Russian-Mongolian School 1

Done by:

B.Enkhjin 8b

Scientific supervisor:

Natalia Alexandrovna Ivanova

ANIMAL TESTING
2

Table of Contents
Introduction .........................................................................................................................3

Chapter 1

If animal testing is so unreliable, why does it continue?.....................................................4

Animals that get tested on and how.................................................................................5

Countries/ companies that support animal testing....................................................6-7

Chapter 2

pros of animal testing...........................................................................................................8

cons of animal testing..........................................................................................................9

Chapter 3

Alternative ways of animal testing………………………………………………………10

ANIMAL TESTING
3
Introduction

Almost 150 million animals get tested on every year. The term “animal testing” refers to

procedures performed on living animals for purpose of research into basic biology and diseases,

assessing the effectiveness of new medicinal products, and the testing the human health and

environmental safety of consumer and industry products such as cosmetics, household cleaners..

etc.

All procedures, even those classified as “mid”, have the potential to cause the animals physical

harm as well as psychological distress and suffering. Often the procedures can cause a great deal

of suffering. Most animals are killed at the end of an experiment, but some may be re-used in the

subsequent experiments. For nearly a century, drug and chemical safety assessments have been

based on laboratory testing involving rodents, rabbits, dogs, and other animals. Aside from the

ethical issues they pose – inflicting both physical and psychological distress and suffering on

large numbers of sentient creatures- animal tests are time resource intensive, restrictive in the

number of substances that can be tested, provide little in understanding of how chemicals behave

in the body, and in many cases do not correctly predict real world human reactions. Trying to

mirror human diseases or toxicity by artificially creating symptoms in animals has major

scientific limitations that cannot be overcome. Very often the symptoms and responses to

potential treatments seen in other species are dissimilar to those human patients. As a

consequence, nine out of every ten candidate medicines that appear safe and effective in animal

studies fail when given to humans. Drug failures and research that never delivers because of

irrelevant animal models not only delay medical progress, but also waste resources and risk the

health and safety of volunteers in clinical trials.

ANIMAL TESTING
4
If animal testing is so unreliable, why does it continue?

The use of animals in scientific research has long been the subject of heated debate. On the one

hand it is considered morally wrong to use animals in this way solely for human benefit. On the

other hand, removing animals completely from the lab would impede our understanding of health

and disease, and consequently affect the development of new and vital treatments. Although

sometimes these studies do reduce the quality of life of these animals, thorough regulations are in

place to ensure that they are carried out in a humane way . Despite this growing evidence that it’s

time for a change, effecting that change within a scientific community that has relied for decades

on animal models as the “default method” for testing and research takes time and perseverance.

While there are several reasons why experimentation using animals can’t reliably predict human

outcomes, the most significant issue is the vast physiological differences between species.

To help minimize the harm animals may experience while being studied in the laboratory,

researchers are required to follow a set of principle, the ‘three Rs’. These are:

 Replace: replacing, where possible, experiments using animals with alternative

techniques such as cell culture, computer modeling or human volunteers instead of

animals.

 Reduce: Reducing the number of animals used, by improving experimental techniques

and sharing information with other researchers so that the same experiments aren’t being

done by many people.

 Refine: Refining the way the animals are cared for to help minimize any stress or pain, by

using less invasive techniques where possible and improving medical care and living

conditions.
ANIMAL TESTING
5
Animals that get tested on and how.

According to the Humane Society, more than 25 million dogs, cats, monkeys, mice, rats and

other animals are forced to endure painful experiments in the US (and it is estimated that more

than 115 million animals worldwide are used in laboratory experiments every year. Animals in

animal testing are burned, crippled, poisoned and abused every year, in cruel chemical, drug,

food and cosmetics tests — as well as in medical training exercises and curiosity-driven medical

experiments. Animals in animal testing, are deliberately sickened with toxic chemicals or

infected with diseases, live in barren cages, made to inhale toxic fumes against their will, have

holes drilled into their skulls, their skin burned, their spinal cords crushed, and then die brutally,

and in vain, as test subjects to experimentation that might not even prove useful. Experiments are

often excruciatingly painful for the animals used and can vary in duration from days to months to

years. The experiment can cause vomiting, diarrhea, irritation, rashes, bleeding, loss of appetite,

weight loss, convulsions, respiratory distress, salivation, paralysis, lethargy, bleeding, organ

abnormalities, tumors, heart failure, liver disease, cancer and death. There is no limit to the

extent of pain and suffering that can be inflicted on animals during experiments. In some

instances, animals are not given any kind of pain medication to help relieve their suffering or

distress during or after the experiment on the basis that it could affect the experiment.

