In 380 BC Aristotle experimented with fertilized eggs opening one every day for a month in order to study the different stages of embryotic growth. Aristotle's study gradually led to scientists experimenting with human and animal corpses and ultimately evolved to the medical experimentation on a vast array of species. It is now extremely common for animals to serve as "guinea pigs" in the laboratory for psychology experiments, toxicity testing, and genetics testing. The animals used in the laboratory are many times exposed to stressful, painful, and often fatal experiments (Harre). Many of these unethical experiments endanger millions of animals annually, and there are not enough regulations in place by the government of the United States to ensure that the experimentations are safe. I argue that due to the unethical conditions and evolving alternate trends that increase with the development of biotechnology, the implementation of alternative experimentation methods similar to "organs on chips" and the application of new regulations by the United States government are essential and should be utilized in the efforts to reduce the amount of animals experiencing pain and distress caused by medical experimentation in the United States. 

Animal experimentation is defined as the use of non-human animals for experimentation in education, training, and research (Badyal and Desai). "Cruelty free International" is the leading organization working to end animal experiments worldwide. According to "Cruelty Free International", animal experiments include injecting or force feeding animals with potentially harmful substances, exposing animals to radiation, surgically removing animals' organs or tissues to deliberately cause damage, forcing animals to inhale toxic gases, and subjecting animals to frightening situations to create anxiety and depression. More than 100 million animals are killed every year in U.S. laboratories alone for chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics testing; biology lessons; medical training; and curiosity-driven experimentation. The suffering and deaths of animals used in the laboratory are many times vindicated by suggesting that these tests will lead to medical advancements for humans. 

The reasoning behind the belief that animal testing will lead to medical advancements is partly due to the difficulty of biomedical research and the complexity of the human body. Since researchers do not fully understand the human body, they must mimic its intricacy (Americans for Medical Progress). Researchers claim that by using living animals to mimic humans they can fully account for the communication between molecules, cells, organs, and organ systems and the influences they have on each other. ("Is Animal Testing Necessary to Advance Medical research"), for example researchers may use a mouse model, which shares 94% of its DNA with humans, or even a Zebrafish, which shares 75-80% of their DNA with humans. With the large percentage of DNA that is shared between humans and many animals, it is easy for biomedical researchers to assume that humans and animals would react similarly to the same stimuli (Americans for Medical Progress). The assumption is false, as humans and the animals that undergo experimentation are different species, therefore, they yield different results to the same stimuli. Altered anatomical structures and different metabolisms between animals and humans result in different reactions within the body. Paracetamol, a popular drug that is commonly known as Acetaminophen or Tylenol, humans take as a painkiller or to lower a fever. Paracetmol is toxic to cats. Conversely, Arsenic is poisonous to people but does not harm to sheep. Another reason why the results in animal testing do not correlate to humans is due to the many environmental factors that affect humans. Animals do not suffer from diseases caused by environmental factors specific to humans, so in order to test these diseases the experimental animals must be made sick. In type I diabetes, also known as juvenile diabetes, the body destroys the insulin producing cells in the pancreas for an unknown reason.  In order to test this disease in animals, that animal's pancreas must be intentionally destroyed by the researcher. Commonly known as peritonitis in the medical field, inflammation of the membrane lining the abdominal wall and organs and the effects it has on infection can only be studied if the researcher purposefully causes inflammation within the abdominal cavity of the animal being used. But when symptoms are imitated and do not occur naturally they have nothing to do with the causes of human diseases. As a result, the treatment of these symptoms in animals is often successful, but fail in more than 90% of clinical trials when tested on people ("The Failure of Animal Experiments a an Animated Educational Film").

The rapid advancement of biotechnology and the lack of medical knowledge that animal testing provides, the use of alternative experimentation methods should be utilized to help decrease the number of animals being harmed. Such biotechnological advancements make it possible to experiment on DNA that has been formed artificially by combining parts from different organisms. This recombinant DNA technology is useful and since it allows for the advancement and production of vaccines without harming any animals in the process ("Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research"). Biotechnology also allows for the utilization of cell and tissue cultures in vitro (in glass). This provides results specific to humans, because potentially toxic substances are able to be tested on human cells without the risk of causing harm ("Overview | Alternatives to Animal Testing and Research). Perhaps the most innovative alternative to animal testing is "organs-on-chips." This computer memory stick sized stick is said to be able to "mimic on the microscale the functions of human organs such as the heart, lungs, and intestines, which would allow scientists to test drugs and cosmetics at less cost, less time, and without the use of animals" (Jessica Mendoza). The ultimate goal of "organs-on-chips" is to have chips for the different organs and link them together to create a whole-body network. This will reveal the effects of a drug, cosmetic, or chemical on an entire person.

There currently are numerous other test methods available to take the place of animal testing, but in order to have an impact on animal welfare, these methods must be widely implemented. For alternative methods to take the place of animal testing, research companies must be assured that government agencies will consider data from the accepted alternative methods as valid data. To assure trust between the research companies and the government, the government must officially incorporate accepted alternative methods into their regulations and guidelines. In 2006 and 2010 in vitro methods and the use of pain relieving medications became accepted alternatives for eye irritation testing, but the 1998 Environmental Protection Agency health effects test guideline for eye irritation testing was never updated. If guidelines such as this one do not get updated to include accepted alternative methods, studies will not use these more humane alternative methods.  Another step that must be taken to implement these methods is to educate and train regulatory staff about the available alternative methods and their limitations. This will in turn cause the educated staff in regulatory agencies to discuss and suggest possible alternative methods (Stokes). 

