Goeller 1

Drew Goeller

Simon Workman

ENG 1201

2 April 2022

Rogerian Argument: Animal Testing

When it comes to the animal testing debate, it can be a sensitive topic. There have been

many theories and ideas over the course of this debate that have surfaced regarding ways that

these two sides, those who are in favor of animal testing and those who are opposed to animal

testing, could decide who is the winner and has the most logical stance on the issue. Both sides

present good arguments for why their position makes sense and should, therefore, be the

accepted policy, but because no one side has ever come out on top, it is time to find a mutual

agreement for what is best for everyone and will accomplish the aim of animal testing. Side A, in

favor or animal testing, demonstrates arguments based on the following desired outcomes:

discovering what causes disease in humans; treating illness through treatment plans; testing the

safety/efficacy of new drugs; and producing safe household items like cleaners. Side B, on the

other hand, states that alternatives to harming and killing animals do exist and can achieve the

same or better results without using animals as test subjects. Moreover, they believe these new

technologies can be as reliable and beneficial; more astute at meeting patient and consumer

needs; and are safer. Although both sides have compelling arguments and succeed in convincing

their own supporters, Side A and B can find a compromise that will bring both positions to the

middle through facts and one logical comparison.

First, one side, Side A, of this argument is centered around the idea that animal testing is

reliable and effective and has been used for centuries in the advancement of medical cures and
 Goeller 2

treatments and have led to improvements in other industries like cosmetics, cleaning products,

and food. Furthermore, it is not uncommon to hear supporters of Side A to talk about how many

medical advancements are a direct result of using animal testing such as finding causes of

disease that we now can treat, for example, Louis Pasteur’s work with microorganisms, which

led to a vaccine against rabies (Katsnelson). In addition to finding causes of disease, testing

produces solutions to disease and illness. Authors, K. Giannakou and A. Vyrides state that

“[e]xperiments using animals have not only supported the development of new vaccines for the

treatment of infectious diseases of public health significance […] but have also led to the

development of greatly needed forms of treatment, such as antibacterial and antibiotic drugs”

(762). Another example presented by this side is that pre-clinical studies in certain animal

species are also necessary to justify clinical trials. Without such studies, it would be against

safety protocol to test unproven therapies on humans in addition to being wasteful to distribute

resources that preliminary testing on animals reported as failing to demonstrate any relevance

(Giannakou and Vyrides 762). This side states that due to these animals being tested during pre-

trials, we no longer must be worried about public protection, and we can screen new treatments

for toxicity, therefore, establishing public safety. The reality is that animal testing is becoming

more and more humane and, therefore, remains a qualified method for the purposes of discovery,

research, treatments, and cures. In the past, animals often had to be killed to study the effects of

certain drugs; however, today animals can be kept alive and taken care of while gaining insights

into disease and illness through sensors and monitors. These devices can transmit data without

causing harm. According to Dr. Christian Schnell, researchers have moved from the days where

animals were restrained, drugged, and data collected, causing stress and increased heart rates, to

implanting sensors that record the information and allow the animals to “move freely and remain
 Goeller 3

with their families - more relaxed and with normal heart rates”, which led to “cleaner results”

(Stokstad). If animal testing, through technological improvements, is becoming more humane

and producing better results for the medical community and other industries, many believe there

is little reason to continually villainize the practice by publishing outdated results based on old

methods, practices, and studies.

The other side, Side B, of this argument presents a case for alternative methods for

medical and industry advancements that does not focus on animals as test subjects. One of the

points that this side brings up is the possibility of creating models of animals for testing, using

technology rather than living specimens. Sivakrishnan and Anbiah demonstrate that there are

“absolute alternatives” that can be used in place of animals like silico computer modeling and

vitro methodologies. These devices replace the “protected” animals and create a model that the

researchers can run tests on. Although it may not be the real thing, it is relatively close and could

save lives. These models are not the only evidence this side uses; in fact, the idea of animal

testing being the “the gold standard” is losing ground among researchers and the public. Another

approach is “organ-on-a-chip” technology (Katsnelson). This involves human stem cells that are

grown on a microchip to “mimic the function of the specific organ” (Katsnelson). What makes

this technology so promising is how much can be done with that chip that could never be

performed on an animal. According to the article “Can We End Animal Testing?” by Alla

