Debates

Thanks to animal research, scientists have discovered ways to save and prolong human life. Through research on animals, the vaccinations such as polio were discovered, organ transplants were perfected, and trauma surgery techniques were determined. But despite the benefits achieved from animal research, a great debate has ensued regarding the necessity of using animals in research and testing. Below are some of the common questions surrounding the debate of using animals in research to promote animal and human health and prolong their life.

Q. Why do drugs, and other substances undergo animal testing?

A. From brushing your teeth first thing in the morning to the art supplies used in your school projects; you are exposed to a variety of consumer products every day. You use these without considering how safe they might be for your health. You never give a second thought to the safety of the products you use daily – shampoo, household cleaning supplies, toothpaste – because animal testing has deemed them safe for human use. Today, most products are safe, but that wasn’t always the case. Thanks to stringent testing required by law, we are assured that consumer goods are safe to use.

Testing helps save lives. Poison control centers receive almost 1.6 million phone calls each year related to accidental poisonings from consumer goods such as household cleaners or chemicals. More than 60 percent of these calls involve young children. Without testing, we could not know what needs to be done in the case of accidental ingestion or exposure. Research conducted on these products helps doctors treat patients who have been accidentally exposed to potentially harmful substances.

Testing protects people, animals and the environment. We need to know that the products we use won’t harm people, animals or the environment. Testing tells us that the shampoo we use won’t seriously harm our eyes; that the chemical spill at a local plant won’t harm the environment. More than 40,000 calls about animal poisoning are received by poison control centers, mostly involving family pets. Through animal testing, we learn how to safely use products near pets, livestock and animals in the wild. Information on accidental misuse or overdosing designed to protect humans also protects animals.

Q. Why do we test cosmetics?

A. Adequate testing of each and every product available today is a moral and legal obligation to the public. Every day, your family uses cosmetics – deodorant, perfumes, and makeup – that have been tested on animals. Without these tests, your family would be at risk for serious illness every time they use a product. We need to know that the shampoo you use every night, the lipstick your mom wears, the shaving cream your dad shaves with are all safe.

We should all remember the circumstances that led to animal testing of consume products. As recently as a few decades ago, people were routinely subjected to products that hadn’t been tested and weren’t safe. Use of these products led to serious illness and injury, including blindness and death.

Since more people are exposed to cosmetic products on a daily basis than drugs, it is extremely important that these products are safe in order to prevent tragic consequences. In order to protect human life, almost every type of product requires stringent testing. It’s not enough to know that a product is safe for its intended use, however; we must also consider ways a product could be accidentally used. We have to make sure products will not cause harm years after their use.

Q. Why don’t we use "cruelty-free" products?

A. The term "cruelty-free" is often misleading, misused and misunderstood. Since federal law mandates that each product on the market undergo stringent testing, the companies that use the "cruelty-free" label either contract out for the animal tests or use products and ingredients already deemed to be safe through animal testing.

Also, be aware that researchers using animals in tests are required to follow strict federal guidelines about the care and health of every animal used in the project. These guidelines forbid the misuse or ill treatment of any animal, and demand that animals be kept from suffering as a result of any experiment. Cruelty is not a part of any animal research project.

Q. Are researchers using more and more animals every year?

A. Some people think researchers consistently use more animals each year. But, in fact, the opposite is true. The number of animals used in research has actually declined in the past 20 years. As technology advances, researchers are able to rely on computer models and other methods instead of animal testing.

Some estimates show a reduction in animal use as high as 50 percent. Since 1967, the number of cats used in research has dropped 66 percent. For a variety of reasons, such as the increase in non-animal testing and refinement of laboratory animal medicine, fewer animals are needed for many research projects.

Q. Why aren’t computer models used instead of animals?

A. Computer models are often used instead of animal testing, or in conjunction with animal testing. However, a computer simply can’t mimic the complexities of an entire biological system. That’s why animals are used.

For more information on alternatives to animal testing, see the following sites:
http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu
http://www.jhsph.edu/~altweb/
http://www.envirolink.org

There are alternatives to animal testing – mathematical models, computer simulations and tissue cultures are used in preliminary testing. But these procedures cannot reliably predict the effect of a chemical on the combined organ systems of a human body.

Q. Do the experiments cause pain to the animals?

A. The use of animals in research is strictly controlled, regulated through the United States Department of Agriculture. Federal laws, including the Animal Welfare Act, regulate the elimination and alleviation of pain, as well as other aspects of animal care such as caging, feeding, exercise, and psychological well being.

The use of animals in research is a privilege and those animals who are helping us unlock the mysteries of disease treatment deserve the very best possible care. Because of this, the scientific community advocates the highest quality of animal care and treatment. Also, a well-treated animal, one without disease or pain, will provide more reliable scientific results, the goal of all researchers.

