, 25 May 2011,

p. 42, www.heartviews.org/article.asp?issn=1995-
 Caya 11

705X;year=2011;volume=12;issue=1;spage=42;epage=42;aulast=Hajar. Accessed 20

Feb. 2019.

Kozlow, Boris, translator. "Harry F. Harlow, Monkey Love Experiments." The Adoption History

Project, 24 Feb. 2012, pages.uoregon.edu/adoption/studies/HarlowMLE.htm. Accessed

28 Feb. 2019.

Murnaghan, Ian. "Animal Testing Timeline." About Animal Testing, 14 Dec. 2018,

www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk/animal-testing-timeline.html. Accessed 20 Feb. 2019.

---. "What Happens to Animals After Testing?" About Animal Testing, 19 Mar. 2019,

www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk/what-happens-animals-after-testing.html. Accessed 31

Mar. 2019.

"Regulation of Animal Research." Science, Medicine, and Animals, 2004, pp. 29-36,

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK24656/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK24656.pdf. Accessed 20

Feb. 2019.