THE IMMORALITY OF ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS: ASSOCIATING HUMAN DEFECTS

AND RISKS IT IMPOSES

Presented to Mr. Jun Glyn Pueda

University of Mindanao

Bolton (Matina), Davao City

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

In English for Academic and Professional Purposes (10:00-12:00)

1st Semester of S.Y. 2021 – 2022

Dustine Dela Cruz

Wilbert Generalao

Stephanie Kim Leong

Mary Grace Soliza

Kryztle Phyllyne Tayug

December 2021
 TABLE OF CONTEXT

Title Page i

Table of Context ii

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem iii

REVIEW RELATED LITERATURE IV

Conclusion X

REFERENCE XI
 The use of animals in research and product testing has been a standard practice

for decades, with over 100 million animals employed in scientific studies worldwide.

The biomedical sector, on the other hand, can be bought. Regardless of categorization,

animal testing strives to enhance the safety and efficacy of potential medicines by

improving human biology and health sciences. Even though it consumes vast amounts

of money, causes animal misery, and negatively influences human health, animal

research has received little rigorous investigation. Basic study into fundamental issues

and advanced research into advanced concerns are the two types of animal

experiments. Animal experimentation, regardless of its classification, is a kind of cruelty

to animals. Applied drug research and development and biology and human illness

testing for toxicity and safety Its goal is to promote safety and at the same time educate

people about human biology and the health sciences in terms of the effectiveness of the

therapies that have been suggested. Despite the vast expenditures necessary, the

animal suffering involved, and the impact on human health, the topic of animal

experimentation continues to be debated. Several researchers believe that using

animals such as mice and rabbits to evaluate human drug therapies is ineffective.

Because humans and mice are two fundamentally different animals, treating a mouse is

not the same as treating a human.

The effectiveness of experimenting has gotten a lot of attention, but it hasn't

gotten a lot of criticism. Animal research is still contentious, although it is widely

accepted that medicine should be evidence-based. Experimentation has mainly failed

as a method of educating people about their health. They are held to this standard in

practice. This reality makes it all the more remarkable that animal testing is often

considered the default and gold standard of preclinical research, and its validity is

widely acknowledged. According to anecdotal evidence and proponents' arguments,

animal experimentation is not and cannot be justified as a necessary step in scientific

inquiry. For many years the ethics of animal experimentation and its ramifications have

been discussed. Many people believe that animal testing should be prohibited to

prevent animal suffering. Others argue that animal experimentation is acceptable since

animals are a lower species than humans and do not have rights. These individuals
think that animals do not have rights because they lack the mental capacity to

comprehend or consciously exercise them. Animal experimentation in medical research

and cosmetics testing, on the other hand, cannot be justified on the assumption that

animals are lower on the evolutionary ladder than humans in so many respects.

However, many people have overlooked the fact that there is considerable consensus

on animal testing between those who want to stop it and those who favor it. Once we

recognize some connections between those who support animal testing and those who

oppose it, we can begin to solve the problem for both sides. We can resolve this issue

by finding a middle ground on some concepts. Instead of using animals to test

medicines or products, we can use other methods.

Animal testing appears to be an essential practice for a variety of reasons. There

are several of them. Animal testing has been employed for various reasons, including

biological research to cure and treat pets and people, determine the safety of cosmetics

such as makeup and shampoo, and domestic cleaning goods (Baldrick, 297). According

to the Bioindustry Association, animal-based research has made a significant

contribution to the development of medications that have helped save lives every day.

As a result of unfortunate events involving In 1938, Congress approved the Food, Drug,

and Cosmetics Act, which prohibited the use of untested items.

Several data and arguments have demonstrated the benefits of animal

experimentation in biomedical research. Studies on pigs, dogs, rats, rabbits, and other

animals have proved extremely useful in understanding cardiac disease. The HIV/AIDS

virus has have investigated on monkeys, cats, and chickens. The results have led to a

viable answer for medications and vaccines that could help manage the terrible disease.

Animal models have been used in studies for nearly every condition known to man. How

can we expect to develop medications for diseases as necessary as cancer and

HIV/AIDS, among other ailments, without the help of animal testing? Animal testing

could be incorrect.

Animal testing research has made significant progress in the scientific and

medical sectors, allowing for the development of medicines with acceptable outcomes
(Baldrick, 293). All of this comes at a steep price in exposing animals to stress and

suffering that could lead to their death due to the studies conducted on them. Humans

and animals can both learn to have emotions (being sentient). According to studies,

37% of animals exposed to these texts experience pain, discomfort, and moderate-to-

severe stress (Sabeel et al., 864). Most individuals believe that humans are superior to

non-human creatures when utilizing animals in studies and science.

