Pain Without Gain: Why We Should Seek Alternatives to Animal Testing

Thousands of consumers browse the shelves of drug stores each day and unknowingly take for granted the suffering behind those tiny plastic pill bottles. Miles and miles away from the welcoming neon lights of said superstores, exists millions of animals trapped in claustrophobic containers waiting for scientists to pluck them at any hour. Animal testing exposes over 25 million creatures per year to brutal experiments involving lacerations, burning, injections, and toxic chemical contact (“Questions and Answers About Biomedical Research”), often without legitimate medical contribution. Tests that work successfully on animals do not always translate effectively to humans, due to the disparity between their genetic structures, which causes test subjects harm and costs researchers valuable dollars. Although animal testing has brought about some medical advances, researchers should employ human cell-based models to preserve both our quality of life and the rights of animal test subjects.

Experimentation on animals is no recent innovation; some of science’s most legendary pioneers, such as Aristotle, participated in animal testing thousands of years ago, building some of the earliest foundations in biomedical research (Hajar). Due to lack of knowledge, scientists downplayed the impact of pain on their animal test subjects or believed that they were simply immune to feeling. Thus, it was not until 1876 in the United Kingdom that debate over the welfare of research animals started to ignite with the introduction of animals’ rights proposals in parliament; additionally, the public began to take stake in the argument and challenge the cost of animal health vs. public gain from experimentation (Belgium). Today, the morality of animal testing is a hot topic due to increased protesting and media scrutiny spearheaded by animal rights organizations, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Humane Society of the United States. Advances in legislation, most notably the Animal Welfare Act of 1966, have increased regulation in the laboratory setting and a majority of airlines have ceased to allow their branches to transport research animals to lab sites.

Although transparency has improved in animal research, serious flaws still remain not only in the ethics of testing as a practice but also in the accuracy of the tests when applied to humans. Andrew Knight, Fellow of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, conducted 27 in-depth analyses regarding the contribution of animal experimentation to healthcare. From his findings he concluded that “animal studies rarely contribute to the development of clinical interventions effective in human patients” due to the inadequate design of the experiments, the stressful conditions of the animals, and the physiological differences between animals and humans. Whenever studies like these fail, millions of dollars pumped into lab equipment and precious time invested by scientists are wasted (Knight). Luckily, there have recently been large movements striving to find alternatives to animal testing that may one day put a halt to the practice altogether and provide more applicable, cost-effective results during human trials. One of the most promising solutions exists in the form of human models which are based on or composed of human cells; examples include:

in vitro (test tube) test methods and models based on human cell and tissue cultures

• computerized drug trials
• computer models and simulations
• stem cell and genetic testing methods
• non-invasive imaging techniques such as MRIs and CT Scans
• microdosing (in which humans are given very low quantities of a drug to test the effects on the body on the cellular level, without affecting the whole body system) (“Alternatives in Testing”)

Compared to experimentation on a whole animal, human models produce results more specific to human functions and can target reactions to medications in isolated parts of the body. Perhaps one of the most lethal trials to ever exist in animal research is the Lethal Dose 50 test that measures the concentration of toxicity in a substance that it would take to kill an organism; in these experiments, animals are injected with poisonous substances and 50% of the subjects inevitably die. The test is both wasteful in animal life and highly unreliable because of its difficult application to humans. Luckily, Dr. Bjӧrn Ekwall invented an alternative to this practice that involves testing on donated human tissue and provides results with a “precision rate of 77-84% accuracy compared to the LD50 rate of 52-60%” ("Alternatives in Testing"). Luckily, the LD50 test was abolished from laboratories in 2002, yet many programs still remain that are also in serious need of overhaul.

External procedures, such as testing on the skin and eyes, are prime examples. The Draize eye irritancy tests involves the application of an irritant to the surface of the eye, yet the structure and tear-production of the rabbit (the test subject of choice) and the human eye vary significantly. “Indeed, when comparing rabbit to human data on duration of eye inflammation after exposure to 14 household products, they differed by a factor of 18 to 250” (Anderegg). Like comparing apples to oranges, research animals and humans are too dissimilar for efficient testing. EpiDerm skin trials further demonstrate this medical flaw: compared to rabbit subjects, EpiDerm’s make-up of cultured human cells facilitates 100% accuracy in identifying chemical skin irritants. The rabbit’s resulted in 40% error rate (“Alternatives in Testing”). Lab animals, whose bodies can be 50 times smaller and life spans 50 times shorter, are simply not adequate replacements to the human race.

As we speak, there are creatures in labs being poked, prodded, and subjected to severe stress only to produce findings that may or may not be accurate. It takes a long time for scientists to raise lab animals to full development for testing and each minute has a price tag encompassing the equipment, food, and housing required to keep the animals alive. Human models are severely low-maintenance alternatives that provide more precise results and can be utilized to examine specific body parts and functioning systems. If we re-evaluate the corrupt, destructive practices of animal testing, it is possible that we can save both innocent animal lives in the short term and human lives for years to come.

Works Cited

 Anderegg, Christopher, M.D., Kathy Archibald, B. Sc., Jarodd Bailey, Ph. D., Murray J. Cohen, M.D., Stephen R. Kaufman, M.D., and John J. Pippin, M.D. A Critical Look at Animal Experimentation. Cleveland: Medical Research Modernization Committee, 2006. Print

 "Alternatives in Testing." Neavs.org. New England Anti Vivi-Section Society, n.d. Web. 02 Oct. 2012. <http://www.neavs.org/alternatives/in-testing>

 Belgium. European Economic Community. Ministry of Agriculture and Veterinary Services. Animal Experimentation- Legislation and Protection. By J. Belot, Dr. N.p.: n.p., 1986. Eur-Lex. Web. 30 Sept. 2012. <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31986L0609:EN:NOT>

Hajar, Rachel. "Animal Testing and Medicine." National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of Medicine, 01 July 2005. Web. 04 Oct. 2012. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3123518/>.

Knight, Andrew. "Animal Testing Isn't Just an Ethical Problem-€“ Let's Invest in Safer Methods." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 12 July 2012. Web. 18 Sept. 2012. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/animal-testing-safer-methods>

 "Questions and Answers About Biomedical Research : The Humane Society of the United States." The Humane Society of the United States. N.p., 28 Sept. 2009. Web. 20 Sept. 2012.