Introduction
Animal experimentation has played a major role in medical research, with some reviewers linking it back to researchers such as Aristotle in 384 – 322 BC (Hajar, 2011). Worrying for some, it is estimated that over 100 million animals are used annually for experimental reasons (RSPCA, 2019), that can be spread across areas such as epidemiology, medicine advancements and cosmetics. Hajar (2011) explained further in the article how the twelfth century saw a researcher named Zuhr begin to use animals as a method of testing surgical procedures before such procedures were carried out on human surgical patients. The changes that have occurred over time and the development of various animal rights groups has led to increased criticism over the past decade with many laws being introduced to alter the way biomedical research is conducted.
There are many examples of animal experimentation that can create controversy based on how each individual feels about the topic. For example, Hajar (2011) outlines how in 1937 a pharmaceutical company in America used diethylene glycol as a solvent and simply added a flavouring to it and the sulfanilamide before marketing. Unknown to the company at the time, diethylene glycol is poisonous and led the deaths of hundreds of users. At the time no testing had not been carried out on either human patients or animals and, as a response to the fallout out from this and other similar events, the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was passed. This new regulation required safe-use testing to be conducted to a required standard before a product could be marketed.
Despite the laws being introduced, there tends to be a divided opinion on the need for animal experimentation. Many decades ago, animal testing was deemed necessary for reasons such as the one mentioned above, however the change in opinion has many questioning the scale of experimentation on animals or if animals can be replaced completely to be more inclusive of all opinions expressed.
Arguments For The Use Of Animals During Research
To argue for the use of different animals in developments are largely based around the opinions of putting human life over the life of animals. It would be hard to find anyone that would disagree that the world is forever developing and as such markets such as food, medical, cosmetics and educational purposes will continue to need developments. Some may refer to the review submitted by Hajar (2011) but many are likely to discuss to key statistics that can be found on various publications. One example is Understanding Animal Research (2014). As an organisation aiming to alert the public to what animal welfare is, they have compiled some facts that provide a strong argument for the use of animals. A significant reason they give is that nearly all vital breakthroughs have come from research using animals which is in no small way related to the statistic that humans share roughly 95% of our genes with mice making them an ideal comparative tool for human research (Understanding Animal Research, 2014). These points are furthered as humans and animals have a great deal of similarities including organ systems and their functions and the illnesses suffered including tuberculosis, asthma and cancer. To contradict a point made in support of the complete withdrawal of animals from trials, Understanding Animal Research (2014) note that non-animal methods of research cannot act as a replacement for 100% of the animals that are used. This point shows a flaw in the outstanding work shown by L’Oréal (n.d.) in which they used human skin models for research.
The Foundation for Biomedical Research, based in the United States, explained how an increase of 8.5% in organ transplants in the U.S. occurred between 2015 and 2016 bringing the total to 33,606 (Foundation for Biomedical Research, n.d.). It can be assumed that the majority of individuals have had some form of experience with organ donation whether it is in the form of education, work or being the recipient/donor of an organ, and therefore the majority will know the necessity and importance of the research surrounding it. The baseline research that went into this critical medical development all began Eduard Zirm successfully completed a cornea transplant with the help of rabbits during research, as explained by the Foundation for Biomedical Research (n.d.). They continued by clarifying that extended research was needed to find solutions to the possibility of organ rejection. As a result, dogs played a pivotal role in the development of immunosuppressant drugs from the 1950’s before the first successful heart transplant in 1967 by Dr. Christiaan Barnard (Foundation for Biomedical Research, n.d.).
Once again referring to heart transplantation, Columbia University (n.d.) provide key information as to why animals should be used in research. Although the university has not committed to either side of the argument, it expressed how the number of transplants fell from 100 to just 18 in two years between 1968 and 1970 (Columbia University, n.d.). the reasoning behind this was patient fear following the short life duration of the first successful transplant patient. This shows how animals, with close similarities to humans are key in minimising fear in humans and to further develop the subject area.
Support Against The Use Of Animals
The arguments for animal experimentation would largely fall under the argument of animal welfare. Animal welfare is the allowance for animals to be used for biomedical research and a variety of other research providing the protocol in place follows the humane guidelines that are set out. Of course the support is not as simple as following animal welfare guidelines. Some individuals will feel that human lives outweigh animal lives and steps should be in place to protect human life from the mass poisoning seen in the diethylene glycol error. This is one example of human lives being put in higher regard to animals as described in the article by Hajar (2011).
