In the Disney movie “The Lion King,” one of the messages discusses the “Circle of Life,” or the natural cycle of living, dying, and coexisting with other animals. Outside of an animated movie, everyone is nonetheless expected to coexist with other species. As humans, we raise ourselves above other animals, claiming we have higher morals. However, humans have delved into practices such as research, and this can abuse other species in order  to advance modern medicine. While these practices improve the lives of many humans, other animals can suffer. Animal research is regulated by a federal mandate called the Animal Welfare Act, which was officially established by Congress in 1966 (Animal Welfare Act). However, the act contains loopholes that scientists have readily exploited in the name of science. For example, some animals are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act.  In regard to the definition of an “animal”, the act states;

The term "animal" means any live or dead dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or such other warm-blooded animal, as the Secretary may determine is being used, or is intended for use, for research, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet; but such term excludes (1) birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, bred for use in research, (2) horses not used for research purposes, and (3) other farm animals, such as, but not limited to livestock or poultry, used or intended for use as food or fiber, or livestock or poultry used or intended for use for improving animal nutrition, breeding, management, or production efficiency, or for improving the quality of food or fiber.  (Animal Welfare Act, title XVII)

As a translation, the Secretary of Agriculture determines the meaning of “animal” for medical testing, and can include living and nonliving cats, dogs, monkeys, guinea pigs, hamsters, etc., but not mice or rats. Their exclusion from the AWA is significant because mice and rats are the most commonly used animals as test subjects, since they have 98% genetic similarities with humans (CBRA Fact Sheet: Why Are Animal Necessary in Biomedical Research?). Such oversight can lead to animal abuse and poor treatment.

 In contrast, animal research has contributed thousands of beneficial medical discoveries over the years. For example, due to experiments with rabbits, primates, guinea pigs, and dogs, in 1945, Willem Kolff successfully treated a patient with acute kidney failure for the first time (Timeline). As a result, animal testing is a widely controversial topic in the medical field. Therefore, by looking at medical improvements through experiments with animals, the regulations of animal experimentation, and how facilities have taken advantage of regulation oversight, we can see that more restrictive regulations need to be set in place for such medical facilities. This discussion is of paramount importance because everyone has medical issues, from a broken leg to a common cold to a chronic illness. Treating or curing these medical issues, prolonging and improving human lives affects everyone in the world. However, helping animal lives is just as important as saving human lives. Medical research is vital to saving lives, but maintaining the quality of life for everyone involved, including the test subjects, is just as imperative. 

On September 25, 2017, political reporter Donovan Slack published an article on USA Today pertaining to new legislation banning dog experimentation in the Department of Veteran’s Affairs due to uncovered animal cruelty. Slack describes in gruesome detail the cruel treatment towards the canine test subjects. According to the article, 

“Nationwide, invasive experiments at three VA facilities are slated to include roughly 300 dogs, including 6-month-old Beagle puppies, and involve surgeries on their brains, spines and hearts by researchers seeking treatments for heart disease and other ailments. All the dogs will be killed when the research is complete.” (Slack)

And, 

“Although the study protocol says only adult dogs are to be used, documents show the Milwaukee VA acquired beagle puppies for the study, between 6 and 9 months old. VA officials told USA TODAY the “adult” description is being deleted from the protocol.” (Slack)

The author continues to describe the experiments in the three VA laboratories that include experimentation on dogs. One of the facilities in Milwaukee places the dogs under anesthesia and removes the sensory part of the brain to test brain activity. The researchers involved then kill the dogs upon completion of the experiment. Slack provides proof that something needs to be done to stop such cruel treatment, yet he successfully highlights the advantages and disadvantages of animal testing in the process. The article practically applies the pros and cons of animal research by describing the animal abuse, and presenting both opposing viewpoints to readers. The argument for animal testing states that the research benefits mankind with overall improvements in medical technology, and the VA research also improves the lives of American military veterans. The article states that, “VA research on dogs has led to important breakthroughs, including development of the implantable cardiac pacemaker and an artificial pancreas that automatically monitors glucose levels and delivers insulin for diabetics” (Slack).  The opposing viewpoint argues that past medical advances are not recent, and therefore not applicable. This viewpoint also argues that cruelty towards animals is not worth the scientific outcome. Other methods such as in vitro testing exist as alternatives to animal testing. ProCon.org also states that 94% of animal-tested drugs and medications do not pass human testing and experimentation. Animal testing is necessary, however, and this proves that further regulation is necessary to help animals maintain a heathy lifestyle. 