Regardless of this logic, the reality that animals feel pain and desire pleasure

demonstrate that we should not dismiss the notion that they are sentient. Both animals

and people wanting to escape a source of pain or shouting is a strong indicator that they

have a similar reaction to stimuli they are exposed to, and hence none should be

punished. One is to be inferior to the other. According to the American Veterinary

Association, animal pain is an unpleasant sensory experience combined with an

emotional experience emanating from a body location, resulting in actual or potential

tissue damage. There is no relief for some of the animals that were employed in

biomedical research.

The conditions they are exposed to result in them developing a damaged spinal

cord limp that shatters, as well as enduring extreme heat or cold, keeping in mind that

each creature exhibits a distinct display of anguish and pain. Each animal or human has

a varied pain tolerance impacts how they react to suffering. There is strong evidence

that animals feel pain in the same way that humans do (Fentem et al., 619). From the

test, many species show that melancholy, psychological suffering, and fear impact their

faces, revealing the tragic fact that physical pain is not the only issue that animals

encounter.

The use of primates like chimps for animal research has been fraught with

controversy due to their human-like characteristics. Because of this ironic feature, many

researchers wish to employ them as study models. Chimpanzees are genetically and

evolutionarily similar to humans, which explains why they are more intelligent and

emotional than other animals. As a result, researchers consider them the best for

biomedical research. Because primates are so similar to humans in terms of social life,

emotions, and intelligence, they oppose their use in research that could hurt them.
Other than the misery and pain these animals endure, there is a question about the

necessity of employing animal studies in medical advances (Thomas et al. 551).

Despite the emergence of technological alternatives for animal testing, over a hundred

million animals are utilized for medical research each year.

There were 3.1 million animals utilized in 2007 in biomedical and genetic

investigations in England, Scotland, and Wales. In October of 2006, on the opening day

of the Joint World Congress hosted in Cape Town, South Africa, a drug intended to treat

ischemic stroke failed, causing misery for the hosts. When the projected study

outcomes for the treatment in question (NYX-059) died, it was in the third phase of

clinical testing. The drug's purpose was to stop the cascade of necrosis in the event of a

stroke, therefore sparing the brain's surviving functional cells. The use of animal models

in According to the director of the Michigan Alzheimer's Disease Research Center at

Michigan Sid Gilman University's Neurology Department, the leading cause of failure

was the NYX-059 drug trial. Animal life is used unnecessarily and thus wasted in painful

research that costs millions of dollars. It's one of several drug tests conducted on

unsuccessful animals.

Due to the general psychological horror and pain that the used animals

experience during the tests. Human-based tests for illnesses and diseases have

demonstrated success without using animals in research. Several scientists have

established the to avoid causing harm to animals, the development of alternative

methods for conducting tests and discovering people's treatments (Bottini, 6). New

effects include population research, volunteer studies, computer models, cell structures,

microorganisms, and analytical techniques. Cell cultures are used to understand better

diseases such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, and Parkinson's. Who used analytical technology

equipment to select anti-malaria and anti-cancer drugs due to the produced reaction

with the DNA. Computer models can be used to conduct virtual experiments. Tissue

engineering is another option for animal testing. It involves using a 3-D skin equivalent

that is physiologically compared to the skin. It enables research into infection biology,

the invasion of various pathological microorganisms, histological analysis, and so on.

Wound healing, infection analysis, immunology, and molecular-biological analysis are

all areas of study. This research was motivated by both ethical and financial

considerations (Bottini, 13).

Animals have been subjected to agony and painting to indicate an individual's

immunological response to a specific vaccination or medicine. When comparing the

results of this test to the data from animal research, it is more accurate in producing pre-

clinical data.

Research suggests that alternative methods can produce treatment results,

making animal testing less necessary and more choice. Alternative lifestyle practices

can help people reduce or eliminate their usage of animal-tested drugs. According to

the findings, some natural phenomena are beyond human control. Accidents that result

in bodily injury and human genetics are examples of this. These events allow people to

practice healthy eating habits, exercise, and engage in other healthy human behaviors.

These procedures will aid in the prevention of diseases that force people to utilize drugs

that have been tested on animals.

The integrative, complementary, and alternative healthcare strategy combines

preventive care with natural medicine to address patients' physical and mental health.