Katsnelson, researchers have created these microchips that can be “lined with human cells and

artificial blood vessel tissues” but can also “capture physiological features such as blood pressure

and mechanical forces that act on cells”. One final point brought to bear for those against animal

testing is safety. In fact, those who oppose animal testing include in their argument the dangers

that it can present for humans, including severe reactions. According to Otto, “[t]here have been
 Goeller 4

many trials on humans that went badly because their assumed risk was low due to previous

testing on animals, but which turned out to be detrimental to human health” (Otto). Otto

continues by giving the example from the drug Vioxx, which is used to treat arthritis and was

found to be safe based on test results using animals. Tests were conducted on monkeys and other

species (Otto). However over 300,000 heart attacks and strokes and nearly 150,000 deaths were

linked to the drug (Otto).

When looking back at these two sides of the argument on animal testing, it can be

important to separate out the elements of their arguments they actually agree on or are at least

similar enough that will shift their focus away from their “it is my way or the highway”

mentality toward a more inclusive practice that meets the needs of the public. In other words,

there must be some common ground that can be found between these sides that will settle the

debate. One such area is the intended outcomes of animal testing overall: protecting public health

and safety while finding solutions to disease, illness, toxins in household items, etc. and secondly

what would be considered an acceptable cost, the number of animal and/or human lives lost, for

those outcomes. Even though Side A and Side B differ in methods to researching and treating

these public health concerns, they both make the end goal of their research and testing their

highest priority, which is to find solutions that address the needs of the public in matters of

health and wellness without sacrificing safety or paying with lives. Once both sides see that there

is a common goal they share, it becomes more likely that an end to the long-standing debate is

achievable and that both sides must put the public’s interest ahead of their need to hold onto a

debate that no longer serves any real purpose. By focusing on the science and technological

advancements that have taken place over the last few decades within the field of medical and
 Goeller 5

industry research and development, it becomes clear that the debate is outdated, and it is time to

work together to serve the needs of patients and consumers.

It is clear that finding common ground is not the final step to any debate that seeks a final

resolution; a compromise must be reached between the two opposing sides. To reach a solution

to the debate on animal testing, it will be necessary for those who are against animal testing to

acknowledge the practice of new technologies that use animal subjects but can and will replace

the more invasive practices and procedures, which are often seen as inhumane, cruel, and

harmful. Furthermore, this same group will need to support the belief that new technologies are

necessary methods for reaching safe, effective standards for public health concerns (such as

disease or unsafe household products) because they have been found by the research and

development community to be reliable, viable options for new medical treatments,

therapeutics/drugs, and consumer products used by humans. Finally, those who are opposed to

animal testing will have to stop villainizing the other point of view with inaccurate quotes and

over the top claims such as stating that advocates of animal testing state that “every major

medical advance is attributed to experiments on animals” (Berlatsky). Testing advocates do not

hold this rigid position and saying that they do only adds to the conflict. On the other hand, those

in favor of testing must commit to severely reducing and, whenever possible, eliminating the

testing methods that require anesthetizing and/or killing animals for the expressed purpose of

creating medical treatments, cures, vaccines, and consumer products and support any policies

that regulate practices and procedures that use animals when a valid alternative exists. Relying

on the outdated “gold standard” can no longer be the fallback position for those who are in this

group because that standard is quickly being replaced by one that does not include animal

subjects. This new position is gaining in popularity even when taking into account the many life-
 Goeller 6

saving drugs and treatments that animal testing has produced over the last century. In the end, the

comprise is test without harm and test with stringent, regularly updated procedures that make

animal survival, safety and comfort the new “gold standard”. In addition, this side of the debate

must pledge that research and development will never stop striving for a day no animal is used as

a test subject so long as the safe and effective sought-after results for humans can be achieved in

other ways.

