The animal research debate has been an unresolved, powerful argument between members of the general public and animal researchers. Becoming a debate on the global level, it revolves around whether animal testing is justified and is one of the most controversial subdivisions of science. Though there is validity to both sides of the argument, often times those who advocate for a certain side of the debate do not take all of the facts of the situation into consideration. Over the years there have been various policy adjustments, the introduction of in vitro testing, and the implication of “the 3 R’s” (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) in the hope to improve the ethics surrounding animal research tactics. However, there is not just one specific change that can ease the tension between animal lovers and animal researchers. The real solution is to close the gap between the two parties by using methods to reduce opposition but never at the cost of slowing medical advancements. Thus, in order to significantly reduce opposition to animal research in the United States, the 3 R’s should be more strongly implemented, reports should be more detailed and comprehensive, and the process of getting research proposals approved should be more selective. 

Animal testing has always seemed to face inevitable opposition on the grounds that it is unethical. While in certain cases that is valid, the new major argument (which was initiated due to technological advancements) that it’s no longer needed can be completely invalidated. By investigating the history of medical advancements, it is evident that animal research has led to many of the medical discoveries often taken for granted today. For example, vaccines for diseases such as Polio, TB, the whooping cough, and Meningitis were created and made safe for humans to use via animal research. Even the eradication of smallpox and development of insulin were dependent on animal testing (“Forty Reasons”). Current animal research continues to focus on the treatment of a variety of diseases affecting humans across the world. Should animal testing be brought to a halt, the rate of medical advancements would significantly decline or even diminish completely. 

Enough people understand that animal testing is too beneficial to discontinue, so approaches to modify the research have been proposed. The 3 R’s approach to animal testing is a strategy developed in the hope to improve animal research ethics. The replacement sector of this strategy proposes the use of in vitro (meaning using alternative testing techniques that do not involve living organisms) testing whenever possible. The reduction segment of the 3 R’s simply means using the least amount of animals as possible to obtain significant, meaningful results. Last but not least, the refinement subdivision entails altering the way in which experiments are carried out in order to ensure the least amount of pain and suffering for the animals (Hajar). If the 3 R’s were embraced by every animal researcher, the “problems” of animal research would diminish quickly. In other words, research would be more widely accepted as more useful than harmful. Unfortunately, this is not the case, as this strategy is not a law and is not enforced by any group. The problem with the 3 R’s is that it is merely a suggestion to the researchers, thus many don’t bother adjusting their testing methods. 

With the morals most people share today regarding respect for animals’ lives, it isn’t hard to understand where the opposition to animal testing comes from. Having said this, some of the arguments generated by those who oppose animal testing are incorrect. Some believe that, “Experiments on animals are cruel, expensive, and generally inapplicable to humans. (Alternatives)” Being that humans and mice share 95% of the same genes and many experiments lead to the development of vaccines that humans still use today, this claim is simply incorrect (“Forty Reasons”). Other, more accurate counterarguments stem from the increase in quantities of animals being tested on, the lack of sufficient research reports, and the fact that we now understand the emotions of the animals being tested on (Ferdowsian, Hope & Beck). Under the 3 suggested conditions of the above proposal for the future of animal research, these legitimate concerns will be taken into consideration and potentially diminished.

One major claim made by those who oppose animal research is that in vitro testing can completely replace animal testing in its entirety. In vitro testing is the process of testing different immortal tissues and cells in a controlled environment. To receive these immortal tissues and cells, they must be donated (Orthonos). One limitation posed here is the lack of willingness of humans to donate brain or heart cells for testing purposes. Opposite to the methods used in in vitro testing, in vivo testing involves the use of a whole, living organism for experimentation. Though it is undoubtedly much more ethical to use in vitro testing, there are many problems and limitations associated with it. 

