FICTIONAL DIALOGUE ABOUT BIOETHICS ON ANIMAL TESTING:

DISCUSSION OF ANIMAL TESTING IN BIOLOGY CLASS

LUCIO: *THOUGHTS* I’m really interested in dissecting a rabbit. I think I might well suggest
to our professor if we could have an activity in anatomy or biology related to animal dissecting
or testing.

LUCIO: Hey Maria! You’re my partner for the activity tomorrow, right? Perhaps do you want to
join me later get some rabbits in the store for our animal testing in anatomy?

MARIA: What? We’re going to dissect a rabbit? For Pete’s sake Lucio. I can’t dissect a rabbit.
It’s so cute.

LUCIO: Maria, just so you know, dissecting a rabbit is an excellent and insightful way to learn
about mammal anatomy.

MARIA: Why can’t we dissect a frog? Oh please, let’s just not dissect a rabbit. I experienced
having rabbit as a pet when I was a child.

LUCIO: Maria, our professor told us to use rabbit as a sample since we are studying mammal
anatomy.

MARIA: There are so many mammals species Lucio, we have choices.

LUCIO: So, do you want us to go to the sea, and get a whale for dissecting?

MARIA: Oh no, I’m scared of sea creatures. Okay, fine! Let’s just buy a rabbit in the store.

AT THE PET STORE…

LUCIO: Hi sir! Can we buy that healthy looking rabbit in the cage?

VENDOR: Sure, the rabbit is 1 kilo, I can give you that one with a price of 400 pesos.

LUCIO: Thank you, sir!

MARIA: Lucio, are you sure we’re going to dissect this cute little rabbit. I really think I can’t do
it.
VENDOR: *OVERHEARDS THE CONVERSATION* Uhm, kid, are you’re going to dissect
this rabbit? Hmm, to be honest, many students go here often to buy rabbits as a pet, but I haven’t
really heard about dissecting a rabbit.

LUCIO: It’s for our mammal anatomy sir, for school requirements purposes.

VENDOR: Okay, here you go.

THE NEXT DAY IN ANATOMY CLASS…

MARIA: Hey Lucio! Why did you lie to me?

LUCIO: What are you talking about?

MARIA: Our professor told me that we didn’t have such activity in the anatomy.

LUCIO: Oh, I almost forgot, I think it was for biology class not anatomy. And we’re not going to
dissect a rabbit. Rather, we will use it for animal testing.

MARIA: Oh My God Lucio! You almost made us dissect a cute little rabbit. Also, maybe that’s
the reason why the vendor was quite concern about why we’re going to dissect a rabbit.

LUCIO: But dissecting a rabbit is indeed possible, and a good specimen in learning mammal
anatomy.

DURING BIOLOGY CLASS…

PROFESSOR HAZEL: Good morning, Class A-301!

CLASS A-301: Good morning professor Hazel!

PROFESSOR HAZEL: So, for today, we are going to study about animal testing and how it is
unethical. Wait a minute. Why are you holding a rabbit, Lucio?

LUCIO: Uhm miss, I thought we are going to tackle about animal testing? I just wanted to
suggest if we could dissect or test a rabbit. I think it’s interesting.

PROFFESOR HAZEL: Yes, I told you yesterday that we will have a lesson about animal testing,
but I didn’t ask you to buy a rabbit for animal testing or dissecting. I didn’t give instructions
about that.
MARIA: OMG Miss! I was with him when we bought that rabbit and he said that it was for
animal dissecting but later on he told me that it was for animal testing. I was quite confused and I
thought that he really might be lying.

PROFESSOR HAZEL: Lucio, if you don’t want that as a pet, you can bring it back to the pet
store where you bought it.

LUCIO: I’m sorry miss. I just thought it would be interesting to experience dissecting a rabbit
since it is less gross than a frog.

PROFESSOR HAZEL: Let’s talk to my office later. Okay class, let’s start our lesson about
animal testing. Studies published in prestigious medical journals have shown time and again that
animal testing is bad science and wastes lives—both animal and human—and precious resources
by trying to infect animals with diseases that they would never normally contract. Fortunately, a
wealth of cutting-edge non-animal research methodologies promises a brighter future for both
animal and human health. The following are common statements supporting animal
experimentation followed by the arguments against them.

