This article criticizes the efficiency and ethics of animal testing, questions whether animal testing is necessary for humans, and emphasizes the need for alternative testing methods. It also argues for the reduction and eventual abolition of animal testing through consumer awareness and legislative changes.
Animal testing is used in many fields, including drug development, vivisection, and cosmetics testing. In South Korea, about 1.5 million animals are used in health and medical-related tests annually, and 3 million in other fields such as cosmetics. Globally, the number is 500 million. Is it really necessary to sacrifice so many animals for the sake of humans? I believe that animal testing is not the best preliminary step for humans and should be abolished and replaced with other methods. These animal tests can be divided into two categories: testing drugs on animals and vivisection.
First, let’s think about drug testing on animals. When you see animal testing in action, it makes you wonder how much we humans can gain at the expense of these unfortunate creatures. Generally speaking, we think of animal drug testing as beneficial to humans, where drugs are tested on animals to determine their side effects and effectiveness before they are prescribed to humans. Many people say that since we can’t test on humans, animal testing is necessary, using animals that are less developed than humans, and that their sacrifices make our lives better.
But this couldn’t be further from the truth. According to Huntingdon, the largest animal testing company in the UK, rabbits, puppies, monkeys, and other animals used for testing have mostly different skin textures and metabolisms than humans, so there’s only a 5-20% chance that the results of animal drug testing will translate to humans. And according to the World Health Organization (WHO), of the more than 30,000 new drugs developed through animal testing, only 200 have actually been shown to be effective in humans, which is only 1%. This is because animal drug testing is not the same as human drug testing, and new drugs or medicines that have been shown to work in animals have adverse side effects in humans, causing about 100,000 deaths a year in the United States.
So why do people continue to use ineffective animal drug testing? One reason is that animal testing requires less capital than alternatives. In fact, alternatives to animal testing include using dead animals, creating artificial skin, and using computer simulations. However, these are less accurate than in vivo testing and require a lot of capital to be more accurate. This is why we continue to use relatively inexpensive animals. However, I think it’s wrong to use a precious life for experiments just because it costs a little money. To solve this problem, we need to encourage alternatives to animal testing by lowering the cost of alternative tests with improved technology.
Another way to reduce animal testing is to change consumer perception. Consumers see the absurdity of animal testing, feel sorry for the animals, and shudder at the cruelty of humans, but the actual change is minimal. However, if consumers are willing to reduce their consumption of products from companies that test on animals, and instead purchase products from companies that do not test on animals and use natural ingredients, unnecessary animal testing will decrease. And these consumers may even lead to laws banning animal testing. In fact, the EU has banned the import of cosmetics that are tested on animals, thanks to the efforts of animal protection organizations, which has helped to gradually reduce these unethical tests. While South Korea hasn’t reached this level yet, it’s likely that efforts against animal testing will spread around the world.
Unlike animal testing for drug testing, vivisection is the intentional dissection or surgery of an animal for medical purposes. In practice, many such experiments take place in medical laboratories. Beagles as young as four months old are stuck with hundreds of needles, or deliberately operated on without anesthesia to learn about their internal organs, and then euthanized. Even more shocking is the fact that animals are euthanized even after the experiment is over, because of the cost of caring for the remaining animals.
Proponents of vivisection say that the sacrifice of a few animals now will save the lives of many more animals and humans. But this is a very simplistic way of thinking. Can the value of a life really be so easily quantified? Sure, it may save more lives in the future, but is it really a justifiable outcome to kill one unwillingly experimented animal to save another? Unlike inaccurate animal testing, vivisection is a first-hand experience, and there aren’t many alternatives. Currently, we can freeze the bodies of dead animals and use them, just as we do for human dissection, and as technology improves, it may be possible to replace animal vivisection with sophisticated computer simulation programs that can replicate the effects of real surgery.
I don’t think humans should be able to experiment cruelly on animals just because they are more advanced than other animals. It’s like saying we wouldn’t want to be abducted and experimented on by aliens who are more evolved than us. Therefore, we should actively oppose animal testing and change laws to prevent it. We should also continue to advocate for alternative technologies, such as simulation, until animal testing is completely eliminated.