On September 14, 2017, and later edited on September 15, David Gotfredson of CBS 8 reported on invasive research on bottlenose dolphins in San Diego Bay conducted by the US Navy. The US government and the Navy Marine Mammal Program is providing funding to the National Marine Mammal Foundation for marine and medical research. The medical research performed is concerning diabetes in humans and developing a possible cure for it. The dolphins involved in the research undergo cruel treatment from the scientists, such as being administered cortisone and experiencing nine blubber biopsies over the span of five days. Such treatment can be regulated with stricter rules and more specific regulations about inspection of the research facilities. According to a paper published regarding the research, some of the dolphins undergoing the research were objecting to the testing. This provides evidence that this treatment is cruel and unnecessary to the animal subjects involved. Tighter regulations need to be established to protect the dolphins in the experiments. According to the Animal Welfare Act, dolphins are under the protection of the US government (Gotfredson). However, these particular experiments sound unnecessary. Even though “animals” are protected by the Animal Welfare Act, the meaning of “animal” has also been a matter of heated and intense debate. 

Animal research has advanced the field of science and medicine over time. In 1902, Lucien Cuenot discovered genetic heredity and how genes affect physical traits through research on mice. Through research on mice in 2011, scientists discovered that red blood cells grown from stem cells extracted from bone marrow act as regular red blood cells. This can be groundbreaking for diseases such as cancer and HIV/AIDS. In 1921, Frederick Banting, Charles Best and eventually James Collip found that insulin treated diabetes through experiments on dogs. In 1950, John Hopps built the first pacemaker through dog research (Timeline). Medical experimentation on animals has contributed to history and the improvement of life overall for humans. History often repeats itself, and there are currently no inexpensive and reliable alternatives to animal testing. Proper regulations for research facilities need to be established to continue improving human lives. According to the California Biomedical Research Association, animals were used in almost every major medical advancement in the past 100 years (CBRA Fact Sheet: Why Are Animal Necessary in Biomedical Research?). Animal research is obviously vital to the future of medicine, and since no efficient alternatives exist, it must endure to ensure ongoing advancements in medicine. 

Researchers have taken advantage of loopholes in the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). For example, The act specifically does not include rats or mice in the categorization for regulated animals. However, mice are commonly used because they share 98% genetic similarities with humans, creating a humanistic and realistic experimental field for scientists. It is estimated that about 115 million animals are used in research every year worldwide, but since not all animals, including mice and rats, are registered and regulated, the figures cannot be completely accurate. Researchers have also begun using animals younger than the age specified in the act to work around the AWA regulations. When writing the AWA, Congress left the definition of an “animal” up to the Secretary of Agriculture, and eventually permanently excluded mice and rats from inclusion in the AWA due to a lack of inspection resources. However, mice and rats are under the protection of the Public Health Service Policy, which only covers federally funded research facilities. Research projects that are privately funded that only use mice and rats are not under AWA or the Public Health Service Policy. This is a huge oversight. Regulation for federal and private facilities needs to be established to protect the mice and rat test subjects. 