The human body Adopting alternative health behaviors can help eliminate most health

problems that require medication, thereby eliminating the need for animal testing

(Combes et al. 9). Migraines and headaches, for example, are typical difficulties that

people encounter. According to data conducted by the International Headache Society,

11% of the adult population suffers from migraines, 46% from headaches and 46%

suffer from both headaches and migraines.

The study also mentions the standard methods used by the majority of people. It

helps alleviate headaches and migraines. Seizures, constipation, and other adverse

effects are possible with common medicines such acetylsalicylic acid, acetaminophen,

and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Most researchers utilize some of these

medications to stimulate animals to assess if the drugs they suggest are effective.

According to research, we can treat headaches and migraines in various ways.

Breathing exercises, drinking more water, meditation, massage therapy, eating a

balanced diet, and acupuncture are just a few examples. These are drug-free and have
demonstrated a wide range of cures for headaches and migraines as complementary

and preventive methods. This preventative and alternative method offers a more

comprehensive answer to the issues associated with animal testing.

The research's findings are accurate and trustworthy. There employed Peer-

reviewed literature and scholarly articles to arrive at these conclusions. As a result, the

report is free of any prejudice or inconsistency. Evidence from reputable organizations

and secondary sources has also contributed to the results' reliability. The statements

and research obtained from the background information focusing on the 1938 Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act are reliable and valid. The data gained from their study is also

legitimate and credible when compared to the definition provided by the American

Veterinary Association (Aeby et al.). However, various sources are used here with

biased reports, but all the available material is reliable.

Some researchers from these sources have expressed strong opposition to

animal testing, claiming that animals should not be used in studies. They even go

through the trouble of making arrangements for transportation their perspectives and

options. As a result, I am confident that this evidence is free of any bias. The proof of

the truthfulness and credibility of my sources comes from the fact that they address the

readers' emotions, the real-world circumstance, and the need to find alternate solutions

to the problem. The fundamental flaw of some of these sources, on the other hand, is

that they fail to present a viable alternative perspective to their claims.

According to statistical data, over 100 million animals are killed in research

laboratories each year for biology lessons, medical training, curiosity-driven

experimentation, and chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics testing, including mice, rats,

frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, monkeys, fish, and birds. According to

statistics (Ferdowsian, 58), animals are subjected to a consistent amount of misery.

Medical research can improve and make significant discoveries in the future without

harming or hurting animals. In addition, the study will need to find new alternatives while

maximizing the effectiveness of existing ones. There has been little research on animal

testing in preventive healthcare practices. Therefore, more studies with correlations on

preventive drugs and a reduction in biomedical testing are essential.

 There is a problem with animals being subjected to physical and emotional

discomfort during animal testing. Many proponents of change have referred to this as a

"necessary evil" (Sabeel et al. 857). As a result, diverse viewpoints on a practical

approach to why we consider using animals for testing purposes have become

available. The use of is mentioned in this conversation.

Utilitarianism is a philosophical concept that refers to a decision between two

actions. The chosen option should provide the most critical happiness to the most

significant number of people. There is a consistent association with this school of

thought regarding animal research and testing. People always use phrases like

"regrettably" and "sadly" to indicate their discontent with the process's outcome

throughout all studies, beliefs, and opinions on animal experimentation.

Even if our actions as a society are either right or wrong, the outputs,

repercussions, or consequences of the approaches offered to represent the moral

understanding of what is done, according to the practical perspective. According to

utilitarianism philosophy, adopting an alternate method to end animal testing could harm

society by causing more pain to people. Ending animal suffering through various

approaches is a positive ethical outcome, and emphasizing alternative lifestyles can

help achieve this goal. Animal groups have expressed their opposition to animal testing,

stating that animals are sensitive beings that are acutely aware of their surroundings.

They are aware of the situation they have been subjected to and fear learning that

they are suffering (Aeby et al., 1469). Research clearly shows that animals are sensitive

to pain and, as a result, feel and react to it. Humans behave in the same way. When we

consider that animal experimentation is torture for animals and causes pain and death

for non-consenting humans, this study highlights an ethical issue. As a result of the

chronic depression they are subjected to, their lives are highly precious to them during

the arduous research process. Even if animal testing produces positive results, it does

not change that the entire procedure causes pain and suffering to the animals involved.

What can use alternative testing procedures and adopt healthy habits of personal,

community, and societal preventative care to eliminate the need to harm animals in the

name of developing medicine (Doke et al. 226)?

