There are people who have varying issues with animal testing but I have not seen anyone talk about the different animals used in testing in the past or present. Animals ranging from invertebrates to vertebrates such as cats, dogs, and non-human primates have been used in the past. Where is the line drawn? For example, people may cringe at the idea of using apes, but they are very closely related to humans, which is critical in some testing. Where does scientific necessity counter animal (or in the example case primate) rights?
Scientist know that there’s an ethical concern with animal testing and they have widely accepted the three Rs ethical principal for Replacement, Reduction and Refinement.
Reduction: reducing the number of animals in experiment. Strategy that will result in fewer number of animals used to obtain sufficient data.
Refinement: using experiment methods and techniques to minimize pain and distress to the animal.
Replacement: using methods that will avoid or replace animal use for experiments. Use cell cultures instead or whole animal.
We should consider the three Rs ethical principal and replace vertebrates with invertebrates that have a significantly lower potential for pain perception.
As a pet owner, my view on this matter is will have a hint of bias towards how I respond. For me animals that are considered to be pets in the house I tend to cringe when I think of animals being put to death when it is for science sake. From reading an article it stated how people and myself believe that animals do have a mortality associated with them. If the animal being tested on is going to experience pain in the future wither it be physical and or mental then the animal should not be tested on. In the 21 st century scientist do believe now in administering various drugs so the animal(s) do not feel pain while the animal is being worked on for a live study say for the development of a bone scaffold which is implanted to test if viable bone can grow etc..
What other methods or models can be done to take out animal testing? Can animal testing be the thing of the past?
In general, scientists perform tests on animals with the aim of reducing human suffering and saving human lives. However, if you think about it animal testing requires no consents from animals to tests and tests proceed while for human it involves a decision to consents. Similar to us, even animals get pain, suffers discomfort under these experiments. Therefore, I think animal suffering should be minimized. If under special circumstances, scientists are to do animal experimentation then one important point is to consider ethics on animal testing and certain guidelines should be followed. Such as experiment procedures are to be reviewed by the animal care committee to make sure test is appropriate and means no harm. The scientific purpose of the research should be potential significance to justify the animal use in the experiment. Animals should be respected, not abused, and a test is to be done under the animal care supervision.
This is a very interesting point you bring up. I would personally love to live to see the day when we've developed technology that will eliminate the need for animal trials. To answer your question, I believe the line where we test certain animals is determined by a number of factors. Towards the top of that list I would say is the similarity between the animal and humans. Certain aspects of certain species highly resemble that of humans and are therefore highly favorable (e.g. pig skin) when it comes to conducting accurate experiments. The least we could do to minimize animal testing is use the animals that would provide sufficient data to end the trials as soon as possible and therefore choosing a species with aspects that share similar characteristics of a human would be more ethical than not. Another factor, I would say, would be the ability the given species has to withstand the proposed tests. I am certain that scientists would be discouraged from (and probably not permitted to) choosing an animal that would likely experience a great amount of harm or even death from the proposed experiment.
From the book The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, authors Russell and Burch proposed the idea of the "Three R's" to strive for a higher standard of animal-based scientific research. The three R's represent Replacement (finding alternatives for animals in experiments), Reduction (using methods to maximize the amount of data used from each subject so that less animals are needed) and Refinement (methods used to eliminate or at least alleviate the distress that the subject will experience). In support of what I had mentioned, if "Replacement" cannot be achieved, doing whatever it takes to minimize the number of subjects needed, as well as the amount of pain inflicted, should be the main priority and the difficulty to meet these goals relies heavily on the type of animal chosen.
All in all, I find that the line where we draw the line is determined by the steps it takes to accomplish the goals of a trial without the use of an excessive number of subjects and without inflicting a great amount of pain.
In my opinion, it is not humanitarian at all to take any animal experiment. Since their lives will get hurt and killed anyway when it comes to the pre-clinical research and people just wanna get rid of the germs,toxins or any contagions they put inside the animal's bodies in simplest ways. So it's not a problem of whether some animals should die for that and some other shouldn't, it's how to compromise a safe, harmless, meanwhile cheap and appropriate method that works for both human and the experiment animals. I do have a wish on this hopefully one day this could be approached by either a huge breakthrough on the control of cell differentiation, or completely computer-based simulations of the in vivo environment.
From my experience in research, my understanding is that different animals are used for different types or levels of testing. For example, the initial testing of a drug is usually to test its cytotoxicity and immunogenicity. These tests are usually done in rodents such as rats or mice because they are abundant, easy to get, and are small. If the initial test is done using a devise that is too large for rats and mice, they are done on rabbits. Once the drug/device passes the initial tests, they are further testing for function in animals similar to humans (to predict their function in humans) such as pigs. For more advanced testing and precise data, they are done in primates.