In the United States there is only one federal law that involves animals in experimentation and research. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) "regulates the care and use of animals in research, testing, teaching, exhibition, transport, and by dealers" (Laws and Regulations | Animal Use in Research). The AWA flaws in the fact that it only provides minimal protection for certain species and excludes others such as mice, rats, and birds that are solely bred for research. When combined, these species make up an estimated 90-95% of animals in laboratories that are used for experimentation. It also excludes all cold-blooded animals and farmed animals that are raised for food and fiber or used in agricultural research. "For the less than 10% of animals in labs covered by the AWA (dogs, cats, nonhuman primates -- such as chimpanzees and monkeys -- guinea pigs, hamsters, rabbits, and other warm-blooded animals), the law sets minimal standards for housing, feeding, handling, veterinary care, and for some species like chimpanzees, their psychological well-being" (Laws and Regulations | Animal Use in Research). In 2010 the total number of animals used for experimentation in the United States of America was 1.375 million, not including mice, rats, birds, and fish, as they are not covered by the Animal Welfare Act in the USA. (Badyal and Desai). Although it is impossible to accurately evaluate the number of animals used annually for experimentation, it is estimated that U.S. labs use over 25 million animals annually. 

It is evident that the Animal Welfare Act does not adequately minimize the amount of animals being used for animal testing. Not only is the majority of animals used for testing left unprotected by this act, but within a twelve-month period there were 16 facilities found by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture, which enforces the AWA) that violated section 3.81 of the AWA. This section is specific to non-human primates and is aimed to ensure their psychological wellbeing. One of these 16 instances is as followed:

"A June, 2011, USDA inspection report cites Vanderbilt repeatedly for the performance of illegal, unapproved and highly invasive brain surgeries on at least one primate by unapproved and unqualified surgeon(s). The USDA report cites Vanderbilt repeatedly for incidents surrounding experimentation on primate #4414. An unapproved, and botched, surgical procedure was attempted by an unapproved surgeon in September of 2010. Further illegal surgeries and other illegal procedures were performed on the same primate in December of 2010 and April of 2011" ("The Animal Welfare Act Does Not Protect Animals from Abuse in Research"). 

Immoral experiments like this one could be occurring across the country and be going unnoticed by the USDA. Also included in the AWA are basic standards for primates that include frequency of feeding, watering, cage cleaning, social housing, frequency of surgical procedures, etc. However, if a 'scientific' reason is suggested, the AWA allows animals to be excused from these regulations. The regular documentation made by the USDA regarding serious violations of the AWA, and the ability to exempt primates from these standards proves that this law is not effective. As a result, additional regulations should be added to the Animal Welfare Act ensure that all animals be protected, including invertebrates, rodents, and cold-blooded animals, at all times. 

The Institute for Behavioral Research (IBR) was a federally funded laboratory located in Maryland and ran by a man with no medical training. In the summer of 1981, "17 monkeys living in tiny wire cages that were caked with years of accumulated feces. A rotting stench permeated the air of the cramped, dungeon-like room, and urine and rust encrusted every surface" (PETA). The monkeys were said to have undergone surgeries where their spinal nerves were cut, resulting to at least one of their limbs being useless. They were then shocked by electrical currents and deprived of food until the monkeys were able to regain control of their impaired limb (PETA). These are the types of experiments that animals of all sizes endure in laboratories. Laboratory animals are kept in small confined cages and deprived of everything that is natural and important to them. "The thinking, feeling animals who are used in experiments are treated like nothing more than disposable laboratory equipment. Life for these animals are filled with pain and suffering and are often times short. They are fed with too little or too much food, operated on and crippled, kept in seclusion, or shocked with electric currents" (PETA). Since animal experiments do not directly benefit humans and the conditions that these animals live in are unjust, animal testing is unethical and immoral.  

Despite the advancements in biotechnology and the increasing amount of alternative methods to animal experimentation, these methods are not used due to the unchanging regulations and the claim that alternative methods are not as effective as animal testing. The number of animals that suffer and die each year due to animal experimentation are increasing as a result of not using alternative methods, when ultimately they should be decreasing. By changing and adding additional laws and regulations to oversee animal experimentation, alternative methods would be considered just as reliable, if not more reliable when applying the results to humans, than laboratory experiments that involve the use of animals. The changes made would also help to incorporate the protection of invertebrates, rodents, and cold-blooded animals so that they are kept in ethical conditions and not used carelessly, since they are not currently protected. Presently about fifty to one-hundred million animals are used in animal experimentation throughout the world and kept in unethical conditions (PETA).  By incorporating additional guidelines in animal experimentation in the United States, other countries may adopt similar guidelines that will dramatically reduce the amount of animals that suffer laboratory testing annually and ultimately have a positive impact on animal welfare. 