 Adopting an alternate testing technique and ending animal suffering has a positive

moral outcome. The idea that animal testing produces the best results for many

supporters is vastly overstated. Alternative testing methods have helped sort out the

argument for a dire moral consequence. It is feasible to test medicines and therapies for

humans without using animals. Researchers and scientists are investigating and

implementing new alternatives while considering the successful work that has already

been completed using other methods. If we can effectively discover new ways to cure

and heal diseases without using animals, we will eliminate the cruelty of animal

experimentation. Alternative methods can produce the best results for all supporters

while reducing animal misery and torture. It demonstrates that the "necessity of evil"

isn't required. We can do the greatest good for the most significant number of people if

we can improve our habits and avoid the need for medicine.

There is a crucial topic for our culture and society regarding animal testing. In this

scenario, we looked into how we could get rid of this strategy and found options.

Investing in research for innovative testing methodologies is one approach to

accomplish this. However, to avoid animal suffering, we must accelerate this process.

If we wait too long to use other methods, we will undoubtedly cause unnecessary

pain to innocent creatures. As researchers, we will continue to concentrate on

preventative healthcare trends. For example, by ensuring that we live a healthy lifestyle,

we can eliminate diseases and the need for drugs. This research is critical because

everyone in society now understands the benefits and risks of various lifestyle practices

and the intake of specific foods and products, and we can firmly apply this information to

the use of all living species. Developing a new attitude allows us to see how we need to

be compassionate when dealing with individuals who are not in our power, such as

animals (Hartung et al. 96). It assists us in reflecting on our personality and the image of

our culture in society as long as we're going to inflict unnecessary pain on animals

instead of finding an alternate solution, who will question our morality and character if

we keep allowing animals to suffer needlessly, it will ask our nature.

 REFERENCES:

Akhtar, A. (2015, October). The flaws and human harms of animal

experimentation. Retrieved November 27, 2021, from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4594046/

Aeby, P., Ashikaga, T., Bessou-Touya, S., Schepky, A., Gerberick, F., Kern, P.,

Marrec-Fairley, M., Maxwell, G., Ovigne, J. M., Sakaguchi, H., Reisinger, K., Tailhardat,

M., Martinozzi-Teissier, S., & Winkler, P. (2010). Identifying and characterizing chemical

skin sensitizers without animal testing: Colipa’s research and method development

program. Toxicology in Vitro, 24(6), 1465–1473.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2010.07.005

Baldrick, P. (2010, July 1). Juvenile animal testing in drug development â Is it

useful? ScienceDirect. Retrieved December 4, 2021, from

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0273230010000577

Combes, R., Berridge, T., Connelly, J., Eve, M., Garner, R., Toon, S., & Wilcox,

P. (2003). Early microdose drug studies in human volunteers can minimize animal

testing: Proceedings of a workshop organized by Volunteers in Research and Testing.

European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 19(1), 1–11.

https://doi.org/10.1016/s0928-0987(03)00040-x

Doke, S. (2015, July 1). Alternatives to animal testing: A review. ScienceDirect.

Retrieved December 4, 2021, from

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319016413001096

Facts and Statistics About Animal Testing. (2021, November 18). PETA.

Retrieved December 4, 2021, from https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-

experimentation/animals-used-experimentation-factsheets/animal-experiments-

overview/
 Fentem, J., Chamberlain, M., & Sangster, B. (2004). The Feasibility of Replacing

Animal Testing for Assessing Consumer Safety: A Suggested Future Direction.

Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 32(6), 617–623.

https://doi.org/10.1177/026119290403200612

Ferdowsian, H. R. (2011, September 7). Ethical and Scientific Considerations

Regarding Animal Testing and Research. Plus One. Retrieved December 4, 2021, from

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0024059

Hartung, T. (2008). Food for thought . . . on the evolution of toxicology and the

phasing out of animal testing. ALTEX, 91–96. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2008.2.91

Hartung, T. (2008). Food for thought . . . on the evolution of toxicology and the

phasing out of animal testing. ALTEX, 91–96. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2008.2.91

Höfer, T., Gerner, I., Gundert-Remy, U., Liebsch, M., Schulte, A., Spielmann, H.,

Vogel, R., & Wettig, K. (2004). Animal testing and alternative approaches for the human

health risk assessment under the proposed new European chemicals regulation.

Archives of Toxicology, 78(10), 549–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-004-0577-9

Valappil, S. P., Misra, S. K., Boccaccini, A. R., & Roy, I. (2006). Biomedical

applications of polyhydroxyalkanoates, an overview of animal testing and in

vivoresponses. Expert Review of Medical Devices, 3(6), 853–868.

https://doi.org/10.1586/17434440.3.6.853