This logic of testing is one of many branches. Depending on the product being tested, the tests can vary and so can the animals. But my point of my example is that the use of animals is carefully thought out to benefit the humans while minimizing pain to animals, especially larger and more sensitive ones by doing tests with small quantities of drugs in small animals and then moving up when needed.
While using animals in trials can often be a dicey object, where the line is drawn in terms of what animals can be used is not so often a hard set one. Like many other areas the answer tends to be "it depends". What exactly is being tested? If it's something that can easily be tested on a smaller "less significant" animal, then the line is drawn there. At that point it would be inhumane to do the study on a "more significant" animal. However, if it is something that requires more human-like features (apes for similar anatomy, pigs for similar skin qualities, etc.), then it is not reasonable to draw the line at "less significant" animals, for reasons of practicality. All in all, whatever causes the least harm and is the most appropriate choice for the experiment is where the line should be drawn. Like many, I myself also don't like the idea of testing on animals, but it is a necessary practice, at least until technology can progress to the point where animal testing is not needed, as someone mentioned earlier. Right now, if it is not done, the net harm done to many if it wasn't tested would be greater than the harm done from testing on the animal(s).
As nice as it would be to not have to run tests and clinical trials on animals, with the current technology we have there is no other reliable method of testing different kinds of treatments or products to see if they are harmful to humans. Instead, as Karen said, we have a system in place to minimize the suffering different animal subjects go through to test these experiments. When looking at it from the big perspective, the sheer abundance of rodents means using a few in an experiment does nothing to harm the survivability of the species. The higher up the chain we go in testing, the smaller the global population is, and thus using them for experimental testing when using a smaller subject like a rodent would work as well would have a bigger impact on the species. While I personally believe that the world will be better off when animal testing is no longer needed, I believe that it is a justified practice for the time being for the survival of the human race as a species.
I believe that when it comes to animal testing, there should be ethics involved when choosing the animal to test with. From the various responses of my classmates, many have mentioned researchers come up with the least painful methods of testing. Animals from the primate family are ideal for testing due to their closeness to humans. However, many of the research that are done are primates can be painful. So to what extent can we use primates in research to solve issues pertaining to humans with the least painful methods? Are there other animals we can test? Or are there other non-invasive methods we can use while still getting quality research?
Animal testing in pre-clinical research are critically important to study their combinational responses in a biologic system controlled by the brain. The same study when taking place as a computer simulation or as in vitro in a petridish does not yield a vialble outcome as much compared to living system. These animal testing results provide essential evidences to the various tests like cytotoxicity, Chronic inflammation that was discussed in the class by Dr. Simon.
Moreover the animal testing can also be extended in treating various other animal diseases as well. Our pets can get more precise treatment themselves. Although it is very essential, like @sara mentioned previously it would be great if we can come up with ways to do non-invasive technique.
Having been a pet owner for the most part of my life, I do feel that using animals for testing, whether they are mice or apes, is unethical to a certain point. I do personally feel that technology and simulated testing should be able to reach such a height that animal testing should no longer be necessary. After all, they are living beings as well! But currently, we have not reached such a stage. In experiments where it is absolutely necessary, animals found in a large number which would not lead to extinction could be used, and not primates. But then again, these tests are generally invasive and highly painful for the animal. So till we reach the age when we no longer require animal testing, non-invasive tests or least painful methods should definitely be used in labs.
Having been a pet owner for the most part of my life, I do feel that using animals for testing, whether they are mice or apes, is unethical to a certain point. I do personally feel that technology and simulated testing should be able to reach such a height that animal testing should no longer be necessary. After all, they are living beings as well! But currently, we have not reached such a stage. In experiments where it is absolutely necessary, animals found in a large number which would not lead to extinction could be used, and not primates. But then again, these tests are generally invasive and highly painful for the animal. So till we reach the age when we no longer require animal testing, non-invasive tests or least painful methods should definitely be used in labs.
Generally, the closer to humans the animals are, the more restrictions and checks there are to perform the animal study. For example, in the case of using zebrafish, fewer people are against it, since they are not only widely abundant, but some people regularly consume fish. On the other hand, using a non-human primate as an animal model will cause much greater debate. I believe no sane scientist wants to cause animals unnecessary suffering, so there is a lot of effort put into reducing pain and suffering. For example, every institution in America has to go through the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) before starting an animal study. Human actions in a wide range of fields, not just science, have caused animals harm, but I believe in the case of science, they have a better justification than oil/gas companies killing birds for example. At the end of the day, those in science try to create a better world, and unfortunately, we do not have the means to do so without animal models yet.
Animal testing is very important in the advancement of medicine and medical devices. It is important to try to get as close to the human anatomy as possible when testing and I understand that it is not always possible. In those cases, we may use other animals such as dogs, cats, mice, etc. In my opinion, when it comes to advancing medicine and medical advancements, scientific necessity will always overtake animal rights.