The American Veterinary Medical Association, known as A.V.M.A. for short, is one of many companies and associations that have adapted the animal welfare regulations successfully. Under these regulations, A.V.M.A. have brought in a number of key areas such as all animals must have adequate provision of food, water and health care as well as being handled in a respectful manner. During experiments they also must experience the minimum amount of pain, fear and stress and ultimately given a humane method of passing when it is necessary (AVMA, 2019).
What animal rights activists will want to see are the regulations, such as those set out by AVMA, being implemented rather than just being noted in publications and L’Oréal are a great example that activists will surely be referring to.
L’Oréal, a French company specialising is personal care have more than adapted to the regulations that have been brought in, having come to the point of completely banning the use of animals for testing in line with European law. L’Oréal pioneered remarkable research through the creation of human skin models in 1979 before completely refraining from the use of animal testing in their product in 1989 (L’Oréal, n.d.). The reason behind animal rights activists using this company as an argument for animal welfare is that it is extremely supportive of not only reducing the number of animals used in experimentation, but the complete removal of animals from testing.
Cosmetics company Avon came under criticism in 2012 and exhibits how animal welfare should be a matter of doing rather than just thinking. It is this outcome of the news breaking that support animal rights activists to push for the strict enforcement of animal welfare regulations, across the globe as one, rather than alterations from country to country. The news itself was that Avon, although claiming and receiving credit from PETA for being supportive of animal welfare, had been selling products to countries that required animal testing before public sales was possible. At first glance the numbers appear small but when scrutinised it is clear that this is false. With around 9,000 products on the market in China and the requirement that 3% are tested on animals this equates to 27 products (The PlantWay, 2019). Some may argue that 27 products out of a total of 9,000 is extremely small but Dr. Dan Lyons, the lead of animal welfare group Uncaged, explained further on The PlantWay (2019) website, that each ingredient of the 27 products is routinely tested roughly fifteen times resulting in the harm of over 1,000 animals per trial. Suddenly the small numbers have amplified greatly to the point where the welfare of animals being used can be questioned and support unanimously agreed animal welfare.
The development of insulin would further the support for animal welfare whilst enabling important scientific discoveries. As previously mentioned, the number of animals forcibly enrolled annually in testing products for human use is shockingly high. Something a lot of the general public are not aware of is the fact that the basis of injectable insulin as a treatment for diabetes mellitus began with just ten dogs in Frederick Banting’s research (Quianzon et. al, 2012). Of course, some may say that ten dogs is ten dogs too many but with many developments and arguments, animal welfare aims to balance both arguments and create a solution for all parties as seen in the creation of animal ‘freedoms’ (Mellor, 2016). The issue with insulin research surrounds the details of further research. With the success from using just ten dogs being so great, this naturally led to more detailed research and the incorporation of further animals in the form of mice. This research was claiming to be able to reverse the disease (Diabetes UK, 2011).
Evaluation
Arguments for and against the use of animals within research is forever developing and each side has strong and valid points. From one point of view, animals have been used for many decades now and have led to crucial and successful medical developments in the form of products such as insulin and also procedures like transplants. Although they are only two of the wide range of medical examples, the beneficial outcomes are astonishing and a clear positive to using animals. However, the argument is still sustainable by showing that even the smallest recruitment numbers can lead to some of the most relied upon medical developments in the modern world.
The animals in question are not randomly chosen, in other words, a researcher will not pick a certain animal based on how they feel that particular day. The researcher will instead methodically pick animals such as mice who, as explained earlier using Understanding Animal Research (2014), share 95% of the same genes.
Of course this is of no benefit to those opposed to the use of animals as it has been proven that animals are not required as much as they are used, again using the example of L’Oréal who adapted their own techniques that allow them to test products, but test without animals. An obvious criticism would be why be reliant on animal trials when organisations such as the National Health Service carry out trials on humans (NHS, 2016). If trials are being carried out by health services across the world they must have an approved level of safety and can still lead to a lot of developments in a lot of areas.
The downside to this point is that not all trials can be carried without animals being involved and unfortunately some may require the loss of animal life. However, laws have been passed and regulations put in place to ensure that the animals are treated with dignity, respect and the care that one would give to a pet, with the exception of the testing aspect. So again this would nullify the animals are inhumanely treated and support animal in trials whilst being regulated by welfare laws.
