Are you an animal lover? Have you ever visited Petco or any other type of pet store? If so, think of all the cute animals you may see: bunnies, rats, mice, cats, dogs, etc. Now imagine these same animals in a research facility. Not only are the animals subjected to cages and inadequate living conditions, they are also administered deadly diseases and drugs. According to the U.S Department of Agriculture, approximately 70,000 nonhuman primates are used in U.S. research facilities annually and an additional 45,000 are held or bred for research (Conlee). The Animal Welfare Act addresses the standard of care animals must receive; however, 95% of animals are not protected by law (Animal Testing). Today, due to technological advances, there are several alternatives to animal testing; these include in vitro testing, microfluidic chip testing, micro-dosing, imaging studies, and computer models (Alternatives). These methods are faster and more accurate than traditional animal methods. Thus, animal testing is cruel and unnecessary for making medical advances. 

Beginning in the ancient times, Greek physician scientists performed experiments on living animals. One of these was the famous Galen, a Greek physician in Rome. Since anesthetics had not been invented yet, the animals had no pain relief. Animal testing became prevalent in the United States in 1937 after a pharmaceutical company created a drug to treat strep infections. Unfortunately, a solvent used in the drug turned out to be poisonous, resulting in over 100 deaths. Immediately after, in 1938, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act required drugs to be tested on animals prior to humans. Despite regulations, in the late 1950s and early 1960s, thalidomide was prescribed to treat morning sickness in pregnant women. This resulted in more than 10,000 children being born with malformations. 

There are several types of animal tests currently performed. The Draize eye test is used to assess eye irritation. It is typically performed on rabbits and involves placing a substance in one of the rabbits' eyes. The rabbits are restrained to prevent them from messing with their eye and reassessed after an hour and then each day for a total of 14 days. Rabbits used in this type of experiment suffer from redness, bleeding, ulcers, and even blindness (Testing). Another test performed is acute toxicity. This is used to assess the danger of exposure to a chemical by mouth, skin, or inhalation. In the past, the lethal dose 50 (LD50) test has been done; tests were conducted until at least half of the animals had died. Another method is the fixed dose method which uses signs of suffering as a determination of an endpoint rather than death. Animals used in this tests suffer from "excruciating pain, convulsions, loss of motor function, and/or uncontrollable seizures" (Testing). Animals are killed after experimentation is over in order to perform an autopsy to assess internal damage. Repeated dose toxicity is used to evaluate chronic toxic effects in one dose. There is a 28 day sequence as well as a 90 day sequence. Animals are killed at the end to look for signs of organ or body system failure. Skin corrosion tests typically use rabbits. It involves shaving a patch of skin to place chemicals on and another patch to use as a control. The skin sensitization test is used to determine the chemical causes for allergic reactions. It's typically performed on guinea pigs who had substances applied on the surface or injected onto their shaved skin. This list hardly scratches the surface; there are many other tests performed on animals. 

Specially bred rats and mice are used the most in animal research; they make up 90-95% of mammals used in research (Animal Research). Rodents are useful since they can develop diseases over a span of days or weeks instead of months and years. In the Cambridge video, the professor of biochemistry working in the Cambridge University research facility talked about how mice are popular because they are easy to breed and care for. They can genetically engineer the mice to have "genetic twists" that make them susceptible to getting cancer. Another tactic they use is inserting part of a humans' tumor into the mice and then testing multiple drugs on them. Other mammals used commonly include "guinea pigs, rabbits, hamsters, and farm animals" (Animal Research). However, other animals are used occasionally. Sheep are used to study osteoarthritis and pigs are often used to study skin problems. For very basic research, fruit flies and worms are used. Species like dogs, cats, and other non-human primates are rarely used; they account for less than 1% of animals used in research (Animal Research). They are good for studying neurological disorders and HIV/AIDS.

Animal experimentation is very time consuming and costly. The eight National Primate Research Centers cost $1 billion alone (Conlee). Also, The U.S. National Institute of Health budgets almost $29 billion each year for research and development (Medical Testing). On average, primates like chimpanzees cost $20-$25 a day to upkeep while rats only cost $1.6 per day (Conlee). Annually this adds to $7300-$9125 per primate and $584 per rat. In addition, experiments must be repeated since drugs are required to pass multiple trials before proceeding to human trials. Prior to Phase 0 of human trials, a drug must pass an animal test with the full dosage. On the other hand, non-animal alternatives are much quicker and cheaper. An example is animal tests versus micro-dosing; while animal tests typically take 12-18 months and cost anywhere from 1.5 million and 3 million, micro-dosing only takes 5-8 months and costs 0.3 to 0.5 million (Physicians Committee). Also, for skin corrosion tests, the cost for in-vitro testing is $850 per assay while animals cost $1800 per assay (Physicians Committee). 

