Micah Stewart

Mr. Hackworth

English 102

1 April, 2016

The Alternative Solution

Animal testing was first documented in the late nineteenth century and became more popular with the works of Charles Darwin and his theory of Evolution. Ever since, animal testing has exponentially grown in the number of experiments and species used. It is a very hot topic for debate that is frequently met with many different viewpoints, the leading two being, "animal cruelty is wrong and unethical" and "it is for the good of society and necessary for medical advancement." The most significant viewpoint is often overlooked, the compromise, the side that agrees that testing is an important part of development but also needs to be done ethically and with standards; this side is searching for an alternative to replace animals in the testing cycle. In every situation there is always a third option, that is why I am interested in this research question, there is always a solution that benefits all. I hope that the answer to this question is yes due to my personal stance against animal cruelty but at the same time appreciate that I would have had to attend many more family funerals, without medication created from animal testing. I have no direct personal experience regarding animal testing but have seen the results of having no treatment to an illness and also animals that have been permanently scarred from horrific experiences in their life. Due to the lack of qualifications my credibility to this topic is nonexistent except from reading research articles regarding both points of view. There are many stakeholders that will be affected by the results from this continuous debate including: scientists who believe that testing is a necessity for technological and medical advancement, but would be content with an alternative to animals; scientists who agree with unethical or inhumane treatment of animals; those with religious perspectives on human dominion and/or stewardship of animals; those who believe that animals have the right not to be experimented on; and of course animals themselves. It is hard to fully please all of these categories, though the most logical solution, to me, would be to find an alternative to replace animals in experimentation. In sum, alternatives to animal testing are essential. Animal experimentation is inefficient as it fails to produce accurate and relative results that most of the time can't serve its sole purpose; to have positive effects on humans. Statistics aside, animal testing is also very cruel, unethical and lacks many basic moral standards. Therefore, we need to make finding an alternative a first priority in the scientific community and then put it into effect as soon as possible.

One of the more popular anti-animal testing viewpoints is that animal experimentation is immoral and questionable. Many justify experimentation by their anthropocentric view, that simply because they are not members of our species they are lesser, and only have instrumental value to us. Humans do not have the right to treat members of a different species in such a way that would be considered racist or sexist if we acted like so to one another. Some defenders of animal experimentation suggest that animals may, in some way, experience less pain than humans. This is obscure since mammals all have similar nerve structures for feeling pain, species just differentiate how they express it. There are over 50 to 100 million animals are killed annually worldwide for experiments and research (Wright, George, and Hoagland). This number has increased over the last decade, firstly, as there are more theses that are in need of solving, but also because the quantity of animals used is not a large concern to the scientific community as long as their lives are dedicated to the name of medicine and progress.

Not all doctors have such a drastic stance on the topic. Many believe that the experiments that are conducted are necessary, but agree that they can be done more efficiently by developing a new technique to transition from in vivo (within the living) to in silico (on computers). This will be able to make more accurate results and save a lot of resources (Univ. of Cambridge).  This would reduce the need to test some chemicals contained within drugs, pesticides, food additives or other consumer products on animals. Instead, scientists would be able to screen a chemical's molecular structure using customized computer software. It is hard to believe that with as many scientists as there are in the world that are experimenting on numerous theses, that they have not created a solid alternative by now. If it is true that they believe there is a more efficient way to get results than they would see that as a priority. Yet, many theories are still at the brainstorming stage. The transition to computers for experimentation could be a major innovation, which could solve a lot of problems with efficiency.

A foremost reason why there are so many animals used in experimentation is because the success rates for testing are so low. Although we share most of our genes with other mammals, there are critical differences in how our genes actually function. Results vary by species and even by strains within a species, because of inter-species and inter-strain differences in neurophysiology and the functions of the relevant genes. For example, Chimpanzees share 98 percent of our genes, yet there are many differences between our DNA sequences and how our genes function; the species barrier is a real factor. Scientists often use mice because of their supposed genetic similarity with humans and because their entire genome has already been mapped (Akhtar). Scientists have tried to manipulate their genes to make them more "human", though putting a human gene in a mouse is likely to function quite differently from how it functions in us. Akhtar, an animal activist and extinguished neurologist, focuses on the fact that animals are not little humans, so the results that we get from animal experimentation have a high probability of not correlating directly when applied to humans: this has definitely caused a setback in the development of new medicines and cures.

There has been a recent increase in numbers of experiments in the last decade in both private and public investment in the life sciences. This has led to increases in both animal and non-animal methods being used in medical development. This rise is also due to new opportunities using genetically modified animals, which are able to more accurately model aspects of diseases that humans are subject to. A large portion of these results have led to very influential treatments that are used daily to save lives including diphtheria and polio vaccines, antibiotics, anesthetics, and the treatments for childhood leukemia. All of these have allowed thousands to live full and healthy lives, owing a huge debt to animal research.

