Critical Thinking Paper

Lucia Santoro-Vélez

Pd 7

Dr. Simel

4/5

Since Ancient Greece, humanity has depended on animals to aid in research

(Hajar, 2011). Now, during the worldwide pandemic of COVID-19, animals (specifically

monkeys) are once again the targets of testing to develop a vaccine (Brannon, 2020).
These international events bring attention to American reliance on animals for product

and scientific experimentation. The Humane Society of the United States finds that

“more than 25 million vertebrate animals (animals with a skeleton made of bone) are

used annually in research.” This research is used in “drug, medical device, chemical,

cosmetic, personal care, household, and other product sectors” (Groff et al., 2014). Yet,

these animals are not adequately protected in the law. The United States Department of

Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) must create

legislation designed to protect all animals from product testing because animals can

experience pain and suffering, therefore, should not be exposed to it; animals such as

dogs and cats are already protected, consequently, other animals such as cows and pigs

should be awarded the same treatment; and the corrosive impact of animal testing on

the environment will be abated.

As animals are able to feel pain and fully experience trauma, they should not be

deliberately exposed to it through product testing. Some particularly egregious examples

of testing processes include the LD50 (lethal dose 50) in which scientists determine the

dose of a substance needed to kill 50% of the animals, testing involving toxic fumes in

which animals are pushed into tubes and forced to inhale the gasses, and trauma testing.

Trauma testing is one of the cruelest tests as it involves a scientist traumatizing animals

through “burns, electric shocks, or other painful experiences in order to examine how

similar traumas could affect humans” (“Animal Testing”, 2020). While the practices

mentioned above neglect to show that some tests are much more humane, it is still

evident that animal testing as a whole is cruel. Animal rights have been a controversy

among philosophers for hundreds of years (Hajar, 2011). A common thread amongst

philosophers is the argument that whether or not animals are biologically equal to
humans, they still deserve protection. This sentiment is explained by 18th and 19th-

century philosopher Jeremy Bentham who said, “The question is not ‘Can they reason?’

nor ‘Can they talk?’ but ‘Can they suffer?’” (“Animal Rights”, 2020). On a similar note,

Immanuel Kant, an 18th-century German philosopher wrote that people “can judge the

heart of a man by his treatment of animals” (“Animal Rights”, 2020). The logic laid out

by these thinkers is that testing on animals is inhumane. Thus, it is completely immoral

to knowingly inflict pain on a living being.

The public views some animals as superior or more deserving of protections

(Bittman, 2011). Animals (regardless of their species) should have the same protections

awarded to them. For example, cats and dogs, which are the most common household

pets (“Facts + Statistics: Pet statistics”), are adored as well as protected by state

legislation; however, animals that are used for product testing such as rats, pigs, rabbits,

and primates are not given the same benefits (“Animals used in biomedical research”,

2020). This lack of empathy for certain animals is known as speciesism and encourages

a lack of effective legislation aimed to protect the aforementioned animals. One

particular animal that suffers because of speciesism are rats. While rats would, in most

minds, be considered pests, they are actually incredibly intelligent creatures. “There is

an abundance of research out there on rat’s capacity for emotions, demonstrating a full

emotional repertoire that would rival humans (Balcombe, 2010; Proctor et al., 2013 both

qtd. in World Animal Protection, 2015). Indeed, rats’ emotional ability and intelligence

are comparable to those of dogs or cats (World Animal Protection, 2015). Animals that

are regularly tested like rats have qualities that should be protected. Animals least

protected by the law are of no less value; therefore they should be given protection

regardless of their species.

 Animal testing facilities are major sources of toxic waste and use vast quantities

of energy, both of which are disastrous for the environment. In any given research

facility, there are always considerable amounts of waste. This is due to the fact that in

the U.S. “millions of animals are bred, used, and ultimately disposed of” (Groff et al.,

2014). This amount of death generates “a significant amount of waste that must be

removed and disposed of on a regular, frequent basis” (Groff et al. 2014). In addition to

the often disease-ridden, dead bodies, excrement, caging, needles, and syringes are also

disposed of. Research facilities also create a sizable amount of air pollutants including

nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide (Groff et al.