As described by Dr. Rachel Hajar, “Total elimination of animal testing will significantly set back the development of essential medical devices, medicines, and treatment.” One limitation with in vitro testing is that, “they don’t emulate the environment and complexity of a living “in vivo” tissue (no surrounding tissues, no blood supply, nutrients etc.)” (Othonos). Additionally, real cells respond most accurately to what happens in the human body. It is simply not safe to depend only on the results of in vitro testing since they cannot accurately and completely determine a human body’s response to a certain test or introduction of a certain chemical (Rogers). 

Having said this, being part of the replacement sector of the 3 R’s approach, in vitro testing is not completely useless. Though it cannot take place of animal testing, it can work alongside it to replace certain parts of the research process. It can benefit animal research by increasing their ethics and reducing the costs of experiments. When used correctly, being intertwined with and supporting animal research, in vitro testing can be a very valuable tool. 

In addition to the belief that in vitro testing can fully replace in vivo testing, often times those who oppose animal research have other misconceptions as well. In terms of other alternatives to testing methods, techniques involving imaging and micro-dosing are also favored. Like in vitro testing, these methods are also significantly limited and cannot account for the information collected through in vivo testing (Othonos). Imaging techniques can provide information about the brain by “lighting it up” and observing the brain working on a large scale. Though it can provide accurate information, the resolution is quite low and it lacks the capability to interpret which cells and molecules are malfunctioning during the tests (Othonos). On the other hand, micro-dosing is the process of injecting minute amounts of a new drug into humans to investigate the bodies response. Much like the concept behind getting a shot, the idea is that such a small dosage is unlikely to cause a huge disastrous response from one’s body. Having said this, the limitation lies in the fact that it cannot effectively give insight to how the body will respond to a higher dosage, thus making this method rather dangerous.

Many oppositionists also lack knowledge regarding the amount of each type of animal used in research. Over 97 percent of the animals used in research are rats, birds, mice, or fish (“Forty Reasons”). Another common misconception is regarding the living situation and the labs in which the animal testing occurs. In a video narrated by Dr. John Young, an animal researcher, a live tour of his laboratory is given (“Animal Research Laboratory”). This video is surprising to some viewers in that it displays the clean, organized, calming environment in which the animals are kept in. 

Furthermore, many are misunderstanding the intentions and goodwill of animal researchers. Though it may not be blatantly apparent at times, animal researchers acknowledge their harm to animals, and care for their safety just as the public does. The difference is that the animal researchers also understand that what they’re doing is absolutely necessary to continue with the advancement of medicine. Researchers are driven to achieve the next best medical advancement to add to the list of those already developed through animal research. Moreover, the dangers associated with giving humans drugs that weren’t tested on animals first are rather horrifying. For example, the drug “Thalidomide” was not tested on animals and resulted in over 10,000 children being born with malformations or missing limbs (Hajar). The truth of the matter is that while animal testing simply cannot be eliminated, it can instead be modified while maintaining the high rate of medical advancements.  

One important entity that accounts for much of these misconceptions is the lack of detailed, thorough, comprehensive reports of animal researchers’ findings. Many of their reports lack details about the specific organisms they tested on, the numbers of organisms tested on, the amount of pain medicine administered, the environment in which the tests occurred in, the implications of their research, etc. (Kilkenny). This is extremely problematic because this causes unnecessary repeated experiments to occur across the globe. This also causes the general public to acquire the misconceptions they hold regarding animal research. Should the researchers provide better, more detailed reports, their findings would gain credibility, validity, and a deeper understanding by others reading their report (Kilkenny). If the reports don’t mention using randomization and don’t include enough details about each animal, future research cannot use their findings as they’re not scientifically sound or dependable. “Ideally scientific publications should present sufficient information to allow a knowledgeable reader to understand what was done, why, and how, and to assess the biological relevance of the study and the reliability and validity of the findings (Kilkenny).”

