Animal Testing and its Alternatives

Written by Regina Enriquez and Edited by Kevin Liu

Animal testing is, unfortunately, a common practice in obtaining research data that continues to be a very controversial subject due to scientific and ethical reasons. Across the globe, about 115 million animals are subjected to lab experiments annually [1]. However, some countries are less strict with the documentation of animal use, so the actual numbers may be even higher than reported, and animal testing may increase in the upcoming years [2]. In efforts to ensure proper animal treatment, the U.S. passed laws like the 1966 Animal Welfare Act, which established fundamental regulations for lab animals, and independent committees. Non-clinical studies must comply with the Good Laboratory Practice for Nonclinical Laboratory Studies, which requires a written protocol for the study, appropriate standard operating procedures, and a study director be present when testing the safety of their product on animals. Additionally, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee oversees animal research for approved experiments [3]. To gain approval, the researcher must demonstrate that animal use is necessary and that the appropriate species is chosen for experimentation, which include, but are not limited to rats, mice, rabbits, farm animals, dogs, and monkeys [1]. 

Advocates of animal testing claim it is necessary for the progression of biomedical research due to lab animal’s genetic makeup being similar to humans, their susceptibility to human diseases, and their data on a drug’s effect on a living creature. All of which help researchers conclude whether the drug is safe for further human use. Since humans share 98% of their DNA with mice, a majority of the experiments regarding diabetes, heart disease, and cancer are performed on rodents in the United States [4]. By observing animals’ reaction to possible medical products, scientists can infer how effective the treatment would be for combating human diseases. For example, researchers can study animals injected with cancer cells and then treat them with a potential vaccine in order to gather data on how much of the drug is absorbed into their bloodstream, as well as how it is chemically processed in the body and any side effects [3]. The toxicity of the drug following animal consumption is determined through various trials before proceeding onto human testing. 

On other hand, critics of animal testing is claim that this expensive practice is a form of inhumane treatment, wasting the lives of these animals, and may prove unreliable for discovering cures for specifically human disease. All animals aim to survive, and exhibit behaviors similar to that of humans— demonstrating problem-solving and communication skills, as well as emotions, and the ability to experience physical pain and psychological distress – therefore, scientists may be putting many animals through unnecessary pain and suffering [2]. Only a small fraction of animal-tested products become approved and enter the market [5]. While animals are good models for the human condition, they are not exactly the same either, treatments that function perfectly for animals may have adverse effects when given to humans. For example, an animal-tested and approved drug known as Vioxx was intended to treat arthritis, but it was shortly taken off the market it was discovered to increase the risk of cardiovascular complications in users [5]. Conversely, some substances are safe for human consumption but toxic for animals.

The three Rs— reduction, replacement, and refinement— suggest that better methods of testing exist, allowing us to circumvent animal testing. Simply reducing the number of animals being used in an experiment would lessen the effects of animal testing. Whereas completely replacing animal testing with nonanimal techniques such as computational models and cell culture systems is another option [6]. This also applies to high profile industries such as cosmetics, where their animal-tested products have been met with strong opposition due to makeup being perceived by some as an unnecessary luxury. In recent years, most cosmetic companies do not test on animals and exercise the aforementioned alternative methods to make their product more desirable for consumers [7]. Lastly, modifying or refining experiments that require animal testing to reduce pain and distress in animals are another method for keeping these processes humane and handled with care.

References:

1. “About Animal Testing.” Humane Society International / Global, Humane Society International, 2012, www.hsi.org/news-media/about/. Accessed 29 Oct. 2020. 
2. Ferdowsian H.R., Beck N. (2011) Ethical and Scientific Considerations Regarding Animal Testing and Research. PLOS ONE, 6:1-4. 
3. “Why Are Animals Used for Testing Medical Products?” FDA Basics, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2019, www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-basics/why-are-animals-used-testing medical-products. Accessed 29 Oct. 2020. 
4. “Why Animal Research?” Animal Research at Stanford, Stanford Medicine, www.med.stanford.edu/animalresearch/why-animal-research. Accessed 29 Oct. 2020. 
5. “Arguments against Animal Testing.” Cruelty Free International, www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/why-we-do-it/arguments-against-animal-testing. Accessed 29 Oct. 2020. 
6. Doke S.K., Dhawale S.C. (2015). Alternatives to animal testing: A review, Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, 23: 223-229.7. Balls. M. (1994). Replacement of Animal Procedures: Alternatives in Research, Education and Testing. Laboratory Animals, 28: 193–211.