Testing on live animals is common practice in many research facilities in the United States today. Many different species are used for testing, including mice, rats, birds, fish, guinea pigs, etc. These animals are used for a variety of reasons. For example, testing products such as pharmaceuticals and cosmetics before they become available to the general public. They may also be used in environmental and medical research as well. Animal testing has saved human lives and has even benefitted animals in some cases. Unfortunately, some animal testing can involve pain and may lead to the death of animals. Causing animals to experience pain and suffering has resulted in public concern. Over the years, there has been an effort to improve how animal testing is done. As early as 1959, William Russell and Rex Burch introduced the idea of the three “R’s” of animal testing. The first objective was to “refine” animal testing by improving the living conditions of the animals and avoiding unnecessary pain. Second, to “reduce” the number of subjects used in tests and lastly, to “replace” animals with other testing procedures and new technologies. Since then, there has been much progress made with regard to animal testing procedure as well as finding alternative methods to replace animal testing.  New alternative methods have been developed and technology in the field of product testing and research is constantly advancing. However, there is currently no replacement for testing on complex organisms, making animal testing a crucial part of research and product safety assessment.

It is argued that animal testing is a necessary tool for making advancement in science and ensuring that the products that people use are safe. Dr. Simon Festing, the Chief Executive of Understanding Animal Research, claims that animal testing is a way to “save human lives and prevent people from suffering.” Festing explains how many alternatives are utilized in research, but “you can’t study a beating heart in a test tube.” In some situations, animal testing may be the only solution due to the complexity of bodily function. It is very difficult to replicate something as complex as the nervous system, circulatory system, or endocrine system of an organism. Also, scientists might not be able to determine the side effects of a product, especially long-term effects. Testing products and medicine is incredible important according to the scientists and companies involved in various fields of study:

“A 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% ‘agreed that the use of animals in research is essential.’ The American Cancer Society, American Physiological Society, National Association for Biomedical Research, American Heart Association, and the Society of Toxicology all advocate the use of animals in scientific research” (Cressey, Daniel).

Animal testing remains a large part of the research procedures in laboratories, and has resulted in some of the most crucial scientific discoveries such as vaccines and medicine.

Animal testing is also used for testing products in order to ensure that they are safe to use. In the United States, The Food and Drug Administration supports and recommends the practice of animal testing to “assure the safety of a product or ingredient” (US Food and Drug Administration) before it goes on the market. Mosquito repellent, for example, is a product that protects people from malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, zika fever and more. For the chemicals in the product to be declared safe, they have to undergo toxicology tests (involving animals) in order to be sold in the United States and in Europe (SC Johnson). These tests not only ensure the safety of millions of people, they also serve to ensure the safety of animals and the environment by testing how certain chemicals affect living organisms.

There is no question that animal testing has saved the lives of individuals around the world. One of the most impactful examples is the development of the Polio vaccine. “Polio cases have decreased by over 99% since 1988, from an estimated 350 000 cases then, to 74 reported cases in 2015” (World Health Organization). The polio vaccine, tested on animals, has almost completely eradicated the disease. The reason testing on animals is effective is because humans share many common characteristics with animal species: “chimpanzees share more that 99% of DNA with humans and mice share more than 98% DNA with humans, therefore, animals are susceptible to many of the same health problems as humans” (California Biomedical Research Association). Because animals are so similar to humans, when people benefit from testing, the animals benefit as well. Jon Klingborg, the past-president of the California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA), states, “These animals are heroes. Their contribution to discovering life-saving advancements in medicine and science—for both pets and humans—is enormous…Thanks to the last century of animal research, we have achieved life-saving treatments for people and animals. As veterinarians, we are able to treat more ailments and prevent more diseases, and that allows us to keep our pets living longer and healthier” (Consunji). Klingborg discusses how research in the veterinary field has had a strong positive impact on animals and people. If it wasn’t for animal experimenting, more pets would die each year from diseases because we would not have the vaccines and treatments necessary. Experimenting on animals has resulted in vaccines that save lives of animals today from diseases such as the parvo virus, leukemia, rabies, and tetanus. 

