Animals are caring creatures. They resemble humans in many ways; however, they cannot communicate their feelings or express pain the same way humans can. Because of this, they are often targets of cruelty and neglect. Animal testing has been a popular practice for decades. The beauty industry experiments and test their products on animals in the name of science and the well-being of their customers. Animal testing is extremely unfair to animals. Animals are bred in labs or adopted from the local animal shelter and forced to live a miserable life under the microscope. Animal rights activists all over the world make tremendous efforts to advocate for these animals and demand that animal experimentation is band from the beauty industry. Activists such as Michael Balls, Franklin Loew, Andrew Rowan, and Tom Regan use articles to inform the public about the inhumane treatment of animals in laboratories and the many alternatives to animal testing. Java Films production has joined the fight against animal experimentation by producing a documentary in which pharmaceutical companies are interrogated about the well-being of the animals used in laboratories. Despite the enormous support behind banning animal testing, there are those who believe that animal testing is beneficial. Scholars like V Baumans and Carl Cohen discuss the benefits of animal testing on their articles and explain why animals do not suffer. Animal testing is thought of as a necessity by pharmaceutical companies and the cosmetics industry while many others argue that animal experimentation is an antiquated, horrific practice that should be eradicated from the laboratories.

The Humane Society of the United States is the country’s most active animal protection organization. The HSUS’s mission is to provide hands-on care and service to animals that have been victims of animal cruelty or animal testing. The Humane Society of the United States knows better than anyone the effects of animal testing on defenseless animals. Animal testing is a cruel method used around the world by the beauty industry to determine if a certain product is safe for human use. Despite it being barbaric, animal testing is common in the United States even though it is not mandatory. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, regulated by the FDA, does not require that animal tests be conducted on cosmetics to prove their safety for consumer use. Despite the many different alternatives to cosmetics testing, many companies continue to rely on this ancient practice. Only when consumers show a strong preference for cruelty-free cosmetics, will beauty companies make an effort to stop animal testing and find alternatives (HSUS). 

While the HSUS provides evidence that questions the reasons why animal testing is still used, Franklin Loew and Andre Rowan take it a step further by examining the animal testing timeline and how it has changed in the last few decades. Animal testing history can be divided into three phases (Rowan and Lowes 111). The first phase began in the 1860s when animal testing was established as a necessary procedure in laboratory experimentation. This phase was also marked by an increase in opposition by the consumers of different products. The second phase began around the 1920s when animal testing gained more popularity as it helped in drug discovery and developing biological data. Opposition began to diminish around this period in time. The third phase began in 1950 as the government increased the budget for biochemical research and the demand for laboratory animal increased. Since then, animal testing has become a common practice among health industries, including the beauty industry, and is split among six different categories. The categories of animal testing include educational, drug discovery, toxicity testing, the testing of biological agents, medical diagnosis, and other research (immunology, zoology, etc.). Although unclear, medical research, also known as basic research, could account for up to 25% of all animal use in laboratories.

Alan Newman, an editor and writer for Analytical Chemistry, also writes a thought-provoking article that corroborates with Rowan and Loews statistics. In the 1990s, the U.S Department of Agriculture released terrifying statistics about the trends in animal use in laboratories (Newman 135). The use of animals in laboratories is evenly split between commercial (cosmetics and household products) and noncommercial purposes (medical research) (Rowan and Loew 112). According to Newman, estimates calculate that currently about 20 million animals are used in laboratories (135). Rowan and Loew add to this by stating of the 20 million animals used, half are used for product testing while the other 10 million are used for medical testing (112).  These animals have suffered for decades in inhumane cages, without painkillers, and in unsanitary conditions. Even more troubling, the Department of Agriculture states that nearly 6.6% of animals in laboratories are not administered painkillers because they could negatively affect the results of the experiment (Newman 135). Newman adds to the scary truth by stating that most of the animals used in basic research are “sacrificed during or following the experiment” (135). After living a horrific life, the animals used for animal testing meet their end as soon as they are not needed in laboratories. Efforts are being made by influential people around the world to lower these statistics and discover new ways to replace animal testing.    