Animals are typically killed once an experiment is over so that their tissues and organs can be

examined, although it is not unusual for animals to be used in multiple experiments over many

years. There are no accurate statistics available on how many animals are killed in laboratories

every year.
ANIMAL TESTING
6

Countries/ companies that support animal testing.

 It is estimated that at least 192.1 million animals were used for scientific purposes

worldwide in 2015.

This figure includes an estimated 79.9 million experiments on animals as well as millions

of other animals who are killed for their tissues, used to breed genetically modified

animal strains and bred but not used or killed as surplus.

We estimate that the top 10 animal testing countries in the world are China (20.5 million)

Japan (15.0 million), the United States (15.6 million),  Canada (3.6 million), Australia

(3.2 million), South Korea (3.1 million), the United Kingdom (2.6 million), Brazil (2.2

million), Germany (2.0 million) and France (1.9 million), in that order.

We also calculated the total number of experiments involving dogs and monkeys

worldwide. In 2015, an estimated 207,724 tests using dogs and 158,780 tests using

monkeys were conducted.

The top 10 users of monkeys were: the United States; China; Japan; Brazil; Canada; the

United Kingdom; France; Germany; India and South Korea.

Some rights for animals have been granted under the German and Swiss constitutions,

and Europe has banned the sale of animal-tested cosmetics products. The Pharmacy Council of

India now recommends the use of superior non-animal tools in labs and examinations, and the

Medical Council of India removed the requirement for animal use in training. The removal of

this requirement will make it possible to replace the use of animals in medical school curricula

with sophisticated alternatives. Most of these brands are owned by a few giant
ANIMAL TESTING
7
corporations: L’Oreal, Estee Lauder, Procter & Gamble, Clorox, Johnson & Johnson, S.C.

Johnson, Colgate-Palmolive, Reckitt Benckiser, Church & Dwight, Unilever, and Henkel.

These companies own the majority of the brands we commonly find in most retailer stores and

drugstores, and they’re making no real efforts to change their unethical policies.

Most of these brands are owned by a few giant corporations: L’Oreal, Estee Lauder, Procter &

Gamble, Clorox, Johnson & Johnson, S.C. Johnson, Colgate-Palmolive, Reckitt Benckiser,

Church & Dwight, Unilever, and Henkel.

These companies own the majority of the brands we commonly find in most retailer stores and

drugstores, and they’re making no real efforts to change their unethical policies.
ANIMAL TESTING
8
Chapter 2

Pros of animal testing

Life-Saving Medications and Vaccines

The landscape of modern medicine would unquestionably be vastly different without animal

testing in the mix. For example, research on dogs in which the animals' pancreases were

removed led to the discovery of insulin in the early 20th century; this has saved and improved

the lives of millions of diabetics worldwide. The polio vaccine – developed for human use only

after it was tested on animals – has helped reduce this dreaded disease to near-irrelevance.

Advances in breast cancer, brain trauma, leukemia, cystic fibrosis, malaria, multiple sclerosis

and tuberculosis are directly attributable to animal experimentation, and without testing on

chimpanzees, there would be no hepatitis B vaccine.

Similarity to Humans

With the advent of modern molecular biology and its analytical methods, scientists can now

quantify the precise extent to which humans resemble other animals, genetically speaking.

Chimpanzees and humans share 99 percent of their DNA, and even mice and humans have a 98

percent overlap in this area. All mammals have the same essential internal organs, and these all

fall victim to the same general maladies, such as heart disease and various cancers. For these

reasons, scientists can confidently apply the results of a panoply of medical experiments on

animals to human beings and be more confident when it's time to experiment on humans

directly in clinical trials.