          Animal testing is very traumatic and causes animals to suffer psychologically, physically, and mentally. According to the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), animals "are confined to barren cages, socially isolated, and psychologically traumatized" (Medical Testing). One of the reasons animals are used for research is due to their biological and genetic similarities to humans. Given this, the pain they endure is very similar to humans too. However, animals are not given the same respect and rights. Millions of animals are tested on without any pain relief simply because researchers claim it is scientifically necessary and thus they are exempt from providing pain relief (Animal Testing). In the VICE news video, monkeys from the Biomedical Primate Research Center (BPRC) in the Netherlands were tested for tuberculosis by getting a shot in the eyelid. After that, they were given injections of some of the deadliest diseases in the world. The monkeys were left in small cages to be monitored a few times a day. This is not uncommon. According to The Humane Society, 53% of primates are housed alone; instead, they are given metal shapes in their cages for enrichment (Conlee). In addition, there have been numerous incidences where animals have died. In 2012, monkeys were boiled alive when sent through mechanical washers and killed by heat exhaustion due to poor laboratory conditions (Animal Testing). This single incident hardly scratches the surface. Numerous animals die in laboratories every year and often go unreported. According to PETA, even "animals who are covered by the law can be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged" (Medical Testing). Currently, there are no procedures or experiments prohibited by law. Animals like mice and rats that aren't protected by law are not required to be reported when they die. In fact, 800 U.S. laboratories are not subject to federal laws and inspections because they do their research on mice and rats (Medical Testing). Even with the scarce regulations and rules in place, there are simply too many facilities to monitor. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) only has 120 inspectors for the 12,000 research facilities it's in charge of regulating (Animal Testing). Also, when a facility is reported for being deficient, the Office of Laboratory Welfare (OLAW) takes little action. There is no follow up or on-site inspection (Animal Testing). Clearly, action needs to be taken; all facilities need to be monitored and stricter regulations need to be made.

Although chimpanzees share 98.4% of their DNA with humans, the results produced in animal trials rarely predict what will happen with humans (Scutti). For example, dogs are allergic to chocolate but humans are not. In fact, according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 92% of drugs tested on animals fail on humans (Animal Testing). Unfortunately, the combination of artificially induced diseases and animal species that differ biologically from humans drastically reduce the chances of yielding results applicable to humans. Dr. Richard Klausner, former National Cancer Institute Director, says "we have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn't work in humans" (Medical Testing). Also, as of 2010, nearly every one of the 200 preventive and therapeutic vaccine trials for HIV/AIDS has failed to demonstrate any benefit for humans. Another example was a clinical trial done on monkeys. An AIDS vaccine proved beneficial in monkeys but did the opposite when tested on humans, making them more susceptible to the disease. According to a report from the British newspaper, The Independent, "testing HIV vaccines on monkeys before they are used on humans, does not in fact work" (Medical Testing). Another issue is that animal experiments can be easily manipulated to appear useful to the public. Universities commonly exaggerate their findings and experimenters rarely publish results of failed animal studies.  

          As of 2011, rhesus monkeys are being used to study obesity (In Research). Monkeys are intentionally being fed rich, fattening foods and given no opportunity to exercise. This is both cruel and unnecessary. This diet is unnatural in comparison to a typical monkey's diet; monkeys are usually active animals so the physical restriction of being locked in a cage causes stress. Overall, the study really serves no purpose. As the study continues, more and more individuals are dying from health complications of obesity and obesity rates are increasing. No matter how much research is done, nothing can change the complications caused as a result of poor personal choices. Instead, the government should focus on helping individuals suffering from obesity; programs should be created that focus on losing weight in a healthy way through a healthy diet and exercise. 

