Is it ethical to use animals for biomedical or cosmetic testing? The practice of using live animals for research dates back to 500 BC (ProCon.org). According to ProCon.org, an estimated 26 million animals are used each year in the United States for scientific and commercial testing. The animals are tested for numerous purposes: to develop medical treatments, to determine toxicities of medications, to check the safeness of products destined for human use or other biomedical, commercial, and healthcare uses. Some argue that biomedical animal testing has aided the development of life-saving cures and treatments. On the other hand, opponents of animal testing believe it is inhumane, unreliable and expensive. One problem with banning animal testing lies with China. Some cosmetic companies, such as Mary Kay, Estée Lauder and Avon, continue to test on animals because the Chinese government requires them to do so in order for their products to be saleable in China. It is in China’s best interest to stop animal testing because there are alternative research methods that are cheaper and more reliable.

China has been the single biggest obstacle to ending animal testing worldwide. According to research firm Euromonitor, in China, “cosmetic sales are worth $26 billion a year and are expected to grow 8 percent each year until 2017, making it the third-largest market in the world” (Chitrakorn). Due to pressure from animal protection groups, consumers, and ethical retailers around the world, cosmetic animal testing has been banned “in 33 countries, home to 1.7 billion consumers, with at least 10 more countries lining up to do the same” (Seidle). However, Humane Society International estimates that about 500,000 animals are still used each year around the world for testing cosmetic ingredients and products. The driving force of the problem is China, as “the largest proportion of these animals--more than 375,000 in 2015--are used to meet pre-market test requirements in China alone” (Seidle). China’s Food and Drug Administration “requires all imported cosmetics, new cosmetic ingredients, and ‘special-use’ cosmetics . . . to undergo animal testing before being sold” (Seidle). The Chinese government carries out testing for imported products, irrespective of companies’ wishes. Even if cosmetic companies that sell to China do not test on animals, their products will be tested on animals upon their arrival in China (Chitrakorn). Therefore, cosmetic companies that do not endorse animal testing in their own manufacturing process become complicit in supporting animal testing abroad. In June 2014, China relaxed the law on animal testing; China now requires only certain products, such as hair dyes, perms, straightening treatments, deodorants and sunscreens, to be tested on animals. However, the change only applies to companies that manufacture their products in China. Companies that manufacture outside China must still test on animals in order to sell their products in China. China has begun collaborating with British scientists to investigate methods to replace animal testing.  During a state visit to Britain in October 2015, Chinese President, Xi Jinping, entered into a formal agreement with UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, to phase out animal testing (Chitrakorn). However, in order to ban animal testing altogether, China must agree to use alternative research methods.

The notion that animal testing is cruel and inhumane has not been sufficient incentive for China to end the animal testing requirement. Humane Society International reports that an estimated 115 million animals worldwide are used annually in lab experiments. The most common animals used in experiments are mice, fish, rats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, birds, cats, dogs, miniature pigs, and nonhuman primates. Most animals are killed at the end of the experiment or are reused in subsequent experiments until death. Animals used in experiments are exposed to toxic substances or diseases, force-fed, deprived of food and water, inflicted with wounds and burns, and electrocuted (Humane Society International, About Animal Testing). According to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), in 2010, 97,123 animals suffered pain during experiments and were given no anesthesia; the animals included 1,396 primates, 5,996 rabbits, 33,652 guinea pigs, and 48,015 hamsters (ProCon.org). The inhumane treatment of animals is 100% avoidable, as there are now alternatives to animal testing that provide more reliable results.

Some argue that laws protect animals from mistreatment in experiments. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) has regulated animal testing since 1996. The AWA requires regular veterinarian inspections and stipulates minimum housing standards for research animals (ProCon.org). However, the AWA has been unsuccessful in preventing animal abuse in all research laboratories. The AWA does not protect all animals used in experiments; 93% of research animals are mice, rats, fish, and birds, none of which are protected under the AWA (US Statistics). Those that are protected under AWA regulations are still sometimes subject to abuse when regulations are ignored or not enforced. In March 2009, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) found the New Iberia Research Center (NIRC) in Louisiana in violation of 338 possible AWA policies (The Humane Society). “The HSUS’s videotape evidence shows severe distress of primates in isolation” as the primates were “tearing gaping wounds into their arms and legs, a behavior that could be the result of NIRC’s failure to provide adequate environmental enhancement” (The Humane Society). HSUS’ president and CEO, Wayne Pacelle, points out that the NIRC did not attend to the well-being of the primates according to law because of “a lax USDA attitude about enforcing that law” (The Humane Society). It is impossible for the government to police the treatment of all research animals at all times. Even though the government carries out inspections, the government cannot oversee all experiments. More cosmetic companies are beginning to ban animal testing, which means the regulations—regardless of their effectiveness—are becoming less relevant. However, until China ends the animal testing requirement, some companies will continue testing on animals, which will continue to suffer under the current regulations.

