Should animal testing be banned?

Dear Editor,

I recently read your article on the subject of animal testing (vivisection), and believe that you were extremely biased towards continuing to test on animals. On the other hand, I do understand that you used some valid points on the illegalisation of vivisection, but nevertheless, I believe you were still biased. I am writing to you to argue for the illegalisation of animal testing, and hopefully, after reading this letter, you will agree with me and write a new article, which hopefully, shall be a more balanced one.

The main reason that I believe vivisection should be illegalised is that millions of animals die inhumane, painful deaths, where no attempt is made to relieve these poor creatures of the pain they are in. I believe that taking an innocent animals life, often for useless tests, just because we are a more intelligent species is a cruel and heartless act, which can never be justified! I know that only 5% of medical research is tested on animals, and this contradicts all I have said about millions of animals being used; however, 5% is a staggering figure. In 1998, a huge 2,659,662 experiments were conducted on 2,593,587 animals in the UK; furthermore, since 1990 the number of experiments on genetically manipulated animals in Britain has risen by 827%, which makes this the most rapidly expanding area of animal experimentation in the UK! These are just figures from the UK, in the world an insane 100 million vertebrates are tested on every year, and still, these figures are incomplete. 100 million animals excludes and invertebrates which are tested on, and the figure only consists of animals which are known to have been tested on, and which is have been bred for testing of killed as a result of surplus animals to test on! Would you believe animal testing should be allowed if you were one of these animals?

I believe that many people would say that we have a right to test on these animals, as we are a superior and more intelligent species. Contradictory to this (which is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard), humans also say that they are ultimately fighting for the right to equality, whatever the situation whether human or animal. Only one of these statements can possibly be true, and I believe it is the latter for which we should stand for. Also, I believe that we are not more intelligent than animals; we may be in the sense that we can develop cures for disease, and invent things to make our lives much easier. We also invent weapons, and have wars over petty things, such as money, for which animals do not have a care in the world, we are destroying the Earth, we kill without thinking, and we are intolerant to other creeds! To call a species such as this, more important that one such as a rabbit, which never causes harm to us or the Earth, is unbelievably naive.

This is a preview of the whole essay

I also feel that another argument for animal testing is completely absurd, and it is that people say all these animals don’t feel the pain, they are given some form of anaesthesia, and as a result do not feel anything. This is a lie! Actual figures show that in America, in 2006 about 670,000 animals (not including rats, mice, birds, or invertebrates) were used in procedures that did not include more than momentary pain or distress. About 420,000 were used in procedures in which pain or distress was relieved by anaesthesia, but 84,000 were used in studies that would cause pain or distress that would not be relieved! One example of inhumane experiments is an experiment on Beagles, based at the Lovelace Foundation, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Scientists forced sixty-four beagles to inhale radioactive Strontium 90. In this experiment Twenty-five of the dogs eventually died. One of the deaths occurred during an epileptic seizure; another from a brain haemorrhage. Other dogs, before death, became feverish and anaemic, lost their appetites, and had haemorrhages. Another example of inhumane tests is the Drazie test. This horrific test is performed on albino rabbits, because they are docile, cheap, and their eyes do not shed tears (so chemicals placed in them do not wash out). They are also used because their eyes are clear, making it easier to see the destruction of the Rabbit’s eye tissue; their corneal membranes are extremely susceptible to injury. At the start of each test, the rabbits are immobilized and the substance being tested (which can range from mascara to aftershave to oven cleaner) is placed in the lower lid of one eye of each rabbit. The rabbit’s eyes are clipped open. As well as having to go through this traumatic experience, anaesthesia is almost never administered. After that, the rabbits are examined at different time intervals. Reactions range from severe inflammation, to clouding of the cornea, to ulceration and rupture of the eyeball. Some studies continue for a period of weeks, and no attempt is made to treat the rabbits or to find an antidote. If the rabbits are fortunate enough to survive this gruesome and torturous experience, they are then used as subjects for skin-inflammation tests!

A third argument for animal testing is ‘It seems perverse of these animal rights activists to pick first on science, the most morally justifiable reason for the destruction of animals.’ This quote was taken from The Guardian newspaper published 8/12/1998, and although I believe what it is saying has some truth, it is also flawed. Science is not justifiable for any reason in some instances, such as when science is used to create a bomb which will kill thousands of people, or to create a gun which will be used to shoot an innocent person, or to create a poison to spike someone’s drink, just because you don’t like them. I believe that no one can say science is morally justifiable, especially if it is being used to create a weapon which one day, may harm that very person.

Yet another argument people make to justify vivisection is that every major medical breakthrough in the past century is because of animal testing. Once again, this is a lie (just like many of the arguments for vivisection), since the introduction of the Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine in 1901, two thirds of the prizes have been awarded to scientists using various 'alternative' technologies, not animal experiments. This proves that it is possible for medicine to progress without the need for innocent animals to die.

Another reason I believe you should overlook the reasons for animal testing is that it is believed everyone in MEDC’s (more economically developed countries) should be equal, and have to follow the law, however, in many places, this is not the case. For example, in places such as New York, the licensed laboratories are immune to ordinary anticruelty laws. These places are often owned by state universities, city hospitals, or even The United States Public Health Service, isn’t it strange that a government can be immune to its own laws. This means that the government itself is having to make new laws so they can disobey their old ones. I feel that this decision is irrational, and that they should either remove the laws, or follow them.

Following on from the topic of people breaking the law, people also do not buy the animals which are tested on from licensed pet shops, and the majority of laboratories buy their animals from illegal pet dealers. There are many stolen animal dealers that keep the animals before, during, and after testing. These farms usually keep animals between tests while the animals recuperate, before facing another torturous ordeal. These so called “farms” are mainly old barn-like buildings used as hospitals, and their convalescent (recovery) wards are just dirty, overcrowded pens.

One popular argument for vivisection to continue is that people say that we either choose between our own lives, or animals. I again, feel that this statement is completely irrelevant, and the actual question should be whether we choose humane science, or inhumane science? Vivisection can be extremely unreliable, and waste precious time and money, whereas if other methods had been used, the accurate results would have come much faster. Which would you choose? Would it be the correct one? If you are unwilling to change your opinion, I already know the answer. No.

My penultimate argument for the illegalisation of vivisection is again, one which corrects a twisted lie. People say that animal testing is perfect, and that there are just no possible alternatives. There are no alternatives for the maniacs who wish to torture innocent animals, but for the people who are willing to try new methods, there are many ways to test products. Successful alternatives include test tube studies on human tissue cultures, statistics and computer models. Science has advanced so far that we can even predict test results extremely accurately on computers, so why rely on archaic methods? These alternative experiments are also more accurate than animal testing, which has been proved to be completely unreliable in some instances.

The final reason I believe vivisection should be banned is that it can be inaccurate. The genetic structure of animals can be very different to that of humans, and therefore, animals may react differently to any substances tested on them. Another reason animal testing is inaccurate is that the stress animals endure in laboratories can affect experiments, again, making the results meaningless. As a result of the unreliability of experiments using animals, tests can sometimes be complete wastes of time and money, which could have been spent on other experiments. I believe that the opportunity cost of vivisection is too high, and that using other methods could save valuable time and money, as well as precious innocent lives.

After reading this letter I hope I have persuaded you to rewrite your article, and have changed your views on vivisection.

Yours faithfully,

Neal Patel