The issue posed now is how to get all research publications to include the amount of detail needed. One proposition is to create a guideline as a new standard of what to include in a report, resulting in the layout of reports to become more uniform and clear. These guidelines, being termed ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), include a 20 point checklist for reports to certify that they all contain enough information (Kilkenny). Though there would not be a law forcing researchers to adhere to these guidelines, there are incentives built into the system. To be seen as a credible, respected researcher, the reports they associate themselves with must reflect them well. Thus, in order to build their own reputation, it would be in the researchers’ best interest to follow the guidelines provided. Perhaps one of the most influential implications of adequate reporting would allow for the rate of medical advancements to increase. This would happen because it would be easier for the animal research community to combine results, find parallels between experiments and outcomes, and therefore to reach significant conclusions faster.

The use of the ARRIVE guidelines for animal experimental reporting would also be a significant tool in allowing the public to understand exactly what happens in the laboratories. If readers can see for themselves that the experiments had a significant outcome, and the reasoning behind the use of animals for certain tests, less people would resist their practice. The improvement of communication from animal researchers to the public is one relatively simple way to reduce opposition to their testing. Unlike the 3 R’s, improving their reports doesn’t necessarily mean that they have to change their research methods at all. 

On a more intrusive note, the United States government does have a set of regulations and policies that animal researchers must adhere to. That being said, the government is reluctant to make any stronger regulations on the animal testing field. Without stricter laws in place to control and alter the animal research field to become more ethical, one other organization is in charge: The Research Review Committee. This is the department in charge of ensuring that all animal testing in the United States hold a certain ethical standard and that their research proposals are scientifically sound (Boyd and Smith). In other words, when researchers want to get their project proposal approved, it is run past the Research Review Committee to determine if they can proceed with testing. More specifically, their role is, “…to discuss the ethical aspects of proposed work involving animals, and in some cases to decide whether or not the work is acceptable (Boyd and Smith 271).” Because it is not the actual government, the power of the committee is limited, and many suggest ways to make this group more influential in refining and reducing animal research (Boyd and Smith).

Should there be a way to make this group more influential, the conditions and standards of passing a project proposal could be adjusted to be stricter. This would ensure that all research projects in the United States hold a higher ethical standard, and that no experiments are accidentally repeated. Also, with a higher standard in place, fewer research proposals would be passed. Thus, the ones that do pass would be legitimate, necessary, relevant, ethical, and efficient. With every project having these attributes, the projects would gain more support, respect, and funding (Boyd and Smith). Though there would inevitably be more resistance from researchers against this adjustment, the fact that medical advancements would not be slowed, but possibly even advanced, is more important. 

In another light, these adjustments regarding the strictness of the Research Review Committee have the potential to incorporate entities of the 3 R’s. This organization has the ability to begin to enforce the use of these principals by rejecting any project proposal that transparently ignores them. By turning away some the “bad” proposals, collaboration with projects testing similar drugs would have no boundaries. These comparisons of data between approved research projects would be remarkably more scientifically sound. 

With these proposed modifications, animal research would begin to be more widely accepted as ethical, needed, and beneficial. Since it would also be better understood and supported, the amount of funding to the animal testing could increase. For this reason, it is in the best interest of the animal researchers to adjust their practices to be seen as such by the general public. The greater the backing of animal research, the greater the funding. With an increased amount of funding, the rate of medical advancements could begin to increase as well. (This is dependent on the funding being spent on the hiring of the most brilliant and determined doctors, the most efficient lab equipment, etc.) 

In order to significantly reduce opposition to animal research in the United States, the 3 R’s should be more strongly implemented, research reports should be more detailed and comprehensive, and the process of getting research proposals approved should be more selective. Under these adjustments to the animal research field, a reduction in opposition would not be the only outcome. Right now there are too many research projects occurring and not enough organization and regulations to make every project ethical, unrepeated, and significant. With the proposed adjustments, there would be a lesser quantity of projects, thus making the existing ones the most promising, organized proposals and highly detailed and comprehensive reports. These benefits in combination with an increased standard of animal ethics followed in their laboratories, allow for more scientific collaboration globally and the identification of more significant results faster. Rather than making adjustments to animal research that would slow medical advancements, or risk human lives by depending on alternative testing, these proposed alterations have the potential to do just the opposite. Due to the rate of medical advancements remaining high, and animal research gaining support, even animal researchers would not oppose these changes. 