In order to guarantee the best possible treatment, each institution that uses animals must establish a animal care and use committee (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee or IACUC), which oversees, inspects and monitors every potential experiment. This committee includes members of the scientific community, an outside member of the public and a veterinarian.

Q. Why use animals at all?

A. There are striking similarities between the physiological systems of humans and various species of animals. Much of what we know about the immune system has come from studies with mice. Research on dogs has provided a great deal of information about the cardiovascular system.

Don’t forget, too, that animal research helps other animals. Vaccines for parvovirus in dogs and feline leukemia in cats were possible through animal testing. Research on animals has also provided methods to bring some species back from the brink of extinction.

Without animal research, virtually every medical breakthrough of the past century would not have been possible. Thanks to the animals used in research, we have discovered vaccinations for polio, how to transplant organs, how to transfuse blood, how to deal with patients involved in serious trauma, such as a car accident. Research has shown us how to prevent cancer and heart attack through nutrition and exercise. The creation of insulin for diabetics, hip replacement surgery, dialysis for kidney patients, all have come from animal research.

Continuing the Debate:

For more information on both sides of the animal research debate, the following sources may be helpful.  All the resources listed should be available at a large community or university library. The Internet resources are available on the World Wide Web.

Catalog of Subject Headings:

  • Animal Experimentation
  • Biotechnology
  • Animal Rights
  • Cosmetics Testing
  • Animals, Care Of
  • Diseases – Animal Models
  • Animals, Exploitation
  • Dissection
  • Animals, Treatment of
  • Laboratory Animals
  • Beauty and Cosmetics
  • Medical Research
  • Bioethics
  • Vivisection

Call Number Areas:

  • SF406
  • RB 125
  • QL51
  • QH 332
  • HV 4915

Magazine/Periodical Index:

  • Animal Agenda
  • Laboratory Animal Science
  • PETA News

Selected Book Titles

  • Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education. QL51.2.U6A48
  • Animal Factories. SF51.M37
  • Animal Rights and Human Obligations, 2nd Ed. HV4711.A56
  • Animal Smugglers and Other Wildlife Trades. QL82.N53
  • Animal Rights: Opposing Viewpoints. HV4711.A58
  • Contribution of Laboratory Animal Science to the Welfare of Man and Animals: Past, Present, and Future. QL83.I.36
  • In the Company of Animals. SF411.5.S47
  • Laboratory Animal Husbandry: Ethnology, Welfare and Experimental Valuables. SF406.F69
  • Rights, Killing and Suffering. TX392.F85.
  • Scientific Perspectives on Animal Welfare. HV4704.S34

Other Sources


Ethical and Philosophic Aspects

  • Beauchamp, TL. The moral standing of animals in medical research. Law Med Health Care 1992 Spring-Summer; 20(1-2): 7-16
  • DeGrazia D. The moral status of animals and their use in research: a philosophical review. Kennedy Inst. Ethics J 1991 Mar; 1(1): 48-70.
  • Gluck JP, Kubacki SR. Animals in biomedical research: the undermining effect of eh rhetoric of the besieged. Ethics Behav. 1991; 1(3): 157-73.
  • Matfield M. Animal research within an ethical framework. ATLA 1992 Apr; 20(2): 334-7.

Animal Rights

  • Anderson JH. Animal rights and research: common sense must prevail. Radiology 1992 Sep; 1184 (3) 647-51
  • Caldwell Jr. Patients’ rights versus animal rights (editorial). J. Fla Med Assoc 1992 Jul; 79(7): 439-40
  • Goodwin FK. Animal rights: medical research and product testing: is this a "hand together or together we hang" issue? Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci 1992 Jan; 31(1): 6-11
  • Smith SZ. Animal rights and experimental medicine (editorial) J Ky Med Assoc 1992 Aug: 90(8):381

Replacement, Reduction, Refinement

  • Balls M. The replacement of animal testing: ethical issues and practical realities. Int. J Cosmet Sci 1991 Feb; 13 (1) 23-8
  • Bruner LH. Alternatives to the use of animals in household product and cosmetic testing. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1992 March 1;2000 (5): 669-73
  • DeLuca Am, Kranda KC. Environmental enrichment in a large animal facility. Lab Anim (New York) Jan:21(1): 38-44
  • Whitney RA Jr. Research and development to enhance laboratory animal welfare. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1992 Mar 1; 200(5):663-6
  • Spinelli JS. Preventing suffering in laboratory animals. Scanned J Lab Anim SCI 1991; 18(4):159-64

Other Aspects


Animal Experiments: the great debate. New Scientist 1992. Apr 4 (134(1815):25 and others.

A series of 18 non-referenced articles by medical and social scientists, veterinarians, bioethicists, science writers and animal rights advocates. The series aims "to air a broad spectrum of opinions and provide a variety of perspectives on what is sadly becoming an increasing polarized debated."

Web sites