Consider everyday activities for a few moments. Perhaps some of those activities are using shampoos, taking prescriptions, or using cosmetic products. At first, none of those three routines can be linked. However, there is a connection. All of the routines listed involve products originally tested on animals. Some of the tests result in the animal dying, while in others, the animal is permanently crippled. Also, some of the animals used are pet species, such as dogs, cats, and rabbits. A pet species or any other animal dying in an experiment is not justifiable if there are alternatives that do not use animals. Also, animals have different behaviors than humans, which may make a test ineffective and lead to a false conclusion. An example is chocolate killing a dog, despite being a tasty treat for a human. Due to the usage of cats and dogs, the alternatives, including fungi, and weak and incomplete regulation, such as the Animal Welfare Act, animal testing is unethical and needs to be replaced by a suitable alternative.

Animal testing is nothing new as its history can be traced back for over two thousand years. While sources cannot agree on the exact time animal experiments were first used, there are some theories. It is shown that Aristotle used animal experimentation in the third century BC (Hajar). However, not much else is known about his tests. One of the newer tests, vivisection, was first used “in the seventeenth century” (“Vivisection”). Before the advent of animal testing, people blamed a variety of elements for diseases and plagues. In one case, the air was blamed for malaria. There is also the Holocaust and other genocides, where people were tested rather than the animals. Also, some countries do a few of their tests on death row prisoners, but the ethics of this are disputed with most considering that unethical. The animal testing industry began government and self-regulations in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Recently, animal rights groups were established and soon after, these groups rose in popularity. Some of these groups include, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and The Humane Society of the United States, to name a few. To some of these people in these organizations, the lives of the thousands of animals tested matter more than the lives of the experimenters testing the animals. In some cases, these people protest outside animal testing facilities. A few of these groups and their people have extremist positions. By the 1980’s, some of the groups went to violence when they vandalized and stole materials in research centers (“Vivisection”). Even today, there are still instances of animal rights violence. In fact, animal welfare violence is on the rise (Conn and Parker 186). Despite all of this, animal rights extremists are in the minority, even in animal welfare groups. Also, while there has been threats, vandalism, and aborted experiments, no one has died because of animal rights violence (Conn and Parker 186). However, it is a major setback for animal welfare. If one of these attacks were to make the national news, it would portray animal rights groups in a negative light. In an age of social media, this can be turned into a misrepresentation. Animal laboratories are also not exclusive to one region, as there are over 7,000 animal testing facilities in the United States alone (Wadman). However, animal rights and experimentation are not big news stories and the mainstream media rarely covers it, despite some of the species tested being the same as household pets.

One unfortunate link would be the animals that are used by the experimenters. It is not uncommon for animal testing facilities to use dogs or rabbits as test species. To some, this is unethical as both animals are also considered pets. Some animal rights groups have responded to the use of testing pets by playing commercials with sad music and caged dogs. During the commercials, questions will appear such as why do they keep beating me, or when will I eat again. These commercials bring pathos when they are played due to dogs being a common household pet. Sometimes, cats are used with the same purpose. However, dogs are not the top animal used in the facilities, and neither are rabbits. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, nearly one million animals were tested in 2014 and top animal tested is guinea pigs, which is a pet species (Annual Report 10). However, those numbers are mass underestimates as only mammals are covered. There is no data for non-mammals because the laws do not cover those species, only estimates. Even with that drawback, the USDA showed that in 2014, “21,083 cats, 59,358 dogs, and 150,344 rabbits were tested along with 169,528 guinea pigs” (Annual Report 10). This means that in just one year, nearly a quarter of a million pet animals were tested and it is probably more since there is only data for mammals. Public data should be provided to show if animal experimentation is decreasing. In fact, in February 2017, the USDA removed public access to animal testing reports, citing “privacy rights of the individuals” (Wadman). This is ironic as the rights of the animals were violated, since it would be much harder to find and report unethical testing. Also, this is a double standard as almost all funded work is public, but these tests are not. The only way to get information about the tests is with a “Freedom of Information Act request”, which are not granted that often (Wadman). It would also be harder to see if alternatives are being used and if procedures follow ethics.

