The Future of Animal Experimentation
Mary Parker
English 201-002W
Argument Essay Three
12/15/14
____________________________________________
Abstract
For years, the practice of animal experimentation in biomedical research has caused controversy between animal activists and animal researchers. This controversy, and the debate that surrounds it, has created the impression that there are only two viable options to choose from, either banning animal testing altogether or embracing it completely as a necessary cost. Such a belief is disheartening, for neither strategy can wholly satisfy the ethical concerns that are central to this debate. Therefore, such thinking is counterproductive. Instead, the ethical concerns of both sides need to be evaluated honestly, in order to create the basis for a moderate strategy that has the potential to answer the concerns of animal activists and animal researchers alike. Towards that end, the history of the controversy will be examined and a potential solution identified.
________________________________________
The Future of Animal Experimentation
The argument over the ethical implications of animal testing, whether in regards to the benefit for humans or the suffering of animals, is often emotionally charged and fairly polarizing. Many believe that the benefits of animal testing outweigh the concerns, given the role of animal testing in biomedical research and the study of disease. Others insist that any form of suffering, even of the lower creatures, is unethical. Because of the morally compelling nature of the concerns on both sides, it would appear that a satisfactory resolution to this conflict is practically impossible. Therefore, the only way to mend this polarization and to inspire real change is to first acknowledge the validity of the concerns on both sides, and then to adopt an approach that will gradually shift to animal friendly procedures without compromising safety standards for humans in the biomedical fields. 
 |
| Engber |
Given examples such as the carcinogenicity bioassay, many in the scientific community are reluctant to concede the ethical concerns for animal suffering that the practice raises. Animal activists, however, are not convinced. The modern animal rights movement is centered on the philosophy of the “intrinsic value [of] all sentient beings. … afford[ing] [all] vertebrates rights, despite their incapacity to understand or demand such rights” (Franco). In other words, it is an animal’s ability to suffer, not its intelligence on the one hand or its usefulness on the other that determines the morality of exploiting the creature for human benefit.
It is this conviction, paired with public animal rights violations and the secrecy surrounding research projects, which causes so much concern for animal activists. Incidents such as the 2005 University of Nevada at Reno animal care violations cause alarm. The university was inspected after a whistleblower reached out to the Department of Agriculture. The resulting investigation “cited a total of 46 violations on the Reno campus … including insufficient water for animals, poor sanitation in holding facilities, and inadequate veterinary care”, for which the university was fined a little over $11,000 (Brainard). Like other incidents, the neglect would never have come to light had it not been for the burdened conscience of one of the university’s own faculty. This incident and others like it might not seem so sinister to animal activists if it weren’t for the fact that it is incredibly difficult to obtain information on the welfare of the animals currently involved in research. This is due to Section 24 of the Animals Act, which requires those seeking information to go through the tedious process of “making a Freedom of Information request” (Brooks). The inability to verify animals’ welfare greatly increases animal activists’ frustration with the current system.
Past solutions to this dilemma have been shortsighted on both sides. This is because much of the debate has been organized into an argument of science and medicine versus ethics, and the idea that we can only choose one or the other. In some ways, radical animal rights activists are responsible for building this wall of opposition, due to the extreme measures they took, starting in the 1970s. At that time, animal rights extremist groups began committing acts of terrorism against research facilities and personally against the researchers themselves, marring the reputation of the animal rights movement as a whole (Franco). Not surprisingly, the response from the research community was less than positive. As recently as the 1990s, newspaper articles mocked the animal rights movement as one based on pipe dreams, stating that the use of animals in biomedical experimentation was the only viable way to further any meaningful research (Franco). The conflict between animal activists and the scientific community was exacerbated by the actions, or lack thereof, of both sides. As a result of this mentality, very little practical progress was made to address this issue, increasing general frustration.
The current solution to the conflict between medical discovery and animal ethics involves some fairly vague legislation, which only appears to satisfy the concerns of both groups. In practical application, however, this legislation favors animal testing over other alternatives. The Animal Welfare Act of 1966 was the first act to extend ethical concerns in research to laboratory animals, stating that animals should be kept humanely and experiments involving animals should serve real scientific needs. However, the act failed to set down guidelines for these criteria and completely ignored the need for alternatives to animal testing, wherever possible (Horner, et al). A more recent policy seems to correct this oversight, but only nominally. In 2002, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee Guidebook was published, which emphasized what has popularly become known as the 3Rs of animal experimentation, Reduce, Refine, Replace. This approach recognizes the evolution that must take place within the context of research practices before we can finally end the practice of animal experimentation (Horner, et al). However, this policy is only effective if it can be taught and then enforced, which is where the deficit lies.