Though there are many life-changing treatments produced from animal testing, take a moment to think how many cures we could have for all of the killer diseases of today if the experiments were done properly. A large majority of animal research into potential treatments for humans is wasted due to it being poorly conducted and not evaluated through systematic reviews (Pound, Pandora et al). There is not a lot of evidence supporting that animal experimentation is the best option, and statements such as "animal testing is a valuable research method which has proved itself over time", are inadequate forms of evidence for such a controversial area as there is nothing to compare it to, to prove this statement to be true. In many countries animal research receives more funding than clinical research because the public accepts animal research only on the assumption that it benefits humans; the clinical relevance of animal experiments needs clarification. Instead of asking if something has the ability to benefit humans or not, it is insignificant as many things have potential to possibly benefit humans, the modified, yet more important question is how efficiently does it benefit humans. Many results and data from animal testing are often disregarded as irrelevant calls into question why the studies were allowed to occur in the first place. The unreliability of animal testing often leads to waste of funds, time, resources and loss of life. This does not seem to justify the consistent loss of life that produces nothing.

In most cases, while there isn't a system to keep animals out of the labs, there are a number of welter laws that are effective in protecting animals from cruel treatment. Ethical researchers are committed to avoiding animal experiments wherever possible and, in cases where there is no substitute, to keeping suffering and pain to an absolute minimum. When it is possible, scientists use other methods of experimentation; animal testing is rarely the first alternative. These laws don't just protect animals in experimentation, it also applies to humans. In some cases, the last stage of medical research may involve humans, typically people in prison for life who are willing to undergo tests on new medications. These laws are significant because if a scientist has no feelings for an animal, or even a prisoner, convicted for a terrible deed, they are still required to keep the pain down to a minimum wherever applicable.

Unfortunately, laws have never been enough of a barrier to stop things from being done. In research and testing, animals are subjected to experiments that can include everything from testing new drugs, being infected by diseases, poisoned, burned, maimed, blinded, and other painful procedures. Many observational experiments have protocols that require long-term isolation, dehydration and starvation, electric shocks, repeated breeding, and separation of infants from parents (Bentham). It is common that due to these harsh conditions and protocols, that the animals end up dying before the experiment is over. Those who survive their use in the study are allowed to be killed once completed. When procedures are improperly performed there can be unintended suffering, for example, if a researcher uses a paralyzing agent but does not properly monitor it, the animal can be experiencing agony but is unable to show it. It is not surprising that these mistakes happen as it does not take much to be an animal technician. To be eligible for a job, one does not need to have a degree or HND as many employers will be more concerned with a person's genuine interest in animal care, and generally, work under the guidance of those more qualified such as veterinarians or research physicians. The skills and responsibilities that are sought after for the job, are simple and can be done by most people; which explain the commonplace yet costly mistakes. The daily existence of a lab animal is torment. They suffer severe stress from being locked in crowded cages, strapped down unable to move, consistent exposure to unnatural bright lights, often leads to animals losing their sanity. It has been recorded, that from time to time, animals suffer from stress induced psychosis, a term that describes actions such as: ripping out their own hair, constant spinning in cages, biting at open wounds, mutilating themselves, all from chronic psychological distress they must endure.

The Animal Welfare Act was put into place as a response to many reports of issues in the laboratory's regarding animals. The AWA defines "animal" as "any live or dead dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or such other warm-blooded animal. It requires that each research facility develops an Internal Institutional Animal Committee, IACUC, to "represent society's concerns regarding the welfare of animal subjects." The committee has to be made of a minimum of three members, one member has to be a veterinarian, another must have no affiliation with the institution. The law enforces minimum housing standards for research animals, variables including the enclosure size, temperature, access to clean food and water, and other aspects of their living conditions while not being tested on; it also requires frequent inspections from veterinarians (Favre). While the AWA manages housing and transportation of animals used in research, it does not have the power to regulate the experiments themselves: this was decided by congress to exempt this authority from the law, in order to provide protection for the researcher yet not interfere at all with experimentation or research. A significant part of the law is that all US public health service funded institutions must base their animal care standards on the AWA, which many institutions receive some amounts of money from. The AWA has formed the basis of many international animal welfare laws. All of the regulations involved in the decree should be able to change the course of problems in the laboratory and also provide a lot more protection for animals.