2014). Additionally, there are hazardous chemical substances like mercury, methane,

arsenic, and formaldehyde (Groff et al. 2014). Consequently, these pollutants can travel,

causing pollution and harmfully exposing people to toxic matter. The pollutants also

accelerate climate change because some of them are greenhouse gases (eg. methane).

Research facilities also spend great amounts of energy. Groff et al. find that “The

quantity of energy consumed by research animal facilities is up to ten times more than

offices on a square meter basis” and that “ Animal research facilities require total fresh

air exchanges for ventilation, using large volumes of air, resulting in a high consumption

of energy and carbon emissions” (2014). The environmental fallout associated with

animal experimentation would diminish the health of the public as well as biodiversity.

Many people who work in order to develop new medicine or work for a drug

company believe that animal testing is necessary. They believe animal testing in the past

has “yielded countless medical breakthroughs and consumer safety innovations”

(“Animal Testing”, 2020). They believe that it is much more important to save human

lives than to save those of animals. While these reasons are valid, they do not take into
account the new refined methods of testing which do not involve animals. These new

methods include “the creation of synthetic human organs”, and computer simulations

(of bone marrow, hearts, kidneys, intestines, lungs, intestines, and skin) like Tox21

(“Animal Testing”, 2020). These tests have been shown to be accurate. Evidently, it is

not necessary to perform tests on animals in order to gain “lifesaving and life-improving

research” (Trull, 2014). Scientists can use these new methods to research and reap the

same rewards as they would with animal testing.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service (APHIS) must create legislation to safeguard all animals from

product testing. This is a necessity because animals are able to suffer as much as

humans, therefore, should not be exposed to it; animals such as dogs and cats are

already protected, hence, other animals such as rats and pigs should be awarded the

same treatment; and the adverse impact of animal testing on the environment will be

greatly diminished. In a time such as this where medical research is incredibly

important to the public, it is necessary to maintain the same sentiment when

considering animals and their health. In the words of J.K. Rowling, “If you want to know

what a man's like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals.” This

clearly shows the importance of treating animals with compassion.

 Works Cited

"Animal Rights: Do Animals Have Rights Similar to Those of Humans?" Issues and

Controversies, Infobase, 2 Jan. 2020, icof.infobaselearning.com/recordurl.aspx?

ID=2520. Accessed 17 Feb. 2020.

"Animals Used in Biomedical Research FAQ." The Humane Society of the United States,

www.humanesociety.org/resources/animals-used-biomedical-research-faq#q1.

Accessed 5 Apr. 2020

"Animal Testing: Is Animal Testing Morally Justified?" Issues & Controversies,

Infobase, 14 Jan. 2020, icof.infobaselearning.com/recordurl.aspx?ID=14917.

Accessed 6 Apr. 2020.

Bittman, Mark. "Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others." The New York Times, 15

Mar. 2011, opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/some-animals-are-more-

equal-than-others/. Accessed 6 Apr. 2020.

Brannon, Keith. "Tulane University Launches New Coronavirus Research Program to

Develop a Vaccine and Advanced Diagnostics." Tulane University School of

Medicine, Tulane University, 19 Feb. 2020, medicine.tulane.edu/news/tulane-

university-launches-new-coronavirus-research-program-develop-vaccine-and-

advanced. Accessed 5 Apr. 2020.

"Facts + Statistics: Pet Statistics." Insurance Information Institute, www.iii.org/fact-

statistic/facts-statistics-pet-statistics. Accessed 6 Apr. 2020.

Groff, Katherine, et al. "Review of Evidence of Environmental Impacts of Animal

Research and Testing." Environments, vol. 1(1), nos. 14-30, 2014,

www.mdpi.com/2076-3298/1/1/14#cite. Accessed 5 Apr. 2020.

Hajar, Rachel. "Animal Testing and Medicine." Heart Views : the Official Journal of the

Gulf Heart Association, vol. 12, no. 1(2011). National Center for Biotechnology

Information, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3123518/. Accessed 6

Apr. 2020.