The ethics committees that evaluate experimental procedures for the protection of animals are largely disorganized, and only questionably effective. The standards by which to judge experimental practices are poorly defined, leaving ethics committees vulnerable to internal debate and confusion (Kolar). Additionally, these ethics committees, when scrutinized, are revealed to be inconsistent in their judgments, in everything from their “structure, [to] their decision-making methods, [to] the time they take to review proposals” (Varga). All of this contributes to the ineffectiveness of current animal experimentation legislation, resulting in a situation in which we appear to be on the right track to transform research practices to encompass both human and animal needs and welfare, when in fact we have made very little progress in this regard.
However, a recent study on the practical application of the 3Rs principle in medical research revealed that it is indeed possible to significantly reduce the number of animals used in toxicology tests by equipping researchers with the right tools, support, and information. Before the study was conducted, these researchers interviewed the scientists who would be testing these new methods of experimentation. They found that scientists generally wanted to embrace the principle of the 3Rs, but felt unequipped to do so, often resorting to traditional testing methods for lack of a better alternatives (Törnqvist, et al). To answer this need, “36 reduction projects were collected retrospectively from work between 2006 and 2010. Substantial reduction in animal use was achieved by different strategies, including improved study design, method development and project coordination. Major animal savings were shown in both regulatory and investigative safety studies”, with an overall reduction in animal use of 53% (Törnqvist, et al). Implementing these methods across the board would take time and cooperation, but the effects would be significant. Not only would large scale adoption of these methods greatly improve the practice of animal experimentation from an ethical standpoint, but it would prove to benefit researchers as well, by reducing the costs associated with obtaining and caring for lab animals.
While the relationship between animal activists and animal researchers has been strained in the past, studies like the one conducted by Törnqvist, et al, show that there are ways to help the research field improve on traditional testing techniques in order to minimize both animal suffering and general cost. Only the abandonment of extreme pro and anti-testing philosophies will allow animal activists and animal researchers alike to achieve real progress in biomedical testing practices, for the sake of both human health and animal welfare. It is time to move past the polarization that has defined this controversy for so long in order to embrace a more practical strategy that contains the potential for real progress.
___________________________________________
Works Cited
Brainard, Jeffrey. "The University Of Nevada At Reno Has Paid A Fine Of $11,400 To The U.S. Department Of Agriculture For Violating Rules Governing The Care Of Animals In Research." Chronicle of Higher Education 51.40 (2005): A18. Professional Development Collection. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
Brooks, Michael. "The Truth about Animal Testing." New Statesman 141.5115 (2012): 14. Business Source Premier. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
Doktorova, Tatyana Y., et al. "Opportunities for an Alternative Integrating Testing Strategy for Carcinogen Hazard Assessment?" Critical Reviews in Toxicology 42.2 (2012): 91-106. Academic Search Premier. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
Engber, Daniel. "The Mouse Trap: Can One Lab Animal Cure Every Disease?" Slate.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2014.