The Animal Welfare Act defines an “animal” that is protected by the act as a cat, dog, hamster, guinea pig, monkey/nonhuman primate, or rabbit. According to Humane Society International, 90% of animals used in research are not properly registered using the regulations set in place by the Amendment to the Animal Welfare Act established in 1985, and later in 2014, the most recent adjustment made to the act. According to Speaking of Research.com, there are no precise figures for the amount of mice or rats used in experiments, and is therefore impossible to approximate the exact number of animals used for research in the US and the world. Also, only live cats and dogs are required to be marked and identified. Re-amending the animal Welfare Act to include all animals involved in research is necessary, as well as detailing the care for each. I also propose each state have the committees in each research facility write more specific, state and locally-regulated laws to further restrict research facilities and protect animals being used as test subjects. Medical research performed on animals is significant, but still not worth cruel and heartless treatment in the name of science advancement. 

On the other hand, others might argue that animal experimentation should be eradicated altogether, since there will always be ways around regulations. Alternatives to animal testing do exist. For example, computer models, or “in silico” models, are recently being used by scientists in lieu of animals. In vitro testing is also an alternative method. In vitro experimentation is the combining of human cells and tissues in a test tube or petri dish for medical testing, rather than observing the effects on an animal. Human volunteers and humanoid patient simulator robots have also been proposed alternatives. Since animal testing isn’t necessary, establishing alternatives in every federal and private research facility should be relatively simple. Besides, it is nearly impossible to regulate every single research institute. In the aforementioned example, dogs were being used by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and then killed when the experiments ended. As expected, the public was and still is outraged at this horrific event. Because of this incident, Congress is already considering altering the Animal Welfare Act. But why not just ban animal testing? Alternative ways to animal testing exist, and sometimes they are faster, cheaper, and easier to replicate and solidify the data. The challenging viewpoint states that alternative experiment strategies should be the only method of experimentation.

The opposing side is compelling in its argument that alternative methods to animal testing should be utilized whenever possible. Albeit alternatives are extremely convenient, the systems of the human body remain extremely complex. Scientists find it impossible to replicate human systems in cell cultures and bacteria, on a computer model, or in a human simulator. For example, researchers cannot observe the effects of high blood pressure in a petri dish or on a robot. Unfortunately, it is actually close to impossible to perfectly replicate animal research without using an animal test subject. For example, in 1940, scientists successfully made and used the drug Penicillin because of experiments with mice. In 1955, the polio vaccine was developed due to research on dogs. In both of these dramatic medical breakthroughs, animals were the key to unlocking the huge medical discovery. Despite recent technological advancements, animal research remains a vital aspect of medical research and improvements. 

One of the main themes in the Disney movie “The Lion King” involves the importance of coexisting with different species. The whole point of the “Circle of Life” is to live in harmony with others, despite natural conflict. Although a necessary evil, animal research has resulted in amazing medical advancements for humans and animals alike. However, taking advantage of other animals is cruel. That is why stricter regulations need to be developed to protect those we share this earth with. Humane treatment is vital to successful experimentation. According to yourgenome.org, scientists have to follow the “three R’s” to ensure harmless testing towards the animal tests subjects. The first R stands for “Replace”, which means using alternative methods to animal research whenever possible. The second R stands for “Reduce”, which means minimizing the amount of animals used in experiments by sharing information with other scientists so those experiments will not be repeated. The third and final R is “Refine”, or improving the way animal test subjects are treated and cared for to help reduce pain and/or stress, and even improving the quality of life for the animals whenever possible. This is a decent strategy to guarantee the proper treatment for animals. Congress should establish additional regulations with the “Three R’s” in mind by re-amending the animal Welfare Act to include all animals involved in research, and detail the care for each. Each state should  have the committees in each research facility write more specific, state and locally-regulated laws to further restrict research facilities and protect animals being used as test subjects. Medical research performed on animals is significant, but still not worth cruel and heartless treatment in the name of scientific advancement.  Therefore, by looking at medical improvements through experiments with animals, the regulations of animal experimentation, and how facilities have taken advantage of regulation oversight, we can see that more restrictive regulations need to be set in place for such medical facilities. This is very significant because medical research is important to making the lives of others better yet maintaining humanity through the proper treatment of the animals being experimented on. Only through improving treatment towards animals and continuing to conduct humane animal research can humans maintain the harmony that is the “Circle of Life”. 