Studies that show consumers are more inclined to purchase products that have not been tested on animals are another incentive for cosmetic companies--and China--to stop animal testing. PETA reports, “A Nielsen survey of more than 1,000 adults found that ‘not tested on animals’ was the most important packaging claim amongst consumers of beauty products with 57 percent of respondents selecting this over competing claims. Meanwhile, 43 percent of respondents said they would be willing to pay more for products that had not been tested on animals” (Chitrakorn). Thanks to initiatives like Cruelty Free International’s “Leaping Bunny” certification program, it is much easier for consumers to select products made without animal testing. Under the program, brands that do not test on animals can feature the organization’s rabbit logo on their product as proof of their certification. The Leaping Bunny certification program has become popular among companies such as Burt’s Bees and Marks & Spencer’s. Cosmetic companies--such as Estée Lauder and Clarins--have policies on their websites, stating that their products are not tested on animals, except in countries where animal testing is required. Mimi Bekhechi, UK director of PETA, points out, “these companies sell their products in China, where animals will die for an eye shadow or a lipstick” (Chitrakorn). Consequently, some cosmetic companies--including L’Occitane, Yves Rocher and Caudalie--have had their Leaping Bunny certifications retracted. The public demand and political momentum to end animal testing serve as a message to both cosmetic companies and governments that animal testing is unethical. Claire Mansfield, campaign director at Humane Society International (HSI), a leading animal welfare organization, explains, “The global in-vitro market is projected to grow about $9.9 billion by 2017 and this growth has been directly attributed to legislative policy decisions in the EU” (Chitrakorn). The in-vitro market growth in response to new legislation indicates the importance of governmental policies in the regulation or banning of animal testing. Even if consumers preference products that have not been tested on animals, some companies will continue to test on animals unless legislation prevents them from doing so.

Some argue that because animal testing has resulted in medical advancements, it is acceptable for China to continue testing on animals. Animal research has indeed led to a deeper understanding of and treatments for conditions such as breast cancer, brain injuries, childhood leukemia, cystic fibrosis, malaria, multiple sclerosis, and tuberculosis (ProCon.org). Furthermore, animal research helped with the development of pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes, and anesthetics (ProCon.org). Others maintain that animals must be used in experiments in which it would be considered unethical to use human volunteers. However, there are now copious new technologies that can be used instead of animals. There is no reason for China to continue animal testing because the alternatives are cheaper and more reliable. Chris Flower, director general of the UK Cosmetic Toiletry and Perfumery Association (CTPA), reported, “more than 20 alternative methods have been developed and validated by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to date” (Chitrakorn). One alternative to animal testing is a method called “microdosing,” which involves giving human volunteers a small one-time drug dose and monitoring the effects of the drug using imaging techniques. Microdosing provides information about the effect of the drug and how the drug is metabolized in humans at a cellular level prior to large-scale human trials (PETA). There are other non-invasive imagery techniques--such as MRIs and CT scans--and computation methods--such as simulation models and virtual drug tests (Chitrakorn). Advanced brain imaging and recording techniques--such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)--with human volunteers can be used to replace experiments in which researchers damage animals’ brains. Using non-invasive techniques, human brains can be studied down to the level of a single neuron, which has enabled researchers to induce and reverse brain disorders using transcranial magnetic stimulation (PETA). “Organs-on-chips,” developed at Harvard’s Wyss Institute, are another alternative to animal testing that produce results more applicable to humans. The chips contain human cells that grow to mimic the structure and function of human organs and can be used instead of animals in disease research and drug testing. The chips have been shown to replicate human diseases and drugs better than animal experiments. (PETA). Human-patient simulators that can breathe, bleed, convulse, talk, and even “die” are used for teaching medical students and have replaced the practice of cutting open animals for teaching experiments. “These high-tech simulators can mimic illnesses and injuries and give the appropriate biological response to medical interventions and injections of medications.” TraumaMan is an example of one such simulator that replicates breathing, bleeding human torso, and has realistic skin, tissue, ribs, and internal organs. TraumaMan is used to teach surgical procedures; studies show that TraumaMan teaches surgical skills better than courses that require students to cut into live animals (PETA). In-vitro testing--using test tubes and models based on human cell and tissue cultures--produces information that is just as reliable, if not more reliable, than information collected from studies of whole animals. Moreover, testing the toxicities of medications on animals produces results that are often irrelevant and inapplicable to humans (PETA). The purpose of China’s animal testing requirement is to protect Chinese citizens. Yet, the alternatives to animal testing would better ensure that cosmetic products are safe for human use.