The Animal Welfare Act contains provisions that are intended to protect animals from abuse, though the United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, has regularly documented serious violations by research institutions. There have been many cases of infractions of the law and cause questioning whether the law is effective or not, or if it is even abided by, or if it actually protects animals from abusive practices. A major part of the law is the requirement for basic standards for care and treatment, however, it also allows non-human primates to be exempted from these benchmarks for 'scientific' reasons. Essentially non-human primates can be placed outside the coverage of the law in areas such as feeding, watering, cage cleaning and social housing.  It is important to know how often this happens, and if it involves a substantial amount of animals. When examining a relatively small number of the larger primate facilities it will provide a small insight of the situation. The facilities examined were: Emory University, University of Louisiana (Lafayette), Oregon health Sciences University, Harvard Medical School, the National Institutes of Health, the University of Wisconsin (Madison), and Wake Forest University: The results from these prestigious establishments were frightening. Collectively, the labs experimented on 15,324 primates (21.5%of the national total) and exempted 6,273 animals to at least one of the standards contained in the AWA ("The Animal Welfare Act Does Not Protect Animals from Abuse in Research."). Overall, an estimated 43% of all non-human primates used in testing are legally excluded from at least some level of protection under the Animal Welfare Act. It is quite clear, by looking at the statistics, that the AWA fails to protect animals from abuse in research, and its existence is questionable.

Science has been relying on animal testing for so long, it is difficult for people to believe that it's possible for alternative methods to replace traditional testing. Organizations such as the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, CAAT, have been promoting three very important principles known as the three R's. The first principle, Replacement, means finding alternatives to animals either by methods that don't involve organisms at all such as, software simulations, mannequins, etc. or by in vitro ("in glass") techniques, where the studies are done with cells or tissues. The second principle, Reduction, refers to reducing the overall number of animals used in testing to a minimum. Finally, Refinement, improving the techniques to eliminate or minimize pain and discomfort for the animals. Though these propositions sound great, not all agree with them. Some scientists disagree with the word 'alternatives' because they feel it suggests that all animal research can be replaced when they believe that not all can be solved that simply. Animal activists tend to reject refinement and reduction because they feel that animal use should be halted altogether. Another way to significantly increase the number of alternatives, not necessarily the quickest, is to educate the next generation. If the next generation is taught from an early age to seek alternatives to the current model, then development will be continuous as current methods will always be updated with a better and more precise model. At this point, if an alternative method really works and is used repeatedly, then it's not considered an alternative, it's simply the best, current practice.

In conclusion, while the elimination of animal experimentation may not be possible at present, it is essential to work to make strides immediately. Although combatting animal testing with facts and figures, that prove the method is immoral and often inconclusive, is a movement in the right direction, we must be ready with a replacement when that era eventually comes to an end. It is crucial that the scientific community dedicates a majority of its energy towards the creation of alternatives. Though there will be an initial setback in results, the new technology will make up for lost time due to better productivity. Alternatives are the solution to the slow tempo of the current experimental method. If we are to continue to develop, we must strive for the newest techniques and the best procedures, make them ordinary, and then venture again.

Works Cited

Aysha Akhtar, M.D., M.P.H., "Why Animal Experimentation Doesn't Work. Reason 3: Animals        Aren't Little Humans", The Huffington Post, Huffpost Science, Jan 23, 2014, Jan 29, 2016, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aysha-akhtar/why-animal-experimentatio_b_3997568.html

David Favre, "Overview of U.S. Animal Welfare Act", Animal Legal & Historical Center, 2002, April 3rd, 2016

George, Patricia, and Geraldine Wagner. "Point: Medical Experiments On Animals Are An Important Element Of Drug Development." Points Of View: Animal Experimentation (2015): 2. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 25 Feb. 2016.

Howard, Carol. "Alternative Testing Can Replace Animal Experimentation." Animal Experimentation. Ed. Ronnie D. Lankford, Jr. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. At Issue. Rpt. from "Yes, Dad, There Are Alternatives." AV Magazine (Spring 2005): 14-15. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 3 Apr. 2016.

Jeremy Bentham, "Harm and Suffering", neavs, New England Anti-Vivisection Society, April 3rd, 2016, http://www.neavs.org/research/harm-suffering

Pound, Pandora et al. "Where Is the Evidence That Animal Research Benefits Humans?" BMJ : British Medical Journal 328.7438 (2004): 514 -- 517. Print.

Professor Elizabeth Fisher, "Why We Should Accept Animal Testing", Huffington Post July 17th, 2013, Huff Post, January 29th, 2016, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/professor-elizabeth-fisher/why-we-should-accept-anim_b_3608923.html

"The Animal Welfare Act Does Not Protect Animals from Abuse in Research." Animal Experimentation. Ed. Susan C. Hunnicutt. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Rpt. from "The Abuse of Non-Human Primates in Federally Regulated Laboratories: October 2011: Are Non-Human Primates Protected from Abuse in U.S. Laboratories?" Stop Animal Exploitation NOW! 2011. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 3 Apr. 2016.

Univ. of Cambridge, "Technique Could Eliminate Animal Testing", Laboratory Equipment, November 19, 2014, February 5, 2016, http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2014/11/technique-could-eliminate-animal-testing

Wright, George, and Steve Hoagland. "Counterpoint: Animal Testing Is Cruel And Immoral Regardless Of The Benefits Associated With It." Points Of View: Animal Experimentation (2015): 3. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 5 Feb. 2016.
