Razo 1

Lorena C. Razo

Mrs. Briones

ENGL 1302-261

January 30, 2024

Beagle Animal Testing

Abbott, Alison. “Animal Testing: More than a Cosmetic Change.” Nature, vol. 438, no. 7065,

Nov. 2005, pp. 144–46. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1038/438144a

In this article, Abbott goes over how animal testing can not only be wasteful, but how the

results can come back completely inaccurate and be poorly predictive. The tests done to

the animals are of poor quality and don’t mirror the same toxicity levels that are in

humans. Them being not at the same levels can then result in the outcomes of the tests

being still dangerous high for humans to use. A single batch of product can take up to

around five years if not more and use up to over 400 rats to get a reliable reading, but

even than they turn out to be more than half resulting in false positives. Development for

alternative tests have shown that there can be promising results, but they have been

proven to be a very tedious process to go through. This doesn’t mean it will stop them

from trying and hoping to find other ways to test these products along with better

alternatives for humans to use and to reduce the number of animals used.

Bailey, Jarrod, and Michael Balls. “Recent Efforts to Elucidate the Scientific Validity of Animal-

Based Drug Tests by the Pharmaceutical Industry, pro-Testing Lobby Groups, and

Animal Welfare Organizations.” BMC Medical Ethics, vol. 20, no. 1, 2019, pp. 16–17,

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0352-3.

This article, Bailey argues that there still isn’t enough evidence and data to support that
 Razo 2

the use of animal testing is fully reliable, especially for safe entry in clinical testing. The

use of dogs and other animals can’t guarantee the safety for human usage as they are

vastly different. They argue that using animals has been proven to be nowhere near fit for

any of the testing purposes they want to use them for. Not only do they show that there is

almost no reliable way for the results to be completely accurate, but it is also in no way

ethical for the animals themselves. The use of dogs for testing is widely and publicly

objected to as dogs are considered very loved and fondled over. Each different species

being used and tested on, all show different levels of toxicity resistance, so relying on

animals is proven to be not only inaccurate, but also very dangerous.

Burden, Natalie, et al. "Adverse Outcome Pathways Can Drive Non-Animal Approaches for

Safety Assessment." Journal of Applied Toxicology, vol. 35, no. 9, 2015, pp. 971-975,

https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.3165.

In this article, Burden speaks about a development for new and more accurate ways of

testing drugs and chemicals, this way it can guarantee the safety for human use more

accurately than any of the animal testing could. This can also lead to massive impacts on

the welfare of animals, such as reduced methods that involved them before in more

traditional practices. They work for worldwide acceptance in this study and non-animal

use approach for the safety of both parties involved in the matter. No more harmful

toxicity tests for animals to suffer and be put through, along with no more fear of the tests

coming out dangerously inaccurate.

BALSTER, ROBERT L. “Drug Abuse Potential Evaluation in Animals.” British Journal of

Addiction, vol. 86, no. 12, 1991, pp. 1549–58, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-

0443.1991.tb01747.x.
 Razo 3

This article, Balster, covers how the use of animal testing can help find out if a drug can

be potentially used as a way of getting high and thus being abused by people. They can

run multiple tests to see the effects the animals will have and study their reactions and

dependency on the drugs given to them. This will help rule out if the same effects would

happen to the people that use them. Seeing how addictive it can become to the consumer,

and with that new addictive knowledge they can see how a person could likely pawn off

such an addictive drug. For this article it also shows how useful the use of animal testing

can be for preventing such addictive drugs are being misused and overall abused for gain.

To them the animals would be considered a major help to this side of medicine due to

them not wanting to subject humans to this type of testing on their bodies.

Gray, Arabella. “Animal Testing for Cosmetics Ingredients a ‘Retrograde’ Step.” Veterinary

Record, vol. 189, no. 8, 2021, pp. 307–307, https://doi.org/10.1002/vetr.1092.

For this article, Grey discusses about the ECHA’s (European Chemical Agency) wanting

to use animals for testing individual ingredients instead of testing the finished version is

very contradictory against the CFI (Cruelty Free International) movement and ban to

begin with. The ruling would go against everything that they stand for and have worked

so hard to create from the beginning. The ECHA wants to turn a blind eye and go ahead

with testing two chemicals for their cosmetics, but to do this, even more testing would

have to be done on the animals that are unnecessary. Going back to the use of animals

would completely shatter their ban ensuring non-animals tests products and methods. The

term, “cruelty-free” would be demolished, as it would be a lie if one ingredient was

tested.
 Razo 4

Roush, Wade. "Hunting for Animal Alternatives." Science, vol. 274, no. 5285, 1996, pp. 168.

