The relationship between human and animal has been going since the prehistoric era. It is believed that developing human-animal bond is beneficial for the key to nature preservation, as well as for the health and well-being of both. The relationship of both also influences nature in different societies. Nowadays, another benefit of the relationship is testing the animal, in order to assure a quality of a medicine, product, and cosmetic. 

Animal testing is the use of animals in research, in order to determine the safety of drugs, vaccines, or cosmetics. During the process of the experimentation, animals are either killed or later on euthanized. Oftentimes, the type of animal that is used in the experimentation is vertebrate animals including rats, birds, mice, fish, rabbits, as well as non-human primates. Companies, including biomedical research that have been using animal as part of the test think that it is the best way to make the product safe for human, as well as future development of their companies. However, they are wrong. In fact, there are more cons for animal testing itself. Alas, companies might be keep on involving animals until government make an official rule that animal testing is banned. Therefore, animal testing is necessary to be replaced in order to ensure a company’s future success as well as improving human’s well-being by replacing the animals with modern technology. 

Animals have been involved in the history of cosmetics company and biomedical research. For cosmetics company, it started in the year 1850s, where Charles Darwin stated that animals could be beneficial and could be as a human model for a variety of research scientifically. For specifically cosmetic testing, it all began in the year 1933 after a woman used a mascara produced by Lash Lure. The mascara she purchased isn’t tested for safety and in result, the mascara caused her eyes to irritate and burn and the woman went blind. Since the accident happened, cosmetics industries are concerned with their product safety. As for biomedical research, it started by early Greek scientists such as Erasistratus and Aristotle, who performed experiments on living animals. It became important in 1937, when a pharmaceutical company in USA marketed a product, which poisonous to human. The purpose of the drug is to treat streptococcal infections, by using diethylene glycol (DEG) as solvent. Thus, it caused mass poisoning and deaths of more a hundred people. There was also a tragedy that occurred in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The drug is called Thalomide, which believed to cure cough, insomnia, headache, as well as having inhibitory effect, so it was prescribed to pregnant women. The worst effect of the drug affected more than ten thousands newborn, who got missing limbs. 

Animal testing is conducted, because companies believe that animals genetically share the same DNA to human. Therefore, people can rely onto the result to ensure a product’s safety for human. It is true that Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans and Mice share 98% DNA similar to human. However, it is absolutely wrong, looking that both have different anatomic, metabolic, and cellular model that won’t be the same. Mostly, the accuracy of animal testing has only reached 43% of the time. In fact, only 19% could have been predicted out of 93 dangerous drugs. 

Several drugs that have been tested on animals failed to human. The worst scenario can be seen from the arthritis drug, Vioxx. The result showed that it was safe for human. Unfortunately, it was withdrawn in 2004 after causing 60.000 deaths in U.S alone. The failure of the result is not only because of the difference in both model and reaction. But also impacted by the stress level experienced by animals before they were tested, which affects the hormones and muscular activity. In addition, researchers mostly use males because they believe that hormones cycles impact data.

 "The overreliance on male animals and cells in preclinical research obscures key sex differences that could guide clinical studies." – Francis Collins (Director of National Institutes of Health) 

Since there are differences in the hormones, the result cannot be applied for both gender. Men and women show different effects in consuming the drugs as well as the disease that occurs, which will jeopardize the health of women if the result is being applied. Thus, it is necessary for cosmetics, food, and drugs companies to make the best product for the consumer by providing safe products. By then, the future existence of a company will be guaranteed as long as the product doesn’t cause any serious problem towards people’s health as well as their contentment.  

Compared to non-animal tests, animal testing is inefficient and more expensive. The fastest time to study a light disease takes months, whereas a substantial disease such as rodent cancer takes up to 5 years in studying the disease, which be done by involving animal in the research. Thus, the efficiency makes it impossible to evaluate more than 100,000 chemicals. Consequently, the process will delay the development of possible disease that could’ve been researched immediately. 

As for the cost, each test takes different requirements and time. Specifically, in cosmetic testing, the enormous difference can be seen in non-genotoxic cancer risk test. The cost of the test involving animal or rat 24-month cancer bioassay is $700,000. Whereas, the cost of non-animal test or Syrian Hamster Embryo (SHE) cell transformation test is $22,000. The vast difference between the cost can be used to develop approximately 30 more tests in providing the accurate result of whether the substances cause cancer or not. Other case can be seen in a problem, where scientists in the UK failed to improve their way they use animals in their experiment. The inadequate and poorly designed experiment wasted the cost to develop the research, which mostly in a typical £300,000 project, a third of the funds goes to animals. Hence, animal testing should be replaced in order to minimize the cost of the testing and allocating the excess cost for animal testing to non-animal testing, which will provide adequate and accurate result, as well as developing more outcome in chemical substances in a product. 

The funds for animal testing come from different sources depends on the country. In the UK, the research is funded by Research Council UK (RCUK). They invest around £3 billion each year to support the research for the medical and biological sciences to astronomy, physics, and environmental sciences, in order to ensure the growth, prosperity, and wellbeing of UK. While in the U.S, the funds come from tax that people paid to the government and health charities. It is part of massive regulatory testing programs that are often funded by U.S. taxpayers’ money. Each year, the government spends up to $14.5 billion on the experimentation. 