Trull, Frankie. "Don't Let Animal Rights Restrict Biomedical Research." The New York

Times, Oct. 2014, www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/10/01/enforcing-the-

legal-rights-of-animals/dont-let-animal-rights-restrict-biomedical-research.

Accessed 5 Apr. 2020.

World Animal Protection. "Speciesism: Why Do We Care More about Some Animals

than Others?" World Animal Protection, 12 Apr. 2015,

 www.worldanimalprotection.org/blogs/rats-dogs-chickens-and-cats-why-do-we-

care-more-about-some-animals-others. Accessed 6 Apr. 2020.

Annotated Bibliography

All Things Considered. NPR, 17 Nov. 2017. NPR, www.npr.org/sections/health-

shots/2017/10/17/546922313/scientists-push-to-house-more-lab-monkeys-in-

pairs. Accessed 5 Apr. 2020. Transcript. Greenfieldboyce's piece talks about

conditions for monkeys in labs and the overall lack of consideration for the

monkeys. This source gives a look at what happens in a lab and the experiences of

all primates within research facilities.

"Animal Rights: Do Animals Have Rights Similar to Those of Humans?" Issues and

Controversies, Infobase, 2 Jan. 2020, icof.infobaselearning.com/recordurl.aspx?

ID=2520. Accessed 17 Feb. 2020. This source encompasses many aspects of

animal rights. It dives into the history of the Animal Rights Movement as well as

specific examples of animal abuse. Because this source is broad, it gives a good

understanding of a variety of topics underneath the overarching one. From this

source, I will be able to understand the topic and my arguments while not having

a deep understanding.
"Animals Used in Biomedical Research FAQ." The Humane Society of the United States,

www.humanesociety.org/resources/animals-used-biomedical-research-faq#q1.

Accessed 5 Apr. 2020. This source is full of accurate facts that help introduce one

to the topic of animal testing. This is also a source from a very credible cite.

"Animal Testing." Humane Society International, www.hsi.org/issues/animal-testing/.

Accessed 5 Apr. 2020. This source is full of accurate facts that help introduce one

to the topic of animal testing. This is also a source from a very credible cite.

"Animal Testing: Is Animal Testing Morally Justified?" Issues & Controversies,

Infobase, 14 Jan. 2020, icof.infobaselearning.com/recordurl.aspx?ID=14917.

Accessed 6 Apr. 2020. The source Animal Testing: Is Animal Testing Morally

Justified? delves into and explores whether or not animal testing should be

allowed by giving many arguments and data from both sides. This source gives

valuable data and also very specific pieces of information.

"Animal Welfare Act." National Agricultural Library, USDA,

www.nal.usda.gov/awic/animal-welfare-act. Accessed 18 Feb. 2020. This source

shows the inception of the Animal Welfare Act and shows how it has

changed/stayed the same throughout the years. This is an important source as it

focuses on some of the only Animal Rights legislation in the US.

Bennett-Jones, Owen. "Should Animals Have the Same Rights as Humans?" BBC, 26

May 2015. BBC News, www.bbc.com/news/world-32854504. Accessed 5 Apr.

2020. This article dives into the controversy of whether or not animals should

have the same rights as humans. It has many valuable arguments that

demonstrate why animals should have rights.

Bethune, Brian. "Why Animals Should be Given the Same Legal Rights as Humans."

Maclean's, 14 Sept. 2017, www.macleans.ca/society/why-animals-should-be-

given-the-same-legal-rights-as-humans/. Accessed 5 Apr. 2020. Bethune's work

focuses on whether or not animals should have the same rights as people (not

solely focused on animal testing). This is helpful as it shows the ways in which

professionals are handling the debate (as well as some of their successful

arguments).

Bittman, Mark. "Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others." The New York Times, 15

Mar. 2011, opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/some-animals-are-more-

equal-than-others/. Accessed 6 Apr. 2020. Bittman's article gives a look at

speciesism. He mentions many examples of situations viewed differently by the

public only because there are different animals involved. This is very helpful as it

gives effective examples to show the prevalence of speciesism.