ANIMAL TESTING
9
Cons of animal testing

Lack of Applicability

One of the leading arguments against animal testing is that it is simply a waste of scientific

energy and resources, because the results of tests done on other species often cannot be reliably

extrapolated to humans. For example, in a study at the Mayo Clinic by David Wiebers and his

colleagues aimed at identifying drugs to treat ischemic stroke, the researchers found that 25

compounds that reduced the damage done by such events in cats, rodents and other animals

had no beneficial effect whatsoever in people. And according to cell biologist Robin Lovell-

Badge of the MRC National Institute for Medical Research in London, 94 percent of drugs that

passed tests in animals failed in people. Unfortunately, the world of animal experimentation is

rife with examples such as these.

Inhumane Treatment in Animal Experimentation

Any discussion of animal testing pros and cons must acknowledge that certain kinds of animal

research involve subjecting creatures to what can aptly be described as torture. According to

the Humane Society International, animals are routinely force-fed, forced to inhale noxious

compounds, deprived of food and water, physically restrained for prolonged periods, and

burned; some of them reportedly even have their necks broken and are decapitated. In 2010,

the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that nearly 100,000 animals suffered pain during

experiments while not being administered any anesthesia. It is also a common practice for

animals' eyes to be held open with clips for hours, even days, in the course of testing cosmetics

products

.
ANIMAL TESTING
10
Chapter 3

Alternative ways of animal testing

Scientists often study the effects of drugs and chemicals on animals before they deem them safe

for humans.

When possible, they try to perform these toxicology tests using biochemical or cell-based (in

vitro) systems instead of with animals such as mice. For example, researchers successfully

created in vitro methods to identify severe eye irritants and substances that could cause allergic

contact dermatitis. 1 However, the development of in vitro tests that can reliably identify

chemical hazards resulting in cancer or birth defects is more difficult because of the complexity

of the biological processes involved.

Computer programs with advanced systems based on large chemical databases can predict a

chemical's toxicity, reducing the need for animal testing in some situations.

The concept of REPLACING, REDUCING, or REFINING replacing, reducing, or refining

animal use in research and testing was first described more than 60 years ago 2 and is commonly

referred to as 3Rs:

 Replacing: A test method that substitutes traditional animal models with non-animal
systems such as computer models or biochemical or cell-based systems, or replaces one
animal species with a less developed one (for example, replacing a mouse with a worm).
 Reducing: A test method that decreases the number of animals required for testing to a
minimum while still achieving testing objectives.
 Refining: A test method that eliminates pain or distress in animals, or enhances animal
well-being, such as by providing better housing or enrichment.
ANIMAL TESTING
11
Conclusion

Using animals in research and to test the safety of products has been a topic of heated debate for

decades. According to data collected by F. Barbara Orlans for her book, In the Name of Science:

Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation, sixty percent of all animals used in testing are

used in biomedical research and product-safety testing. People have different feelings for

animals; many look upon animals as companions while others view animals as a means for

advancing medical techniques or furthering experimental research. However individuals perceive

animals, the fact remains that animals are being exploited by research facilities and cosmetics

companies all across the country and all around the world. Although humans often benefit from

successful animal research, the pain, the suffering, and the deaths of animals are not worth the

possible human benefits. Therefore, animals should not be used in research or to test the safety of

products. Why animal testing should be banned:

 Animal experiments inflict inhumane suffering on animals.

 It’s unethical

 Up to 95% of experimental drugs that pass animal tests fail in human and clinical trials. 

It’s wasteful. animal experiments only make the grade about half the time. The rest end

up in the trash as failed and worthless.

 The main reason for banning animal testing, aside from sparing animals the pain, is that

we don’t need it. Animal testing should not be part of a university lab experiment paid for

by the tax-payer who is against animal torture in the first place.

 t’s not only dangerous, cruel, painful, and inhumane; some of the methods harken back to
medieval torture chambers. Imagine mice, rabbits, rats, and guinea pigs with their eyes
burned from drip chemicals or toxic potions smeared into their exposed skin tissue
without pain medication.

Therefore animal testing should be banned.

ANIMAL TESTING
12