Okay class, I want you to share your opinion about this statement. “Every major medical
advance is attributable to experiments on animals.”

LUCIO: I think it is true miss because some animals are being used as a tester for different
medicinal products.

MARIA: Uhm miss, I strongly disagree with the statement. Animal testing can harm the animals.
I believe that animals have the right to live just like humans.

PROFESSOR HAZEL: I respect both opinions. However, an article published in the

esteemed Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine has even evaluated this very claim and
concluded that it was not supported by any evidence. Most experiments on animals are not
relevant to human health, they do not contribute meaningfully to medical advances, and many
are undertaken simply out of curiosity and do not even pretend to hold promise for curing
illnesses. The only reason people are under the misconception that these experiments help
humans is because the media, experimenters, universities, and lobbying groups exaggerate the
potential they have to lead to new cures and the role they’ve played in past medical advances.
JENNIE: I totally agree miss.

PROFESSOR HAZEL: Okay let’s move on with another argument. Can I hear your thoughts
about the statement, “If we didn’t use animals, we’d have to test new drugs on people.”

JENNIE: I think it is more reliable to test new drugs on people since it can be more accurate and
effective.

LUCIO: We still need to use animals to test drugs because it can be dangerous for people,
especially its side effect.

PROFESSOR HAZEL: Good thing you are active in our discussion Lucio. I never thought you’d
be interested in animals. So, to explain the argument, The fact is that we already do test new
drugs on people. No matter how many tests on animals are undertaken, someone will always be
the first human to be tested on. Because animal tests are so unreliable, they make those human
trials all the riskier. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has noted that 95 percent of all drugs
that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials because they don’t
work or are dangerous. And of the small percentage of drugs approved for human use, half end
up being relabeled because of side effects that were not identified in tests on animals.

MARIA: But miss, we don’t want to use animals, but we have no any other options.

PROFESSOR HAZEL: The most significant trend in modern research is the recognition that
animals rarely serve as good models for the human body. Human clinical and epidemiological
studies, human tissue- and cell-based research methods, cadavers, sophisticated high-fidelity
human-patient simulators, and computational models have the potential to be more reliable, more
precise, less expensive, and more humane alternatives to experiments on animals. Advanced
microchips that use real human cells and tissues to construct fully functioning postage stamp–
size organs allow researchers to study diseases and also develop and test new drugs to treat them.
Progressive scientists have used human brain cells to develop a model “microbrain,” which can
be used to study tumors, as well as artificial skin and bone marrow. We can now test skin
irritation using reconstructed human tissues produce and test vaccines using human tissues, and
perform pregnancy tests using blood samples instead of killing rabbits.
MICO: That’s a good example miss. Does that mean that experimentation using animals persists
not because it’s the best science but because of archaic habits, resistance to change, and a lack of
outreach and education?

PROFESSOR HAZEL: You got the point Mico! So, to end our lesson Experimenters claim a
“right” to inflict pain on animals based on any number of arbitrary physical and cognitive
characteristics, such as animals’ supposed lack of reason. But if lack of reason truly justified
animal experimentation, experimenting on human beings with “inferior” mental capabilities,
such as infants and the intellectually disabled, would also be acceptable.

The argument also ignores the reasoning ability of many animals, including pigs who
demonstrate measurably sophisticated approaches to solving problems and primates who not
only use tools but also teach their offspring how to use them.

MARIA: I totally agree miss! The experimenters’ real argument is “might makes right.” They
believe it’s acceptable to harm animals because they are weaker, because they look different, and
because their pain is less important than human pain. This is not only cruel but also unethical.

LUCIO: I really learned a lot today from you miss. It changed my perspective towards animal
testing and how it should be.

PROFESSOR HAZEL: Okay class thank you for this day, good bye and see you tomorrow!

CLASS A-301: Good bye and thank you Professor Hazel!

REFERENCES:

https://www.pearlandisd.org/cms/lib/TX01918186/Centricity/Domain/1385/Carolina%20Rabbit
%20Dissection%20Guide.pdf

https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-bad-science/

https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-used-experimentation-
factsheets/animal-experiments-overview/