Brannon, Keith. "Tulane University Launches New Coronavirus Research Program to

Develop a Vaccine and Advanced Diagnostics." Tulane University School of

Medicine, Tulane University, 19 Feb. 2020, medicine.tulane.edu/news/tulane-

university-launches-new-coronavirus-research-program-develop-vaccine-and-

advanced. Accessed 5 Apr. 2020. Brannon's article about the use of animals in

the development of the COVID-19 vaccine is able to show the lasting usage of

animal testing. The source corroborates my claim that animal testing is used

significantly in the medical field.

"Cruelty to Animals in Laboratories." PETA, www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-

experimentation/animals-laboratories/. Accessed 6 Apr. 2020. This source gives

an accurate depiction of what happens to animals when they are being used for
 product testing. This source shines a light on some of the more gruesome details

that are not always mentioned in other sources.

"Facts + Statistics: Pet Statistics." Insurance Information Institute, www.iii.org/fact-

statistic/facts-statistics-pet-statistics. Accessed 6 Apr. 2020. This source gives a

variety of information about pets in the United States. It is helpful because it

gives information on the popularity of certain animals (namely dogs and cats).

Gonchar, Michael. "Should Certain Animals Have Some of the Same Legal Rights as

People?" The New York Times, 29 Apr. 2014,

learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/29/should-certain-animals-have-some-of-

the-same-legal-rights-as-people/. Accessed 5 Apr. 2020. Gonchar's brief essay

talks about whether or not animals should have similar rights to humans. While

the source is short it gives examples of arguments for and against the issue.

Groff, Katherine, et al. "Review of Evidence of Environmental Impacts of Animal

Research and Testing." Environments, vol. 1(1), nos. 14-30, 2014,

www.mdpi.com/2076-3298/1/1/14#cite. Accessed 5 Apr. 2020. This source is an

incredibly detailed and unique account of the environmental effects of animal

testing. As this topic is rarely discussed the data it presents is invaluable and

essential to make an argument about the environmental problems of research

facilities.

Hajar, Rachel. "Animal Testing and Medicine." Heart Views : the Official Journal of the

Gulf Heart Association, vol. 12, no. 1(2011). National Center for Biotechnology

Information, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3123518/. Accessed 6

Apr. 2020. Hajar's article is helpful as it shows the extent to which philosophers
 have thought about animal rights and the relationship between animals and

humans.

Hegedus, Chris, and D. A. Pennebaker. "Animals Are Persons Too." The New York

Times, 23 Apr. 2014, www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/opinion/animals-are-

persons-too.html. Accessed 5 Apr. 2020. This article contains a short

documentary that talks about Stephen Wise's fight for the rights of some

primates. This is helpful because it shows how professionals argue for legislation

to include more animal rights.

"Laws That Protect Animals." Animal Legal Defense Fund, aldf.org/article/laws-that-

protect-animals/. Accessed 6 Apr. 2020. This source focuses on the legal

protection of animals by listing all of the legislation. The source is also helpful

because it shows the shortcomings of many of the laws.

Trull, Frankie. "Don't Let Animal Rights Restrict Biomedical Research." The New York

Times, Oct. 2014, www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/10/01/enforcing-the-

legal-rights-of-animals/dont-let-animal-rights-restrict-biomedical-research.

Accessed 5 Apr. 2020. Trull's short article is valuable as it gives information on

what people think that approve of animal testing and therefore is helpful for a

counterargument.

"Why Animal Rights?" PETA, www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/why-animal-rights/.

Accessed 5 Apr. 2020. This source is helpful as it contains many arguments in

favor of animal rights and in the ending of animal testing.

World Animal Protection. "Speciesism: Why Do We Care More about Some Animals

than Others?" World Animal Protection, 12 Apr. 2015,

www.worldanimalprotection.org/blogs/rats-dogs-chickens-and-cats-why-do-we-
care-more-about-some-animals-others. Accessed 6 Apr. 2020. The World Animal

Protection's article about species was enlightening as it contained a significant

amount of data to support that many of the animals being tested upon are in fact

just as intelligent and emotionally driven as dogs.