The Ethics of Animal Testing

to make use of a limited number of animals for the sake of human lives. This belief is derived

from the theory of consequentialism; a popular stance for those who support animal research.

A consequentialist, in this case, would believe that the largely positive end result of animal

testing justifies the means by which it was attained; the death of a number of animals. There

are three factors that are considered when deciding if animal research is ethical according to

the consequentialist theory. The first is the value of the goal of research, that is, how many

people will it affect positively and how? Animal research is always valuable, whether it is to

find a cure for a specific disease or just improving our knowledge of the body. In fact, the

U.S Department of Health and Human Services claims that animal research has extended the

human life 20.8 years (Pringle, 1989). Millions of people around the world have been either

cured or helped by vaccines and drugs developed by animal testing, therefore complying with

the first factor of the value of research. The second factor is the degree of harm experienced

by the animal. Recent studies by the United States Department of Agriculture have revealed

that 94% of animals used do not feel any pain or slight and momentary pain such as a

pinprick, or they receive anaesthesia or painkillers where possible.

 (Americans for Medical Progress, 2006). The third factor taken into account is the

availability of alternatives.  Scientists today only use animals where it is absolutely

necessary. Alternatives such as cell  culture experimentation are available and used where

possible, but are frequently just not enough. Considering these factors, one can accept animal

testing as morally correct and  necessary through the theory of consequentialism. Many forget

the fact that animals also benefit from the research; vaccines against rabies, parvovirus,

hepatitis, anthrax and tetanus have saved animal lives as well.

 (Americans for Medical Progress, 2006). The end result of potentially millions of saved

human and animal lives most definitely justifies the means. Animal research has had an

enormous positive effect on scientific progression and continues to bring to light many cures

for diseases, vaccines and surgical techniques in the medical field.

The Benefits of Scientific Progression Justify the Means.

Disease and sickness directly or indirectly affects everyone, and through the knowledge

gained through animal research, modern medicine can now help these people much more

effectively. Previous medical and scientific studies have advanced our knowledge

significantly, and further research is performed every day to give hope to those suffering

incurable and disabling diseases. Cardiovascular disease affects 3.5million people in

Australia alone, most of which benefit from such discoveries as open heart surgery, heart

valve replacement and the development of artificial hearts- all of which would not be possible

without animal testing (Committee to Update Science, 2004). Cancer is another tragic disease

affecting millions around the globe. Through animal testing, an understanding of how viruses

cause tumours, the treatment to limit tumour growth, chemotherapy, radiation and surgical

techniques were all developed using animals such as rats, mice, chickens and rabbits.

 (Committee to Update Science, 2004). Yes, every medical discovery in history has been

affected or helped by animal testing somehow. To abolish it would be absurd. Between the

years 1995 and 2002, AIDs related deaths in the US decreased by 70%, largely thanks to

animal research. Over 28million people have died from AIDs since it was first identified two

decades ago and it has been accepted as a worldwide epidemic. Current research on

microbicides, tested on rhesus monkeys, holds great potential for finding a low cost way of

slowing the spread of HIV in poorer countries such as Africa.

 (Foundation for Biomedical Research, 2008). To stop testing which could possibly help such

a vast amount of people  would be unethical and immoral.  

It has been stated that without animal research, our medical system would be similar to that

of the late Victorian period (Matfield, 2002). Today, over 180 million people worldwide have

diabetes. Through the discovery of insulin tested on dogs and rabbits, it is estimated that

these simple regular injections have saved over 30million lives (Matfield, 2002). Surely,

these numbers would convince the sceptic that animal testing is undeniably essential for the

greater good. Animal research over the years has given the human race the potential to cure

many life threatening diseases and given us a much greater knowledge of how to protect our

bodies from such diseases. If animal testing stopped, over 2million paralysed in the US alone

would have no hope of ever walking again (Foundation for Biomedical Research, 2008). To

prevent further research to advance our scientific knowledge and extinguish the hope of those

affected by disease would be morally and ethically wrong. These statistics prove that there is

and has been an extraordinary end result for animal testing. The process taken to get to this

end result is typically painless and humane, partly due to the extensive laws put in place to

ensure humane treatment and also the scientific view that bad treatment= bad science.

The Means are Reasonable.

Recognizing the indispensable end result of scientific progression is one thing, but the

consequentialist must also consider the means by which the result was attained, and in this

case, the means are humane and mostly painless for the animals. There are a few reasons why

one can ensure that the animals are treated with the utmost care and consideration when

involved in research. One reason is the fact that there are extensive and strict laws in place

protecting the welfare of the animals. In the U.S, the Animal Welfare Act was passed in 1966

and amended several times to provide strict laws regarding housing, veterinary care, pain

alleviation and oversight. One of the laws it contained required all research institutions to

register with the United States Department of Agriculture and establish and Institutional

Animal Care and Use Committee to review protocols involving live, warm blooded animals.