            Today efforts are being taken to reduce the number of animals tested on. Scientists follow the three R's: reduction, refinement, and replacement (Scutti). Reduction can be implemented by sharing information between researchers. In the Cambridge University video, their professor of biochemistry explained how the facility he works at tries to design experiments so that the smallest possible number of animals are used that still produce statistically significant results (Fighting). He stressed how using too few of animals would produce useless results because they would have no statistical significance. Refinement is completed by improving living conditions and using less invasive techniques. Finally, replacement can be implemented by using human volunteers and/or improving computer models. A real life example of the three R's was discussed in the Cambridge video. In 2013, Dr. Mary Chaluk was awarded the three R's prize by the National Center for the Replacement, Refinement, and Reduction of animals in research for work with culture systems (Fighting). Specifically, Dr. Chaluk took adult mouse stem cells and grew them into three dimensional liver tissues for studying liver disease and testing drugs. This method drastically reduces the number of mice used in research. In the video, Dr. Chaluk estimated that one drug requires fifty animal subjects while a thousand drugs requires 50,000 animal subjects. Using her culture system, thousands of drugs can be tested on stem cells, narrowing it down to one or two drugs to proceed to the animal testing phase. As a result, the number of animal subjects would be reduced from 50,000 to 50-100 animals. Unfortunately, many facilities aren't searching for alternatives. Audit reports show that facilities are seriously lacking in their search for alternatives to animal testing (Medical Testing). 

          Nowadays, there are several non-animal alternatives for medical testing. Here is a brief overview of some of the methods available. In vitro testing is when cell or tissue samples from animals and humans are taken to a lab for study; this technique is used for drug research and chemical testing. Microfluidic chip testing is a step up from in vitro testing because it involves a network of tissue samples connected by microchannels similar to a bloodstream. This is good for studying drug metabolism. Micro dosing involves human subjects; it is also known as Phase O because it is the earliest phase in clinical drug trials for humans. In this phase, humans receive a fairly low dosage of drugs so that it only effects them on a cellular level. Prior to Phase 0, the full dosage of drugs must be tested on humans. Imaging studies include MRIs, fMRIs, and PETs. These allow researchers to observe the effects of a drug on the body and study brain function. Computer models and simulations include virtual human organs which are good for heart studies. 

            Despite all these alternatives, human studies combined with epidemiological research "may in fact be two of the best alternatives to animals" (In Research). Epidemiological studies are studies of naturally occurring diseases in the human population. They provide insight into the causes and symptoms of diseases. In addition, they allow doctors to determine risk factors so prevention measures can be made. For over 60 years, the Franingham Heart Study has been ongoing. This study has provided substantial information about heart disease, links between sleep apnea and increased risk of stroke, genes linked to Alzheimers, and many more discoveries (In Research). Clinical studies are studies involving human volunteers. Many individuals with ordinary and terminal illnesses are willing to participate in medical trials and take new drugs. Those with terminal illnesses often have no other alternative but death so they are willing to try anything that could potentially cure or help them. Autopsies are another form of human studies; they are automatically done after human death for the main purpose of determining the cause of death. However, many people choose to donate their bodies for medical research. For example, in 1978 the National Institute of Health (NIH) established a "brain bank"; thousands of individuals who have had neurological disorders have donated their brains for use in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's research (In Research). 

           Many individuals argue that cell tests do not provide all the information necessary. At some point, they must be tested on living organisms. However, the advantages of non-human testing have been demonstrated in the past. When the Gulf of Mexico oil spill occurred, the U.S. government asked the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) to determine the relative safety of eight different oil dispersants. Within 6 weeks the agency had tested all the dispersants; the same results would have taken years of animal testing. 

           In conclusion, animal experimentation for medical purposes is unnecessary in today's world. The time, money, and resources used to conduct an animal experiment is better spent on other things. Also, with today's technology, the same results produced from animal experiments can be achieved with alternatives at a faster and more efficient rate. Since the 1970s, the amount of animals tested on has decreased by nearly 50% (Conlee). Although progress is being made to reduce animal testing, there is still a lot of improvement to be made. Complete elimination of animal testing will certainly not be done overnight; for now, there certainly needs to be stricter rules and regulations. After all, there are only two countries in the world that allow laboratory testing on chimpanzees; the U.S. is one of them (Animal Testing). Since animals are unable to verbally speak out about their maltreatment, humans must fight for them. There are several ways individuals can help; they can donate to charities, donate their bodies to science, educate others, and/or inform decision makers of their opinion. 