One way to establish that this compromise has merit is to parallel it with another situation

that had public health and safety at its core with two passionate opposing viewpoints yet was

proven to be successful and acceptable. By using an analogy, one will be able to see the animal

testing debate can come to a logical conclusion. One such analogy that can demonstrate a

comprise between testing or not testing is possible is one that took place in the sporting

community because it too had the public’s health and safety in mind. Baseball, “American’s

Favorite Pastime” as it is known, found itself at a crossroads between keeping the public and

players safe and allowing baseball to continue with its regular season, in other words, a debate

between Major League Baseball fans and the players and the public health officials who are in

charge of making policy during a pandemic. If baseball were going to survive a “new normal”

during a pandemic, a compromise would have to be reached. This could be accomplished only

by finding common ground between those who wanted baseball to have a season and those who

wanted to keep people safe from Covid. The comprise reached was to have one side, fans and

players, agree to wear masks, social distance when required, show proof of a negative Covid test,

and avoid the ballpark if exhibiting symptoms of being ill. The other side, the public health

officials, agreed to allow teams to “play ball”. The fact that playing baseball was the agreed upon

aim both sides shared, their “common ground”, it allowed a solution to prevail, one that asked
 Goeller 7

each side to reconsider something they felt strongly about: players and the public got the vaccine,

kept their distance, and masked up while health officials allowed sporting events to continue. In

the end, according to the article “Unvaccinated Mets and Yankees Players Can’t Play in New

York” by James Wagner, even though there was push back against getting vaccinated, “the

vaccinations numbers steadily rose in the M.L.B.”, showing how compromise is possible when

both sides focus on the end goal rather than what they feel goes against their own interests.

If a compromise can be reached between fanatical baseball fans and public health

officials during a pandemic where opposing sides were pitted against each other and made out to

be dangerous, stupid, or naive, it seems logical and reasonable to believe that a similar

compromise can be reached between those for and those against animal testing. This is an issue

that is far more serious with a greater urgency to call an end to the ongoing conflict that pulls

focus and resources from what matters most, public health and safety in the areas of disease,

illness, treatments, drugs, and safe consumer products. The shared goal of public health and

safety that does not expect either side to pay a high cost, losing lives, can and should push Side

A and Side B into making the effort to see what is advantageous about the other side’s argument

and bring upon a resolution. The compromise should not be seen as both sides having to give

something valuable away but, instead, as both sides gaining something of value.
 Goeller 8

Works Cited

“Animal Testing Is Bad Science.” Current Controversies: Animal Rights, Jan. 2015. Gale in

Context: Opposing Viewpoints, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=edsgov&AN=edsgcl.3010954207&site=eds-live. Accessed 10 Apr.

2022.

Giannakou, K., and A. Vyrides. “The Use of Animal Studies in Human Research.” Archives of

Hellenic Medicine / Arheia Ellenikes Iatrikes, vol. 38, no. 6, Nov. 2021, pp. 761–

65. Academic Search Complete, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=a9h&AN=153664791&site=eds-live. Accessed 27 Mar. 2022.

Katsnelson, Alla. “Can We End Animal Testing?” BBC Science Focus Magazine,

Sciencefocus.com. Accessed 27 Mar. 2022.

Otto, Calen. “Why Do Humans Still Experiment on Animals?” Sentient Media,

sentientmedia.org. Accessed 27 Mar. 2022.

Stokstad, Erik. "Animal Testing Is Becoming More Humane." Animal Experimentation, edited

by Cindy Mur, Greenhaven Press, 2004. At Issue. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010002223/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=bookmark-

OVIC&xid=b142cfb4. Accessed 1 May 2022. Originally published as "Humane Science Finds

Sharper and Kinder Tools," Science, vol. 286, 5 Nov. 1999, pp. 1-068. Accessed 27 Mar. 2022.

Wagner, James. “Unvaccinated Mets and Yankee Players Can’t Play in New York.” New York

Times, nytimes.com. Accessed 10 Apr. 2022.