The IACUC requires each institute to provide a report containing information to clarify why

and how they are performing a particular experiment. Firstly, the institute must justify why

they need to use a particular animal, which species it belongs to and the number used. Next,

they must describe the procedure and drugs used to minimize pain and suffering. Then, they

are required to provide a description of the methods and sources used to search for an

alternative to the animal testing and a description of the search to make sure the experiment

hasn’t already been performed. These prerequisites are thoroughly examined before the

experiment goes forward. Each institution must include five members to regulate

experimentation and ensure the animals are treated well. These include a veterinarian, at least

one experienced scientist, a professional whose concerns are not scientific and a member of

the community who has nothing to do with the institution.  (Committee to Update Science, 2004).

These requirements mean that the experiment is unbiased and looks out for the welfare  of the

animals involved. The UK and other countries where animal testing takes place have  similar

laws to protect the wellbeing of the animals. Abiding by the law is one thing, but  there are

other guidelines scientists follow to ensure the proper treatment of tested animals and that

further illustrate the morally acceptable means undergone to get results.

Scientists are human beings who are not out to terrorize or hurt animals, but treat them with

compassion and abide by guidelines provided to ensure they receive the utmost care. For

humane and scientific purposes, researchers are sincerely considerate of the condition of the

animals they study. Poor care results in unreliable research data. The animals must be healthy

for the results to be valid. Also, pain and distress are thought to have negative impact on the

immune system, so researchers are careful to protect their animals from undue stress. In

addition to these accepted beliefs, “The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique”

created by William Russell and Rex Burch in 1959 provide concise ways of making animal

experimentation more efficient and reducing the number of animals needed in the process.

These principles, otherwise known as the ‘3 Rs’, promote the replacement of experiments for

alternatives such as vitro where possible, the reduction of animals needed by using statistics

and the refinement of experiments to reduce suffering. Researchers around the globe base

their experiments around these principles with great results. While researching for a polio

vaccine, researchers began testing on cell cultures and managed to reduce the amount of

monkeys needed from 5000 to 10 (BBC, 2004). The principles and laws which are abided by

researchers guarantee the wellbeing and humane treatment of laboratory animals. This falls

into line with the consequentialist requirement that the means are worth the end result.

Animals rarely suffer any discomfort or pain in experimentation, and the end result of saved

lives and scientific advancement truly outweighs the course of minor animal distress by

which it was achieved.

According to the consequentialist theory, it is clear that the end result of scientific

progression is worth the sacrifice of laboratory animals. An animal’s instrumental value is

worth more than their intrinsic value to the human race and the benefits humans gain at the

expense of the laboratory animals are phenomenal. The suffering animals endure in the

process is minimal compared to the suffering the human race continues to endure thanks to

the diseases across the world. Animals are necessary in advancing scientific and medical

knowledge, and without animal testing, every human being on earth would suffer. All the

greatest medical advances have been thanks to animal research whether directly or indirectly,

and to abolish animal testing to save animals at the expense of the human race would be

immoral and unethical.

Bibliography

(2004, August 17). Retrieved March 28, 2008, from BBC: www.bbc.co.uk/print/science/hottopics/animalexperiments/print.shtml

(2006). Retrieved March 19, 2008, from Americans for Medical Progress: http://www.amprogress.org/site/c.jrLUK0PDLoF/b.1086461/k.60EC/ANIMAL_RESEARCH_FACTS.htm

(2007, February 20). Retrieved April 2, 2008, from Voiceless- the fund for animals: http://www.voiceless.org.au/Get_Informed/Factory_Farming/Factory_Farming.html

(2008). Retrieved April 2, 2008, from Foundation for Biomedical Research: http://www.amprogress.org/site/c.jrLUK0PDLoF/b.1086461/k.60EC/ANIMAL_RESEARCH_FACTS.htm

Anis, J. (2005). The Ethics of Animal Testing. Retrieved April 5, 2008, from http://www.zamaros.net

Committee to Update Science. (2004). Science, Medicine and Animals. Washington, DC, USA.

Matfield, M. (2002). Animal Experiments: Medical Progress and Animal Rights Protests. In Animal Experimentation- Good or Bad? (p. 4). Abingdon: Hodder and Stoughton.

Pringle, L. (1989). The Animal Rights Controversy. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.