There is a common public opinion that animal testing is cruel and inhumane. Pamela Rowsey, PhD, RN, is the professor and chair of Adult Health Nursing at UNC Chapel Hill. In her journal article “Using Animals in Nursing Research,” Rowsey discusses how animal testing is very beneficial to nursing research, and not inhumane. She states that “scientists who use animals plan experiments using principles that are similar to those that guide human/clinical research. We guard against any suffering by the animal subjects (Animal Welfare Act, 1966). A body similar to the institutional review board (IRB) for human research approves each animal experiment (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee)” (Rowsey 1515). Pamela Rowsey has had firsthand experience with animal testing procedure and claims that animal research has had a positive effect in her field of study, and has revealed complications that could have been a problem in humans if not discovered during the research period. Rowsey also makes reference to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) in her article. 

The AWA is legislation that essentially protects the rights of animals being used for research purposes. Some main points of the laws include regulations that research facilities have to abide by and how facilities need to have their experimental procedure approved by the USDA.  The AWA also sets guidelines for animal care and treatment, living conditions, humane transportation, as well as certain species of animals that can and cannot be used. Section 2137 states, “Purchase of dogs or cats by research facilities prohibited except from authorized operators of auction sales and licensed dealers or exhibitors” (“Animal Welfare Act”). In addition, the laws protect many farm animals such as horses, pigs, cows from testing. The AWA serves to highly regulate animal testing in the U.S., reducing the number of animals being tested on.

Although the effort to reduce animal testing appears to be substantial, results of a study that concluded in 2015 raises some questions. Michael Casey, a writer for CBS News, published an article about a study conducted by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) that claims that “The use of animals in experiments at leading federally-funded labs has increased nearly 73 percent in the past 15 years” (Casey). The study concluded that “the number of animals tested rose from 1,566,994 in 1997 to 2,705,772 in 2012 in testing by the top 25 institutional recipients of National Institute of Health grants” (Casey). Government funded research facilities have increased the number of animal subjects used in tests over the past 15 years. Within these facilities, the species most commonly used is mice, bred specifically for lab tests. The study also found that the experimental use of primates has also increased, but not nearly as much as other species. Still, the statistics presented in the article are alarming considering emerging alternatives that have been developed to reduce that number of animals being tested on.

 Alternative test methods have been designed to replace animal testing, lowering the total number of animals being tested on. More alternative tests would mean less animals that have to experience pain and suffering for our benefit. W.S. Stokes, who works for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, writes, “In order to positively impact the welfare of these animals, accepted alternatives must be implemented, and efforts must be directed at eliminating pain and distress and reducing animal numbers” (Stokes 1297). With modern technology, new ways to replace animal testing are being introduced. In addition to alternative methods, alternative organisms are starting to be tested on as well. According to the UFZ, Department of Bioanalytical Ecotoxicology, Dr. Stephan Scholz is currently working at the University of Nagoya, Japan. He is studying “transgenic fish models,” and recently focusing on “fish embryo models,” which appear to be a useful alternative test method. These lower level vertebrates can replace mammals in some cases. For example, the zebra fish is being studied for it’s good qualities that would make it a good test model. In early development, “It has a nearly transparent body… which helps easy visual access to the internal anatomy. The optical clarity allows direct observation of developmental stages, identification of phenotypic traits during mutagenesis, easy screening, assessment of endpoint of toxicity testing and direct observation of gene expression through light microscopy. Small size, short life cycle and high fecundity favor its laboratory use” (Doke, Sonali). Scientists claim that the zebra fish model has many applications in research, such as furthering our understanding of cancer and other complications due to genetic mutation. These models may have the potential to replace invasive surgeries on animals that are typically used to study cancer.