There are several alternatives to testing animals. Of course, one of the alternatives is testing humans, but that is clearly unethical and few people are for such a procedure, even if a few locations test on death row prisoners and the DNA is a perfect match. Also, human experimentation was used in various genocides such as the Holocaust, so the public is not eager to use it again. Another, more ethical proposal is using non-animal substitutes. Some of the substitutes include breading yeast and fungi (Doke and Dhawale 227). However, there is a drawback to using non-animal substitutes instead of animals. These species share less DNA with humans than the species that are typically used, which would reduce the effectiveness of a vaccine, acne cream, or a prescription. Another disadvantage is that some of the substitutes are limited in purpose, having only a few uses, unlike animals, which have a universal use. Even with these drawbacks, it would be advantageous to use non-animal substitutes as they have shorter lifespans than animals and are easier to control. Furthermore, improvements in these species can improve the effectiveness of a vaccine or a prescription. Another advantage is that fungi and protists are almost never considered pet species. A second alternative is using computer models. One of the models used is the Structure Activity Relationship program, which “predicts biological activity of drugs” (Doke and Dhawale 225). These models simulate the behaviors of laboratory animals. Despite the model used, there is one disadvantage all models share and that is instead of the real animal, a model is used. However, this is still a strong alternative as Doke and Dhawale explain that, “the cost of new techniques was much less than traditional [animal testing]” (225). Furthermore, no animals are killed or crippled in a computer simulation, which makes this alternative ethical. There is also a third alternative, but this one is in a prototype stage. Recently, a new method known as Sharing Experimental Animal Resources, Coordinating Holdings, or SEARCH for short had begun early pilot tests. The results have already shown that this has potential to replace and eliminate animal testing as “400 animals were spared since 2014” (Morrissey et al. 5). The key in the SEARCH method is the saving and sharing animal of tissue for future tests, hence its name. The only disadvantage is that it still requires animal tissue, although human tissue can be used. However, less animals will be used and the method saves both time and animal lives. In fact, the lives of the animals will not even be interfered. Originally, setting up an animal test could take as long as eighteen months, but Morrissey et al. claims that the SEARCH protocol can reduce this time to “a matter of weeks” (5). This is because of the animal tissue and other materials are shared rather than created, which cuts down on the number of experiments. Furthermore, if SEARCH is effective with animal tissue, it will not be long until one finds a similar method that works with non-animal substitutes, such as protists and fungi. Another advantage with SEARCH is the industry support. A poll of 135 animal testers showed that “90% would benefit from a SEARCH initiative” (Morrissey et al. 2). This means that, in the near future, SEARCH could be the top procedure with methods such as vivisection and LD50 falling out of popularity due to the latter methods having questionable ethics and being time consuming. With computer models, non-animal equivalents, and SEARCH, the lives of animals will be saved and far fewer animals, if any, will be experimented on. There is no excuse to test on an animal when alternatives, such as fungi, protists, and/or a computer model is feasible and ready to use. Also, the animal testing industry is regulated in multiple ways, most of which are for the safety of the animals. One of the regulations is an annual report of the animals that are used (Wadman). However, it is far from perfect and the laws can always be changed. Enforcement of animal welfare laws is, at best, spotty and at worse, unenforced as animals continue to be tested and killed, sometimes without following well established procedures.