In the majority of clinical trials, 95% is seen as an important level in terms of proven something significant or not, in other words, 5% can make a huge difference. This creates a doubt around the relevance that a 95% gene match gives when compared to a 100% gene match that researchers would obtain when using humans as a test method rather than relying on animal subjects who can voice opinions or give feedback like their human counterparts could.
The work by Dr. Christiaan Barnard (Foundation for Biomedical Research, n.d.) was seen as a success, despite the patient only surviving an additional 18 days following the procedures, and therefore it is highly regarded within the medical community. However when evaluating the impact of the research at the time it could be asked just how successful it was as it took a large number of rabbits to get a bloodless transplant success and a further 50 dogs throughout the research process to get a patient an extra 18 days of life. Such a short lifespan post operation ultimately led to a very significant drop in transplant surgeries (Columbia University, n.d.), as potential patients had minimal increase in confidence and reassurance, if any, in the procedure after the research had been carried out due to the ‘success’.
Regulations have been put in place in different areas such as America and Europe and would generally be considered supportive in the argument for the use of animals but upon scrutinising them, is it easy to see how they are not applied continuously. Cosmetic company Avon is the best example of this due to their products being involved in animal testing in China. The worrying fact is that they still received accreditation from PETA (The PlantWay, 2019). Not only did animals get products rigorously tested on them and the process going undetected for a number of years, costumers within the public were misled. This is not to say that the deceit was bad as the public was lied to, it was bad as through these lies animals were mistreated and a lot of the public would have used products that would be against their religion and beliefs.
Conclusion
In conclusion, from a neutral point of view in the argument, both sides have some well-established facts and figures to support their opinion. However, it is hard to see a point in time when there is complete agreement on the topic of using animals in research or not. At present, it is simply a matter of analysing and weighing the different arguments from both sides of the topic in conjunction with what is necessary for the research.
References
- Avma.org. (2019). Animal Welfare: What Is It?. [online] Available at: https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Reference/AnimalWelfare/Pages/what-is-animal-welfare.aspx [Accessed 11 Mar. 2019].
- Columbiasurgery.org. (n.d.). A Brief History of Heart Transplantation | Columbia University Department of Surgery. [online] Available at: http://columbiasurgery.org/heart-transplant/brief-history-heart-transplantation [Accessed 14 Mar. 2019].
- Diabetes UK. (2011). Researchers claim to reverse diabetes in mice. [online] Available at: https://www.diabetes.org.uk/about_us/news_landing_page/researchers-claim-to-reverse-diabetes-in-mice [Accessed 14 Mar. 2019].
- Foundation for Biomedical Research. (n.d.). Animal Research Achievements | Foundation for Biomedical Research. [online] Available at: https://fbresearch.org/medical-advances/animal-testing-research-achievements/ [Accessed 16 Mar. 2019].
- Hajar, R. (2011). Animal testing and medicine. Heart Views, [online] 12(1), p.42. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3123518/ [Accessed 10 Mar. 2019].
- Loreal.com. (n.d.). The Question of Animal Testing – L’Oréal Group. [online] Available at: https://www.loreal.com/sustainability/l’or%C3%A9al-answers/the-question-of-animal-testing [Accessed 12 Mar. 2019].
- Mellor, D. (2016). Updating Animal Welfare Thinking: Moving beyond the “Five Freedoms” towards “A Life Worth Living”. Animals, 6(3), p.21.
- nhs.uk. (2016). Clinical trials. [online] Available at: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/clinical-trials/ [Accessed 17 Mar. 2019].
- Quianzon, C. and Cheikh, I. (2012). History of insulin. Journal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine Perspectives, 2(2), p.18701.
- Rspca.org.uk. (2019). Laboratory animals | Use of animals in experiments & research – RSPCA. [online] Available at: https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/laboratory [Accessed 10 Mar. 2019].
- ThePlantWay.com. (2019). The Truth About Avon’s Animal Testing Policy. [online] Available at: https://www.theplantway.com/avon-animal-testing-policy/ [Accessed 14 Mar. 2019].
- Understanding Animal Research. (2014). Forty reasons why we need animals in research | Understanding Animal Research | Understanding Animal Research. [online] Available at: http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/contact-us/science-action-network/forty-reasons-why-we-need-animals-in-research/ [Accessed 15 Mar. 2019].
2019-3-26-1553614692