 Various magazines, like The Baltimore Sun, have published articles regarding the future of animal testing. Meredith Cohn writes about methods being studied that could one day replace animal testing. The periodical, posted on March 12, 2017, has new information regarding the study being conducted at John Hopkin’s University that aims to determine how reliable are animal tests at determining whether drugs and chemicals are “toxic” to humans (Cohn 2017). The results of this study could shed some light on the ongoing fight against animal testing. Beauty and chemical companies frequently use animals to test their products before they are put out on the market. However, there is not a proper study that shows just how reliable animal testing is when compared to other alternatives. Katya Tsaioun, director of the Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration in the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, says that it is a critical time to provide evidence that animal testing is not accurate.  A recent poll shows a small majority of Americans oppose animal testing and would prefer that companies use other cruelty-free methods (Cohn). Functional alternatives are being tested around the country and “tissue on a chip” seems to be the most promising. Tissue on a chip is a “small, plastic stick with internal channels containing human cells which are run through a chemical or drug to test for toxicity” (Cohn). The more alternatives that are experimented, the better it will be for humans and animals. 

Michael Balls, an equine veterinarian and scholar writer, also presents alternatives in research, education, and testing. The concept of replacement alternatives for animal testing surfaced in the 1950s which led many to raise questions about the ethics of animal experimentation (Balls 193). Strict rules and guidelines were enforced based on the principles of reduction, refinement, and replacement.  In the mid-1980s, alternative methods became exceedingly popular and people pledged to inform themselves, to support, and to accept the validated alternatives as replacements for animal procedures (Balls 196). Michael Balls puts in simple words that “any judgement that the use of animals is necessary should be regarded as one which may change over time and with scientific advance” (Balls 196). There are countless replacement alternatives such as using physical and chemical techniques to predict the properties of molecules and the use of mathematical and computer models, like QSAR which takes advantage of correlations between molecular structure and biological activity, to predict the effect of a substance on human tissue (Balls). Episkin, another alternative to animal testing, is the first skin prototype that perfectly resembles human skin and is used to test cosmetics that could irritate the skin (Merali 2007).

A very powerful book, Animal Experimentation, was published in 1991. The book was edited by Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum and it consists of a collection of essays by animal right advocates, like Tom Regan, and defenders of animal experimentation, such as Carl Cohen. Rosenbaum and Baird describe the term speciesism. Speciesism is a concept used to describe the idea that animals are less valuable than humans simply because they are not human (Baird and Rosenbaum 8). Animal rights activists claim that using animals in tests is as “morally repugnant as using Jews, or women, for experimental purpose” (Baird and Rosenbaum 9). The editors agree with animal advocates by explaining that speciesism is deep in our culture because we are unaware of the unfairness in our treatment of animals. Many researchers argue that the experimentation is necessary to make the world a better place without ever mentioning the amount of pain and suffering inflicted on animals during these tests. The editors even go as far as discussing the idea that people should not feel comfortable when treating animals cruelly because they might “lose their natural resistance to treating persons cruelly” (Baird and Rosenbaum 12). This idea does not feel so farfetched when you consider how pharmaceutical and beauty companies knowingly inflict pain on beings that are extremely similar to humans without any remorse. 

 Tom Regan, an animal rights activist, also has interesting opinions on animal experimentation. He published his essay “The Case for Animal Rights” in Baird and Rosenbaum’s book Animal Experimentation: The Moral Issue. He believes that what is primarily wrong with the system is that we think of animals as “our resources, here for us-to be eaten, or surgically manipulated, or exploited for sport or money” (Regan 78).  Regan explains that in order for animal experimentation to be banned, people must change their beliefs before they change their habits. He believes the idea of animal rights has, not just emotion, but reason on its side. We have an indirect duty to protect animals for the sake of humanity (Regan 79). Regan argues that when an animal’s value is reduced to how useful it is to humans, “their rights are routinely, systematically violated” (87). 

Documentaries have played a massive role at exposing the devastating truth behind animal experiments. The documentary, titled “Bye Bye Guinea Pigs- Alternatives to Animal Testing”, goes in depth as the reporter uncovers gruesome details of the life of animals that live incarcerated in pharmaceutical and cosmetic laboratories. The first task of the documentary is proving how big corporations, such as Pfizer and GSK, refuse to talk about the animal experimentation that happens in their companies behind closed doors. The reporter made an effort to call these companies and talk to them about animal testing, but they all refused to make any clear statements about their laboratory animal procedures. The reporter then attempts to visit the Pfizer laboratories, but while she is greeted by one of their CEOs, she is denied entry to the laboratory because it is not “accessible to regular people” (Bye Bye Guinea Pigs). The pharmaceutical companies are not only being accused of animal abuse, but also the experiment methods themselves are being questioned by the scientific community (Bye Bye Guinea Pigs). Anyone who is willing to look at the quantitative data can see that it is fundamentally wrong. Biologist agree that “two-thirds of the experimental result are wrong. What [the animal experiments] describe does not represent underlying biological truth” (Bye Bye Guinea Pigs). The reporter went on to interview a small group of researchers who were willing to break the silence about the experimentation practices. While some expressed their concern for the lack of rules that regulate animal tests, beneath the surface, they all still cling on to the same belief that animal testing is a necessary evil. 

