Dominguez 1

Jesus A. Dominguez

Professor Briones

ENGL 1302 228

28 March, 2024

The Use of Animal Experimentation

From modern day testing to the early days of animal experimentation, humanity has

heavily relied on the use of animals for medical, scientific, academic, and manufacturing fields.

Animal activists and researchers have been in a constant battle to decide how to balance human

advancement with animal rights. The most common justifications for supporters of animal

experimentation are the breakthroughs in medicine, science, and education that animal testing

has brought to humanity and to animals themselves. However, with rapid growth in

technological advancement, people are beginning to pressure scientists to move on from such old

practices, even if it means worsening scientific results. Animal testing has been a huge

controversy and will continue to be a huge controversy until humanity comes up with a solution

that can satisfy both sides. The use of animals in experiments should be justified if used in the

right circumstances and under the right conditions; medical, scientific, and academic fields need

animal testing until there is another option that is better than animal testing, with one of the

exceptions being animal testing in the cosmetic industry.

In the medical field, animal testing is commonplace and, in most cases, necessary before

anything is tested on humans. Animal practices in medicine are one of the most useful and

justified means of animal testing because they directly correlate with saving future lives. Dr.

Stanley Norton Gershoff, a pioneer in the nutrition community, explains in an article that the
 Dominguez 2

sacrifice of a small number of animals is worth saving the lives of thousands of people. He

states, "What sane person…would not support an experiment that would sacrifice ten animals to

save the lives of 10,000 people?" (99). He does not see a reason why that sacrifice would not be

made. Animal experimentation saves lives; it has been seen time and time again throughout

history, especially in the field of Anesthesiology. Dr Goyal Rakhee, a professor at the Armed

Forces Medical College and Command Hospital, states that "Some considered it as a

contribution to scientific discoveries while the others accused it as cruelty to animals. Animal

experiments have contributed immensely towards scientific progression… it is pertinent not to

forget that all efforts should always be thoughtful, well-judged, and lawful. The immeasurable

contribution of animal research to the science of anesthesiology must be truly acknowledged"

(151). He gives great examples of scientific breakthroughs in the medical field thanks to the use

of animal experimentation, but he does raise a very important point. All experiments should be

well planned, and throughout, scientists need to understand that they are working with living

creatures and that cruelty can cause horrid effects on poor animals. Researcher Ryan De Villiers

ran a study that sampled 100 anonymous life science and natural science teachers in South

African universities and surveyed them regarding the use of vivisections and the opening of live

animals in research and education. His findings found that about 90% of these professors were

pro-animal rights. Words from professors include "the abuse of animals is morally wrong" and

"they should be treated with respect" (94). The article states, "Educators… have to instil in

learners and students… a respect towards nature" (95). The article focuses on the belief that

animals need to be treated with respect instead of having them used in cruel practices. Luckily,

Vivisection has been outlawed in many countries, along with other extreme methods of animal

testing. Another study shows that a majority of people agree on the use of animal
 Dominguez 3

experimentation as long as it is the last possible option. "This study indicates that it is justifiable

to use animals in experimentations only when there are no alternatives, and the tests have

significant benefits to humans" (Kabene, et al, 8). Everyone from researchers to activists wishes

to minimize the cruelty that animals face when being experienced, but we cannot replace animal

testing just yet. Today's technology still forces us to be reliant on these old methods because of

their reliability. It is best to combine different methods, both involving animals and not involving

animals, to yield the best results. Animal testing was a big part in the creation of the COVID-19

vaccine. For example, researchers mention “Understanding the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is

vitally important for control of the epidemic disease. At present, Syrian hamsters and ferrets are

well characterized as models to study the transmission prevention of SARS CoV-2, because of

the comparability of transmission to humans” (Zhenfei, et al, 561).

The use of animal testing on consumer products is normally the most talked about subject

when discussing this topic because of the ethical concerns involving it. Medical, scientific, and

educational purposes are typically seen as more important than consumer products, like air

fresheners, soaps, and makeup. The previously mentioned Kabene, Stefane, and Said Baadel

conducted research comparing the public's opinion on animal testing in medical research

compared to cosmetic research, and the results fully favored the medical side. With over 80% of

people agreeing that animal research in the medical field is acceptable or somewhat acceptable.