Given that the alternatives to animal testing are more reliable, why does China still require animal testing? Some believe the reason China has been reluctant to adopt alternative research methods is because Chinese consumers would be nervous of using cosmetic products that have not been tested on animals. China is not opposed to adopting alternative research methods, China just needs help implementing them. Judy MacArthur Clark of the Home Office’s animals in science regulation unit understands that “[Chinese] consumers have to know they will be safe to use cosmetics, even though they are no longer being tested on animals.” The Chinese government is open to learning about alternative research methods. The Guardian points out that China has begun investigating how to replace animal testing and has sought out the help of British scientists. After an international conference on animal welfare in Beijing, MacArthur Clark reported: “It is clear that the long-term aim of the Chinese is to change their legislation so that animals are no longer used to test the safety of cosmetics there” (McKie). Change is afoot, but the successful banning of animal testing in China will depend on foreign aid. Mark Jones from Humane Society International points out, “An $80,000 grant to the Institute for In Vitro Sciences--awarded jointly by HSI, the Humane Society of the United States and the Human Toxicology Project Consortium--is also part of the solution.” Chinese regulators and government scientists are interested in the savings in expense and time, as well as the scientific advantages of non-animal methods. However, Chinese government scientists will require “hands-on experience of conducting in vitro experiments and interpreting the results.” The Chinese government now has a five-year plan to introduce ten non-animal test methods and catch up with the rest of the world in using non-animal research methods (Jones). The more help China receives with phasing out animal testing, the faster the change can occur.

Animal tests are unreliable; if a drug passes an animal test that does not mean it is safe for human use. Scientists must be cautious when interpreting the results of an experiment due to biological differences between and within species. Animals of different ages, sexes, developmental stages, and health statuses have different responses to experimental treatments (Pippin). Humans and other animals, therefore, have different responses to administered pharmaceuticals. Yet, some medical researchers still depend on animal experiments to predict the effects of drugs on humans. “Adverse drug reactions are responsible for 2.2 million hospitalizations and 106,000 deaths annually” (Pippin). Moreover, “50 percent of FDA-approved drugs are withdrawn or relabeled due to unanticipated side effects in humans” (Pippin). Thalidomide was given to pregnant women in the 1950’s to control nausea, causing more than 10,000 births with limb-reduction even though the drug was tested on animals prior to commercial release (Pippin). Thalidomide was tested on mice, rats, and guinea pigs after the drug was withdrawn from the market; all of the tests were negative until one strain of rabbit (the New Zealand white rabbit) was found to be susceptible (Pippin). Later tests found that cats, hamsters, rats, and mice were sensitive to thalidomide, but only in small doses (Pippin). On the other hand, Penicillin was first discovered in 1929, but because the drug was ineffective in curing infected rabbits, Penicillin was not used on humans until 1939 (Pippin). If researchers had not tested the safeness of Penicillin on rabbits, the drug would have been instrumental in curing humans much earlier.

Some argue that animal testing is an appropriate research method because animals and humans have similar biologies and behaviors. But because animals and humans have different metabolic, anatomic, and cellular structures, animal tests often produce inadequate or erroneous results (Neavs). Former Director of the National Cancer Institute points out, “We have cured cancer in mice for decades--and it simply didn’t work for humans” (Neavs). Animal tests do not provide a reliable prediction of results in humans. “94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials” (ProCon.org). Therefore, animal tests can neither predict the safeness of a drug, nor aid researchers in developing drugs that can cure humans.

Animal tests are more expensive and less effective than alternative methods, wasting both government research funds and the lives of animal subjects. Some animal tests costs hundreds of thousands--sometimes millions--of dollars per substance examined. Some experiments take months to conduct and sometimes span the entire lifetime of an animal. The testing techniques are inefficient, making it impossible for regulators to evaluate the potential effects of the more than 100,000 chemicals that are in commerce worldwide. “A two-species lifetime cancer study can cost from $2 to $4 million, and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) spends $14 billion of its $31 billion annual budget on animal research” (ProCon.org). Humane Society International advocates for lightning-fast computer modeling techniques and “cell-based in-vitro methods [that] are amenable to ‘high throughput’ automation using robotics--all at a much lower cost than animal tests” (Humane Society International, Costs of Animal). For example, the Draize rabbit skin tests costs $1,800, while the in-vitro test alternatives--the EpiDerm human skin model or the CORROSITEX membrane barrier--cost $850 and $500 (Humane Society International, Costs of Animal). Likewise, a rat phototoxicity test costs $11,500, while the in-vitro test alternative, 3T3 neutral red uptake test, costs $1,300 (Humane Society International, Costs of Animal). Therefore, the Chinese government could save research dollars, time, and animal lives by ending animal testing.

So far, China has been reluctant to adopt alternatives to animal testing, forcing cosmetic companies to test on animals. However, it is in China’s best interest to transition from outdated, unreliable, unethical testing methods and adopt alternatives that have made it possible for other countries to phase out animal testing. The Chinese government is not opposed to doing so. China has nothing to lose. Countries that have adopted alternatives to animal testing should aid China in transitioning to more humane and effective research methods. 