Despite the immense support animal advocates get, many people are still not fully convinced that animal testing’s disadvantages outweigh the benefit. In her article “The Truth Behind Animal Testing”, Shany Sun explores the drawbacks, benefits and alternatives of animal testing. Sun explains the National Institute of Health (NIH) funds over half of all animal experiments which are strictly regulated by the Animal Welfare Act and the USDA. Animal rights activists make it seem like animals are in constant agony, but in reality, mistreatment is rare (Shany 85).  Tom Still, from the Wisconsin Technology Council, states “Information about the true extent of animal research – and its benefits for humans and animals alike – deserves to be heard above the bullhorns and protest signs” (Shany 84). Shany states that animal research benefits both animals and humans by helping develop new drugs and vaccines. Over 160 vaccines and drugs have been developed and approved by the USDA through animal testing. Disease such as cholera, polio, and meningitis have vaccines because they were originally discovered while they were tested on animals.  Blood transfusions, penicillin, insulin, and kidney transplants were also first tested on animals and have now become critical procedures and medications that has saved countless lives. Shany argues that the idea is not to completely stop drug/chemical testing but to simply replace animals with cruelty-free alternatives. Shany Sun agrees with Meredith Cohn’s article proposition to use computer modeling and tissue culture as replacement alternatives for animals in laboratories. However, she understands that it will be decades before these alternatives completely replace animal testing and the suffering ends (Shany 85). While it may be complicated to replace animals in test, it is not impossible to do so. We are extremely close to finding the perfect alternatives so we should not give up despite the obstacles.  

Other scholars like Carl Cohen understand the need for animal testing and its benefits. According to Carl Cohen, animals “lack the capacity for free moral judgement” (865). In other words, animals are not capable of creating their own moral claims and therefore have no rights. If animals have no rights, then no rights are violated when they are subject to animal testing. This is the main argument against the so-called animal rights. Cohen also explains that it is incorrect to “infer that a live being has, simply in being alive, a “right” to its life” (865). Believing that just because animals are alive they possess the right to live is absurd.  However, Cohen states that individuals with disabilities that are not able to make moral decisions should not be excluded from society. This is what Cohen calls “an issue one of a kind” (866). Cohen also explains that animal suffering shouldn’t be caused unnecessarily. However, it is illogical to think that animals experience pain the same way that humans do (Cohen 866). Cohen believes that there are “morally relevant differences” between a human and a cat for example. Humans have moral standing, animals do not (Cohen 867). The belief that animals are senseless creatures does not justify animal testing. Like Tom Regan explained, as humans, we have the duty to protect animals from harm and treat them fairly (Regan 79).  

Animal activist around the world wonder why the beauty industry continues to test their products on live animals despite research showing that there are more accurate, cheaper methods to test the safety of a product. This question has many different answers. Some argue that animal testing is unavoidable. This controversial subject also attracts a lot of protesters. Important magazines, such as New Scientist, have published articles that highlight the negative effects of animal testing. Documentaries have also been made that expose the cruel truth behind animal experimentation.  Andre Rowan and Franklin Loew provide statistics that calculate that about 20 million animals are used in laboratories around the United States and many of them suffer daily. Michael Balls and Zeeya Merali take a different approach on their articles. Instead of simply stating facts that make animal testing seem like a barbaric practice, they propose alternative methods that could be used to test the safety of a product. Merali presents the discovery of Episkin, a skin prototype that perfectly resembles human skin, which could replace animals in cosmetics tests. Balls agrees with her by stating that research shows that, compared to alternative methods, animal testing is less reliable and more expensive. After all the research that I have done, I can confidently say that I am completely opposed to animal testing despite its benefits. With technology on the rise, I am sure that better alternative methods will be created that will one day replace animals in laboratories.