That same question was asked regarding cosmetic research, and 93% of people agreed that it was

unacceptable or somewhat unacceptable. A majority of the public agrees that animal testing in

the production of consumer goods should not be allowed. Along with the public, governments

also have the same ideology when discussing animal testing and experimentation on cosmetic

products. An article explaining the overview of cosmetic regulations states, "Fortunately, the
 Dominguez 4

replacement of animal testing in cosmetics by alternative methods is, currently, a high priority

for the industry, and the list of countries with enforced animal testing bans is growing" (Ferreira,

Mariana, et al. 11). After stating this she provides the readers with more information specifying

the nations that have banned animal testing on cosmetic products. Examples include the E.U.,

which has some of the strictest restrictions, banning both finished cosmetic products and

cosmetic ingredients that were made using animal testing. The article also explains countries that

are following in the footsteps of the E.U.; examples include the United States implementing bans

on California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, and Virginia, as well as

Brazil also banning animal testing cosmetics in multiple of their states. Another study was

conducted in which citizens of New Zealand, a country that has banned animal testing on

cosmetic products, were interviewed. It found that "A majority of respondents agreed that the use

of animals for teaching (72%) and research and testing (68%) purposes was acceptable as long as

there was no unnecessary suffering by the animals." (Williams, et al, 61). This shows that even

in a country known to be against animal testing for cosmetics, the people can all agree that it

should be used for more important reasons, such as teaching, and research.

Animal testing has been known as controversial for dozens of years, but the advancements

in medicine and science have brought forth and will continue to bring forth future growth for

humanity. Animal testing should not be taken for granted, and it should be used for the most

important reasons; it is hard to justify the use of living creatures for experiments unless it's for

the most necessary reasons. It is because of this reasoning that animal testing should be banned

for cosmetic and consumer products; it is very unnecessary to use live animals to test consumer

goods. The number of lives saved thanks to animal testing is enormous; more people should
 Dominguez 5

understand that animal testing in the medical and scientific fields is very important to

everybody's lives.
 Dominguez 6

Works Cited

Bi Z, Hong W, Yang J, Lu S, Peng X. Animal models for SARS-CoV-2 infection and pathology.

MedComm. 2021; 2: 548–568. https://doi.org/10.1002/mco2.98

De Villiers, Rian. "The animal experimentation controversy: ethical views of prospective

teachers." Perspectives in Education, vol. 30, no. 3, 2012, pp. 88-97,127. ProQuest,

https://go.openathens.net/redirector/tamiu.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-

journals/animal-experimentation-controversy-ethical-views/docview/1566312616/se-2.

Gershoff, Stanley N. "Animal Experimentation--a Personal View." Nutrition Reviews, vol. 67,

no. 2, 2009, pp. 95-99. ProQuest, https://go.openathens.net/redirector/tamiu.edu?

url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/animal-experimentation-personal-

view/docview/66865184/se-2, doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2008.00144.x.

Goyal, Rakhee. "Animal Testing in the History of Anesthesia: Now and then, some Stories, some

Facts." Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 31, no. 2, 2015, pp. 149-

151. ProQuest,

https://go.openathens.net/redirector/tamiu.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-

journals/animal-testing-history-anesthesia-now-then-some/docview/1680185747/se-2,

doi:https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-9185.155139.

Ferreira, Mariana, et al. "Overview of Cosmetic Regulatory Frameworks Around the World."

Cosmetics, vol. 9, no. 4, 2022, pp. 72. ProQuest,

https://go.openathens.net/redirector/tamiu.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-

journals/overview-cosmetic-regulatory-frameworks-around/docview/2706128440/se-2,

doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/cosmetics9040072.
 Dominguez 7

Kabene, Stefane, and Said Baadel. "Bioethicsc: a look at animal testing in medicine and

cosmetics in the UK." Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, vol. 12, 2019.

ProQuest,

https://go.openathens.net/redirector/tamiu.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-

journals/bioethics-look-at-animal-testing-medicine/docview/2352706980/se-2,

doi:https://doi.org/10.18502/jmehm.v12i15.1875.

Williams, V. M., I. T. Dacre, and M. Elliott. "Public Attitudes in New Zealand Towards the use

of Animals for Research, Testing and Teaching Purposes." New Zealand Veterinary

Journal, vol. 55, no. 2, 2007, pp. 61-68. ProQuest,

https://go.openathens.net/redirector/tamiu.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-

journals/public-attitudes-new-zealand-towards-use-animals/docview/70358895/se-2.