ProQuest,

https://go.openathens.net/redirector/tamiu.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-

journals/hunting-animal-alternatives/docview/213560994/se-2.

In this article, Wade writes about the search for better alternatives that doesn’t have to

involve any sort of animal testing. Though they want to make this a true reality they face

countless amounts of backlash from companies and lazy scientists who don’t want to

make the effort to change and try better more humane options when they can keep doing

what they have been doing for years. Saying they don’t want to be doing these practices

yet continue because it’s profitable. They go over what’s called the three R’s, reduce,

refine, and replace for wanting better practices to be made. With the increase of more

alternatives, it shouldn’t be hard to get more companies on board with switching over to

cruelty free ways of testing, it’s their responsibility to remove the pain and suffering for

the animal, which means to not use them at all.

Redmond, Craig, and Lush Prize. “Cruelty Free INTERNATIONAL: Ending Animal

Experiments Worldwide.” ALTEX, Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, vol. 38, no.

1, 2021, pp. 171-.

This article published by Spektrum goes over how they held conferences to discuss Lush

Prize’s focus on animal free testing, going over the many different options to use instead

of animals for the mass number of companies wanting to test their topical toxicity

products. They noticed that most of the time, animals are being tested on just to fill some

requirements they didn’t bother trying to do with something else, almost as if they were

used to checking off some extra boxes. Later, they went over better ways to spread
 Razo 5

awareness and were rewarded with the best idea for it. Hoping to have the next

conference in person and being able to see what changes have been made is something

they look forward to.

Rollin, Bernard E. “‘We Always Hurt the Things We Love’—Unnoticed Abuse of Companion

Animals.” Animals (Basel), vol. 8, no. 9, 2018, pp. 157-,

https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8090157.

In this article, Rollin goes over how even though we love our companions like they are

almost human and considered them part of our family, we neglect them in so many ways,

especially their health. We hurt the ones we love the most through breeding and abusing

their bodies for our own personal selfish gains such as testing and even just modifying

their appearances. They go over how people will push so hard for changes but never act

on their words because they are so obsessed with their appearance and uses nothing ever

gets changed and the abuse of their lives continues like a never-ending pattern of all bark

and zero bite of selfishness from humans. They wish to one day see a change to this

pattern and hope that people can learn to love their companions for more than just their

uses and looks.

SWAMI, VIREN, et al. “Free the Animals? Investigating Attitudes toward Animal Testing in

Britain and the United States.” Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, vol. 49, no. 3, 2008,

pp. 269–76, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2008.00636.x.

For this article, Swami speaks about how they studied the attitudes people have against

animal testing and what they are and aren’t ok with. Often, it’s found that many people

are against animal testing all together and would prefer it if people didn’t have to rely on

the use of animal testing at all to begin with. In their tests they learned that most
 Razo 6

Americans are okay with the thought of animal testing just as long as they are kept in

well and decent conditions. Though many worry that their hope of decent conditions for

the animals won’t be kept up with. They also learned women were more against testing

overall compared to men and they appear to be more empathic towards the animals than

men as well. This information proved very useful in seeing who and what affects people

on this subject.

Turner, Marian. “Call to Curb Lab Tests on Dogs.” Nature, vol. 474, no. 7353, June 2011, p.

551. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1038/474551a.

In this article, Turner goes over how thousands of dogs each year go through painful and

often many unnecessary tests in laboratories for human drugs every year. They are

striving to do anything to reduce the use of animal testing. When the authorities require

the testing of toxicity their favorite subject to use besides rats are dogs, due to their easy-

going nature and readily availability, along with them being close physiologically to

people. Despite the public being upset over the use of man’s best friend, they do nothing

to stop it, the companies are afraid to change and don’t want to be blamed for any

dangers. Activists and other scientists want to stray away from the use of dogs due to

their sensitivity and it being inhuman towards them. The goal is to use fewer dogs and

shake up the world of toxicology completely.