“$14.5 billion could provide a lot of tax relief for Americans. It could help pay down national debt or help prevent a shutdown,” – Anthony Bellotti (Founder and Executive Director of the Watchdog Group)

The funds that are provided by the government and magnanimous donor surely is wasted on the animal testing, instead of allocating the money onto prominent non-animal tests as well as other important thing such as country’s debts. Consequently, the fallacy of allocating the money to a wasteful research impacts an economy of a country. The failure for the government to allocate the taxes can lead to serious debts problem. When a country doesn’t pay the debts on time to the creditors, it will be bankrupt. Thus, it will affect the existence of a company, especially cosmetics, food and drugs, and biomedical research. If a company is lack of fund to examine the safety of their product, they might cannot develop other product and continuxe their existence in providing products to consumers. Furthermore, the demand to buy a product will decrease and causes a problem that every company doesn’t want.

In United States, animal testing isn’t required to test drugs and food to make sure that it could be safely consumed by people. However, cosmetic companies still use animal testing. In 2007, U.S Environmental Protection Agency changed the way chemicals are tested for human wellbeing. The scientists relied on vitro testing, which using few animals. To support the more scientific way, EPA built computational toxicology research program, that incorporates high-throughput screening and robotics. 

“Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon wants Australia to follow the lead of the European Union (EU) by banning the sale of cosmetics tested on animals,” – ABC News

In Australia, the senators are still considering to ban animal testing. If it passed, Australia will ban import cosmetics that are non-cruelty free as well as testing within the country.  

“For some time, the government has known that the world is moving away from cosmetic testing on animals. Now they have an opportunity to make sure New Zealand keeps up” – Mandy Carter (SAFE Campaign Manager)

Meanwhile in New Zealand, the amendments are being proposed to the country’s animal welfare laws. SAFE, a New Zealand based animal charity together with Humane Society International (HSI), lead a campaign to ban cosmetic testing on animals in New Zealand.

Moreover, in 2013, China was discussing on changing the regulations of cosmetic testing. China Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was working in the proposed changes. Their consideration in changing the regulations were based on consumer’s health rights. They strived to improve regulatory management for the non-special use cosmetics first such as fragrances and shampoos. Even so, they were planning on expanding on other industry. They were optimistic that once the system has been applied, then it will be expanded to cosmetics as well as imported products. 

Numerous non-animal research have been tested and prominently accurate in ensuring safety of chemical substances. In vitro testing. It is a technique of performing a given procedure in a controlled environment outside of a living organism. (The Marshall Protocol Knowledge Base, 2012). It is used to diagnose disease and monitor the clinical status of a patient by using blood or cells. In Vitro has been proven to replicate human’s drug responses, physiology, and diseases. For instance, Androgen Hormones Interactions test. Compared to the animal test using Rat Hershberger assay, in vitro test is $29,700 cheaper. Other proven alternative is computer modeling. It stimulates human biology and the progression of developing diseases. According to National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), it can accurately predict how new chemical substances will react to human’s body. 

“The use of adverse outcome pathways is a means by which mechanism-based in vitro assays and models can be developed to rapidly and accurately evaluate chemical risk without the use of animals. It is exciting to see good work recognized” – Jim McKim (PhD, Editor-in-Chief of Applied In Vitro Toxicology)

Moreover, there is a solution in changing the principle of doing the experiment and applying that to all animal involved company as well as biomedical research. The principle is called 3R; replacement, reduction, refinement. Replacement is to involve to animal at all testing, which is by using the alternatives that are proven and provided. Reduction is to decrease the number of animal used in the experimentation to obtain the result. Refinement is to make sure that the animals that are involved in the experimentation experience less suffer and pain. This method still doesn’t replace animal testing at all. However, it could be a step to replace animal testing wholly for companies, especially for those who insist in changing their method in developing their future of the company. 

Besides changes brought by companies that involve animal testing, consumers also have to support non-animal testing and show their disagreement towards animal testing. Consumers can buy non-cruelty products, in order to show that people can live with products that are non-cruelty. Companies such as Lush, The Body Shop, Bath and Body Works, and NYX do not test on animals. They believe that testing chemicals on animals is inhumane and causes strenuous pain. Moreover, they believe that there is more humane way in testing chemicals and producing accurate and safe result for human well-being. Therefore, before buying a product, people can simply check the logo whether it is vegan or not, in order to ensure that no animals were harmed during the safety testing. 

“Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” – Nelson Mandela

Educating people is one of the simplest thing people can do to help support the alternatives of animal testing. Unfortunately, there are still many people that disparage the power of education, which contributes the development of animal testing alternatives. By simply telling people that testing animal on cosmetics and drugs doesn’t guarantee that the products are safe. Moreover, the person can provide the products that do and do not test on animals, in order to help others change and support the alternatives of animal testing. Thus, it can help companies to stop involving animals in their research. 

Another effort that can be done by people is to only support and fund non-animal testing charities and organizations. In the Unites States, PETA is the largest animal organization that has more than five million members and donators. It works in evaluating cruelty investigations, animal rescue, as well as protest campaign. Moreover, PETA has also provided more than $1.8 million in funding promising non-animal test experimentation and alternatives to animal testing such as supporting toxicity test, cancer testing, and skin testing. Other organization is Humane Society International (HSI). It is an animal organization that was founded in 1991, that has expanded their activities to Africa, Asia, and Australia. It has helped reducing government’s animal testing requirement through their public policy in Europe. It also exposes the failure in animal testing that can inform companies that fund animal testing to shift the fund to more promising non-animal test. 