Animal experimentation is under heavy regulation by both procedures and government bodies, but this regulation is often filled with loopholes and exclusions. Self-regulation was introduced in 1957 and a few years later this set of rules was named the three R’s and became a generally accepted procedure worldwide (Doke and Dhawale 224). The R’s stand for: reduction, refinement, and replacement. Future experiments were to use less animals, better methods, and non-animal substitutes. However, there is nothing about the rate of reduction, replacement, or refinement. Arguably, the rate of reduction can be exploited to be as slow as possible, such as a 1% reduction per year, as the policy has no numerical and measurable goals, just simple guidelines. While self-regulations had cut down on unnecessary and unethical animal killings, there was originally no government regulation in the United States. The three R’s are a procedure, not a law, and there are no civil or criminal penalties for breaking it. In the United States, this changed in 1966 when the Animal Welfare Act passed and became law (Doke and Dhawale 224). With the Animal Welfare Act, the three R’s policy became, to some degree, enforceable, although that enforcement is not strong. The act has since been amended several times. There is some irony as even with all this regulation passed, pet species are still occasionally used. There is no law in the United States preventing dogs, cats, rabbits, and other pet animals from being the test subjects, despite the species being some of the most popular pets. Even the Animal Welfare Act, the American animal testing standard, has some legal holes, as it can be changed with a Congressional vote. In 2002, the act was amended to exclude “rats, mice, and birds”, rolling back the efforts of animal rights groups (R. 381). Experimenters are less likely to use the three R’s and non-animal alternatives on animals that do not have protection, as to them, it is just another animal. Some will argue that this amendment removes an unnecessary wall in the testing of prescriptions and cosmetics. However, this amendment is ruining the lives of many pet species, at little return. This law is important, as without it, there would be no protection for laboratory animals in the United States outside the three R’s, which is a set of guidelines. However, the 2002 amendment needs to be rolled back as some types of birds and rats are pet species and thus testing them or any other animals would be unethical. In fact, the Animal Welfare Act should be amended to show that all testing and experimentation pet species is banned and that there will be no more federal funding for experimenters that want to test on animals, with heavy fines for violations. Some would disagree with such a proposal as it may reduce the implementation of vital vaccines and prescriptions. However, it is a strong compromise, as animals can still be tested, but without any federal funding. Add to the fact, that alternatives will have increased funding, and it will not be long until almost all researchers are using these substitutes. There is an obstacle to achieving this goal as another federal law is preventing the end of unethical animal experimentation. After a scandal in the mid 1930’s, where a poisonous drug took the lives of over one hundred people without first being animal tested, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was passed, requiring animal testing on prescriptions (Hajar). This law would have to be amended or repealed to achieve the elimination of animal testing. While there were few, if any alternatives in the 1930’s, today that is not the case, due to the success of non-animal substitutes and SEARCH, to name a few. There were also only a few animal support groups compared to many groups active today. Another solution is to increase funding for alternative methods such as SEARCH and computer models to attract researchers. Secondly, these laws only apply in the United States and will not change the lives or welfare of laboratory animals in other countries. However, some countries have stricter laws than the United States and the three R’s are worldwide. For instance, in the United Kingdom, a law was passed in 1986 encouraging “the use of [non-animal alternatives] when possible (Watts 183). However, even a nearly perfect law has holes. Few British experimenters and scientists even know that the law is on the books and enforcement is minimal (Watts 183). If the United States can adopt and enforce the UK law, or something close to that code, the use of animals in tests and experiments will be at an all-time low. Alternatives must be used unless it is absolutely impossible. Even if this proposal cannot pass Congress, a backup would be to allow animal testing, but to eliminate any federal funding for these tests and ban the experimentation of pet species. Smaller nations, such Malta have similar laws, showing that more often than not, the laws around the world cover the same basic concepts. The Malta Medical Journal explains that “experiments have to be approved by a council” (Scerri 20). It should also be noted that this council includes “two [people] representing the interest of animal welfare groups” (Scerri 21). Many other nations have similar rules, where the test must be approved before it starts, however the committees in other nations do not have someone that is for animal rights in their groups. Also, Malta is a member state of the European Union, so EU law also applies in the island nation. The EU has a similar law to the UK, except that there is more enforcement (Watts 183). The three R’s also apply in both Malta and the rest of the EU as it is a worldwide procedure. The public support to end animal experimentation is strong and growing. However, even with this support, opinions today remain sharply divided. In a 2014 Pew Research Poll, “50% were against the use of animals for research” (Funk). This means that a majority are against animal testing for the first time since polls on the topic have begun. Funk also cited a similar poll done by Pew in 2009 which had “43% [opposing] the use of animals”, showing that fewer people are for animal testing (Funk). However, support among men is still relatively low. The same 2014 study showed that only “32% of men are against using animals for research” (Funk). If the support among men can reach 50% or higher, that might be enough to try to convince Congress to amend the Animal Welfare Act. A perfect law would be one either outright bans animal testing, or one that prohibits federal funding to be used for animal experimentation. With a few minor tweaks in the regulations, laws, and procedures, the elimination of animal experiments is on the horizon. Laboratory animals and animal testing will soon be removed and become a relic of the past.

Animal testing remains a controversial issue. On one hand, the lives of all animal species matter, especially the pet species, which include dogs, cats, and rabbits, to name a few. On the other hand, vaccines, prescriptions, and many cosmetic products will be harder to find and will be expensive due to the low supply and high demand. Some may even be impossible to find. However, even if cosmetics become more expensive or drugs are harder to find, animal testing remains unethical. Testing on an animal when there is a plethora of alternatives is a sign that animal lives do not matter, despite the three R’s procedure and animal welfare laws. Dogs, cats, and rabbits are some of the most popular pets in the United States. It would be depressing to see any of those animals be killed or severely injured, even if it is in the name of science or to find a cure for a disease. Yet, despite laws, procedures, and alternatives, animals are still experimented on unethically and the media typically ignores it. Those laws remain weak and are rarely enforced. With alternatives and public support, the lives of these laboratory animals can finally be saved, the small minority in animal rights groups can stop using threats, and, finally, ethical methods can be used for drug and cosmetic testing.