Similarly, microorganisms and invertebrates can also be helpful in replacing some of the more traditional animals currently used in experimentation. Even though it would appear that these organisms are very different compared to humans and other mammals, they have been successful is aiding scientists with their research. Organisms such as fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) and roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans) have short life cycles, are cheap to house in laboratories, and cause less ethical problems. These organisms are surprisingly very similar to humans, genetically speaking: “The adult fly is a very complex organism. The functions of various structures like the heart, lungs, gut, kidney and reproductive tract are equivalent as that of mammals” (Doke, Sonali). One uses of fruit flies has been “to investigate neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimers, Parkinson’s, disease and Huntington’s disease” (Doke, Sonali). These studies have been successful because the brain of an adult fruit fly is very complex and carries out various functions that are typical of many animals, including humans. Microorganisms, such as brewing yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), has also been used by researchers as an alternative organism method. Their structure is useful in experiments because, “The numerous membrane-bound organelles like nucleus, peroxisome, mitochondria and the organelles of secretary pathway also mimic the functions of mammalian cells. Brewing yeast is used to understand programmed cell death, cell death regulators in humans and is very useful in cancer research” (Doke, Sonali). When broken down to cellular structure and function, microorganism cells are much like our own, and could be helpful in directing us towards a solution. But, the human body and upper level vertebrates are still more complex and have systems that function differently in some cases, which is a limitation of alternative organism models.

Another useful alternative testing method in some cases is the in vitro technique, which refers to cell cultures in petri dishes, stem cells, and tissue slices. In the Indian Journal of Pharmacology, Dr. Dinesh K. Badyal and Dr. Desal Chetna explain, “These techniques can be efficiently used to screen highly toxic compounds at an early stage. Many in vitro techniques have evolved, but the concept is new and awaits validation and standardization” (Badyal, Chetna). These methods can serve to replace having to test the toxicity of substances on actual organisms, such as mice. This is good in cases where the chemical in a product might cause pain/irritation to the skin. Instead, the substance can be tested in a cell culture, and be observed. However, as the doctors stated, the method still needs to be validated. Although the in vitro method may work well in cases such as testing a skin product, it will not test for any complications that could occur in other parts of the body. For example, a product applied on the skin is absorbed by the body, and it is important to know if the product has side effects.

Another alternative test method is starting to be developed and utilized, called in silico (computer based testing). Based on our current knowledge of reactions in the body, researchers have developed computer models based on mathematics that can predict how the body will react to a drug. Dr. Dinesh K. Badyal and Dr. Desal Chetna, experts in clinical pharmacology claim that “Computer-based alternatives are being used in many countries. In India, two models are currently available: Expharm and Xcology” (Badyal, Dinesh K., and Chetna Desal.). The doctors state that “Several ‘virtual humans’ have been constructed by creating mathematical models of known human reactions. A few examples include computer models to model human metabolism, to study plaque buildup and cardiovascular risk and to evaluate toxicity of drugs. For example, the protease inhibitors for patients with HIV were designed by computer and tested in human tissue cultures and computer models, bypassing animal tests due to the urgent need for a treatment. A new cardiovascular drug was developed and approved in 1997 based on data from a virtual heart as animal data were inconclusive. The day is not far off when E-cell which resembles a hypothetical cell is likely to revolutionize the drug research” (Badyal, Dinesh K., and Chetna Desal.). The potential of computer models to replace actual organisms for testing appears to be immense. However, authors also mention that “Potential new drugs identified using these techniques require verification in animal and human tests before licensing” (Badyal, Dinesh K., and Chetna Desal.). So, even though this alternative method could be very useful in the future, it is still in the developmental stages and requires animal/human testing prior to being validated. Another limitation of this method is that because of how complicated biological responses can be in real organisms, the computer simulations are not 100% accurate.

Alternative methods to animal testing are being utilized as much as possible in the United States right now. There has been steady progress made towards finding new ways to replace animals in research and product testing methods. The use of cell cultures, computer models, microorganisms, invertebrates, and lower level vertebrates are becoming more and more popular, and researchers are working on new alternatives as well. Science and technology is constantly improving and new ideas are being tested every year. One day in the future, it is possible that research and test facilities will not have to use animals for experimentation and will rely solely on alternative tests. However, with today’s technology, animal testing is the most effective way to assess product safety for pharmaceuticals and cosmetic products. Animal testing is regulated by the government and legislation that protects animals and prohibits inhumane treatment. Testing on animals has pros and cons, but it currently provides us the best chance to keep humans, animals, and the environment safe. 