Franco, Nuno Henrique. "Animal Experiments in Biomedical Research: A Historical Perspective." Animals (2076-2615) 3.1 (2013): 238-273. Academic Search Premier. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
Horner, Jennifer, and Fred D. Minifie. "Research Ethics I: Responsible Conduct Of Research (RCR)--Historical And Contemporary Issues Pertaining To Human And Animal Experimentation." Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research 54.1 (2011): S303-S329. Academic Search Premier. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
Kolar, Roman. "Animal Experimentation." Science & Engineering Ethics 12.1 (2006): 111-122. Academic Search Premier. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
Törnqvist, Elin, et al. "Strategic Focus on 3R Principles Reveals Major Reductions in the Use of Animals in Pharmaceutical Toxicity Testing." Plos ONE 9.7 (2014): 1-11. Academic Search Premier. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
Varga, Orsolya. "Critical Analysis of Assessment Studies of the Animal Ethics Review Process." Animals (2076-2615) 3.3 (2013): 907-922. Academic Search Premier. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
__________________________________________
Bibliography
"DOD Animal Research: Controls On Animal Use Are Generally Effective, But Improvements Are Needed: NSIAD/HEHS-99-156." GAO Reports (1999): 1. Middle Search Plus. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
"Europe Enacts Full Ban On Animal Testing For Cosmetics." Dermatology Times 34.4 (2013): 14. Health Source - Consumer Edition. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
"Ex Vivo Animal Testing Alternative Introduced." Global Cosmetic Industry 176.1 (2008): 8. Small Business Reference Center. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
Beyer, L. A., B. D. Beck, and T. A. Lewandowski. "Historical Perspective on the Use of Animal Bioassays to Predict Carcinogenicity: Evolution in Design and Recognition of Utility." Critical Reviews in Toxicology 41.4 (2011): 321-338. Academic Search Premier. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
Bishop, Patricia L., et al. "Animal Use and Lessons Learned In the U.S. High Production Volume Chemicals Challenge Program." Environmental Health Perspectives 120.12 (2012): 1631-1639. Health Source - Consumer Edition. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
Brainard, Jeffrey. "The University Of Nevada At Reno Has Paid A Fine Of $11,400 To The U.S. Department Of Agriculture For Violating Rules Governing The Care Of Animals In Research." Chronicle of Higher Education 51.40 (2005): A18. Professional Development Collection. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
Brooks, Michael. "The Truth about Animal Testing." New Statesman 141.5115 (2012): 14. Business Source Premier. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
Clark, Evan. "U.S. And EU Agencies to Share Information about Animal Testing." WWD: Women's Wear Daily 194.9 (2007): 4. Business Source Premier. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
Doktorova, Tatyana Y., et al. "Opportunities for an Alternative Integrating Testing Strategy for Carcinogen Hazard Assessment?" Critical Reviews in Toxicology 42.2 (2012): 91-106. Academic Search Premier. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
Forster, Roy, et al. "The RETHINK Project: Minipigs As Models For The Toxicity Testing Of New Medicines And Chemicals: An Impact Assessment." Journal of Pharmacological & Toxicological Methods 62.3 (2010): 158-159. Academic Search Premier. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
Franco, Nuno Henrique. "Animal Experiments in Biomedical Research: A Historical Perspective." Animals (2076-2615) 3.1 (2013): 238-273. Academic Search Premier. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
Geffken, Carl. "EU Nears Animal Testing Ban." Global Cosmetic Industry 168.5 (2001): 12. Business Source Premier. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
Grant, Christian W., et al. "Testing Agents for Prevention or Reversal of Type 1 Diabetes in Rodents." Plos ONE 8.8 (2013): 1. Academic Search Premier. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
Herman, Steve. "The New Toxicology." Global Cosmetic Industry 174.8 (2006): 62-63. Small Business Reference Center. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
Hoe-Yune, Jung, et al. "The Korean Mistletoe (Viscum Album Coloratutn) Extract Has an Antiobesity Effect and Protects Against Hepatic Steatosis in Mice with High-Fat Diet-Induced Obesity." Evidence-Based Complementary & Alternative Medicine (Ecam) (2013): 1-9. Academic Search Premier. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
Horner, Jennifer, and Fred D. Minifie. "Research Ethics I: Responsible Conduct Of Research (RCR)--Historical And Contemporary Issues Pertaining To Human And Animal Experimentation." Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research 54.1 (2011): S303-S329. Academic Search Premier. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
Kolar, Roman. "Animal Experimentation." Science & Engineering Ethics 12.1 (2006): 111-122. Academic Search Premier. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
Menache, Andre, and Candida Nastrucci. "REACH, Animal Testing, And The Precautionary Principle." Medicolegal & Bioethics 2.(2012): 13-29. Academic Search Premier. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
Sullivan, Kristie. "EU Cosmetics Testing Ban Now In Place." Good Medicine 18.3 (2009): 4. Alt Health Watch. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
Törnqvist, Elin, et al. "Strategic Focus on 3R Principles Reveals Major Reductions in the Use of Animals in Pharmaceutical Toxicity Testing." Plos ONE 9.7 (2014): 1-11. Academic Search Premier. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
Tralau, Tewes, et al. "Wind of Change Challenges Toxicological Regulators." Environmental Health Perspectives 120.11 (2012): 1489-1494. Academic Search Premier. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
Uctas, Rachel. "Testing Times." ICIS Chemical Business 273.14 (2008): 38-39. Small Business Reference Center. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
Varga, Orsolya. "Critical Analysis of Assessment Studies of the Animal Ethics Review Process." Animals (2076-2615) 3.3 (2013): 907-922. Academic Search Premier. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment