Ja’Marion Hall

Connor Pearce
Composition 1
December 8, 2022

The Harm of Animal Testing

Animal testing causes harm to at least 100 million animals annually. Despite technological

advancements, nations all over the world continue to employ this method of testing product

safety. Even though the United States leads the world in cutting-edge research and

methodologies, many businesses here continue to use the archaic, cruel practice of animal

testing, which can result in the burning, paralysis, and poisoning of animals. People have

forgotten how human activities have a negative impact on animals, hence this subject is crucial,

because it causes so many negative effects on animals, people, and the environment.

Animal testing has been used for several objectives over the years. According to Emma Lloyd,

“The first observations of significance to modern science were made in the 1600s, when William

Harvey used animals to observe and describe the blood circulatory system” (2008). The

invention of the Draize Test by John H. Draize, which tests a product's effects on the skin and

eyes of animals like rabbits, is a second significant development in the history of animal testing.

The LD-50 (Lethal Dose-50) test, developed in the middle of the 20th century, is another

illustration. The lethal dose of a chemical at which half the test animals would perish is known as

the LD-50. It was utilized in tests involving pharmaceuticals, insecticides, and household goods.
Even while these tests are less frequently used today, they show the appalling suffering animals

have endured.

Today, a wide range of products, including cosmetics, drugs, home goods, and insecticides, are

tested on animals by numerous companies. In experiments, "chemicals are rubbed on shaved skin

or sprayed into the eyes without any pain alleviation," the Humane Society Factsheet on

cosmetic testing claims. While some tests utilize the same animal repeatedly over an extended

period, others, like those for suspected carcinogens, injure pregnant animals and their fetuses

("11 Facts about Animal Testing"). Additionally, "the Humane Society claims that registering a

single pesticide needs more than 50 studies and up to 12,000 animals" (Moxley). This blatant

maltreatment of animals demonstrates how testing harms them.

Animal testing is detrimental for people and the environment in addition to the additional harm it

causes the animals. Millions of animals used in testing are discarded each year. Over 1.5 million

pounds of animal breeding, excrement, and excess food waste were created by these labs alone in

just 18 months, from the years 2011 to 2013, according to waste collection reports from the

National Institutes of Health (NIH) division of Intramural Research Laboratories. Animal

excrement is tainted with dangerous or toxic substances, viruses, and contagious diseases. One of

the most popular ways of disposal in American laboratories is incinerating waste. Businesses

burn products and animals, which releases gases and fine particulate pollution into the

atmosphere.

When evaluating items that will be used on humans in the future, animal testing is not

necessarily the most effective option. Chimpanzees, which have 99 percent of human DNA, and

mice, which have 98 percent human genetic similarities, are two of the most frequently

employed species. It's difficult to develop an animal model that even closely equates to what we
are aiming to achieve in the human, which makes them poor test subjects for human products.

These animals also have different anatomical, metabolic, and molecular structures from humans.

The FDA claims that 92 percent of medications that are allowed for testing in humans are not

also approved for use in people ("Alternatives to Animal Testing"). Some items that are bad for

animals turn out to be good for people, and vice versa. Due to unfavorable or fatal consequences

in humans, more than half of medications that have been licensed for use in people are

subsequently withdrawn or rebranded. As an illustration, the arthritis medication Vioxx was

withdrawn from the market after it resulted in more than 60,000 fatalities in the United States

alone. Although this medication worked well on animals, it was fatal to people. Additionally,

over 85 HIV vaccinations that were successful in non-human primates have failed in humans

after being tested on humans and over 100 stroke drugs that were successful in animal testing

have failed.

Some individuals might think that regulations exist to guard against the ill-treatment of animals.

This is accurate in some situations. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA), a federal legislation that

governs the treatment of animals in research and entertainment, protects animals. Rats, mice,

fish, and birds are not, however, protected under the AWA. According to (“Should Animals Be

Used "), in actuality, 95% of animals used in research are not covered by the Animal Welfare

Act." All animals used in scientific research should be protected by changes to the Animal

Welfare Act.

Abigail Greer claims that the approach Employing human testers to test things might be more

accurate in her article "Why we should test on humans not animals," noting that "9 out of 10

drugs that seem promising in animal studies go on to fail in human clinical trials because it is not

possible to accurately predict how they will behave in people." As Greer points out, "relying on
animal experimentation in some situations impedes and delays discovery of treatments and

procedures that may be useful to humans because they fail in animal testing." Testing on humans

could also lead to the development of more cures for diseases more quickly. Why do we still use

animal testing when there are other, more effective alternatives?

Modifying a process to lessen the suffering an animal suffers might be a solution if there isn't a

clear substitute for animal testing in specific circumstances. The discomfort and stress an animal

experiences throughout the treatment could be lessened if scientists used a lower dose of the

substance or administered a painkiller, which could lead to better, more precise results.

Additionally, fewer animals would be harmed during the experiment if the total number of

animals included in the study were decreased. Finally, the need for using animals in experiments

would be significantly reduced if businesses used goods that have previously been studied and

shown to be safe for human use to develop new products.

One of the first places to outlaw the import and sale of cosmetics tested on animals was the

European Union. New animal-tested goods are no longer used in Norway, however currently

available medications and pharmaceuticals will still be available. Israel is the third nation to

outlaw cosmetics, personal care goods, laundry detergents, and other items that were subject to

animal testing. India is the first nation in Asia to outlaw cosmetics and require non-animal

alternative testing. Animal testing is being outlawed completely in some nations, such as the

United States, Australia, and New Zealand but there are instances where it’ll slip through and

still happen

Works Cited
 11 facts about animal testing (no date) DoSomething.org.

https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-animal-testing (Accessed:

December 9, 2022).

 Alternatives to animal testing (no date) National Institute of Environmental Health

Sciences. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/science/sya-iccvam/index.cfm (Accessed:

December 9, 2022).

 Moxley, A. (1970) [PDF] the end of animal testing: Semantic scholar, [PDF] The End of

Animal Testing | Semantic Scholar. Semantic Scholar.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-End-of-Animal-Testing-Moxley/

a4be7655d4480e9f6bafbe5283beeda4ad9d07b8 (Accessed: December 8, 2022).

 Lloyd, E. (2008) A brief overview of the history of Animal Testing &

Experimentation, Bright Hub.

https://www.brighthub.com/science/medical/articles/16237/ (Accessed: December 8,

2022).

 Greer, A. (2013) Why we should test on humans not animals, Theosophical order of

service international. Available at: https://international.theoservice.org/e-news/29/p5-

test.htm (Accessed: December 8, 2022).