This article discusses whether animal testing is an essential part of the process of treating human diseases and ensuring human safety, or an unnecessary practice that violates animal rights. While animal testing has successfully led to the discovery of new medicines, due to the physiological differences between humans and animals, safety cannot always be guaranteed, and testing for non-essential purposes, such as cosmetic development, is considered disrespectful of animal life. Furthermore, the need for animal testing is questioned, given that alternative testing methods are now readily available, emphasizing the importance of developing technologies to replace them.
People get hurt and get sick, but it’s not because they want to. Most people would prefer a world without disease, but when we do get sick, we try to treat it. However, we don’t have a panacea for all diseases. While most diseases can be treated with individual medicines or surgeries, it is uncertain whether existing medicines or surgeries will work when a new disease or virus emerges. For this reason, animal testing is currently practiced.
Animal testing is any experiment or scientific procedure performed on laboratory animals for scientific purposes such as education, testing, research, and the production of biologics. The first records of animal testing were found in Greek literature in the 4th century BC. Later, in the 12th century, the Arab surgeon Abenzoar is said to have tested treatments on animals before applying them to humans. Thus, animal testing began as a way to help cure human diseases and has had a profound impact on 20th century medical advances. From this perspective, you might think that animal testing is necessary.
However, considering that the most fundamental purpose of animal testing is to safely treat human diseases, I believe that animal testing today has gotten away from that purpose. Let’s take a look at some of the problems with animal testing. First, only 1.16% of diseases are shared between humans and animals. This makes it difficult to extrapolate the results of animal testing to humans, and even if an animal test is successful, it doesn’t guarantee 100% of the same results in humans. Few people would want to be the first to try a new drug or a new surgical procedure that was the result of animal testing. For example, thalidomide, an anti-morning sickness drug created in Germany in the 1960s, was touted as a “miracle drug with no side effects” and used in many countries because it showed no side effects in almost all animal tests. However, it has been found to increase the risk of birth defects when taken by pregnant women. If taken within 42 days of conception, there was a 100% chance of giving birth to a deformed baby with missing or shortened limbs. In fact, no one would have felt comfortable taking the drug if it hadn’t been tested in animals. As you can see, the results of animal testing can lead to false assurances of safety that can lead to tragedy. These issues make me think that animal testing should be reconsidered.
Second, a recent issue related to animal testing is cosmetic animal testing. In order to develop new cosmetic products, various animals such as rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, and rats are tested. To test for allergic reactions, products are injected directly into the animals’ eyes, nose, and mouth, often resulting in blindness or death. Just as humans have basic rights, animals have the right to respect for their lives. Animals are living beings and their lives should be respected, and their rights should not be violated. In Korea, animal protection laws are in place to prevent cruelty to animals and protect their safety and lives. However, I think it is wrong to conduct animal testing for cosmetic purposes, not just to treat diseases. In the case of cosmetics, there are more than 5,000 ingredients that have already been proven safe. It would seem that these ingredients would be enough to develop cosmetics, but many countries still allow animal testing of cosmetics. This seems to defeat the fundamental purpose of animal testing and disregards the rights of animals in favor of profit. On the flip side, it doesn’t make sense to test on humans to develop a shampoo for cats. It’s bad enough that one life is sacrificed for another, but it’s even worse when it’s consumed for personal gain. For these reasons, I believe that animal testing should be abolished.
Of course, animal testing has led to great advances in medicine and saved countless human lives, but it has also harmed many people, and even more animals. In the 20th century, animal testing was necessary because it was difficult to understand the interactions of molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, and the environment with computers. But given the state of technology today, it’s questionable whether animal testing is still necessary. If you compare computers from 10 years ago to today, there are many examples of things that were impossible then that are possible now. The argument for continuing animal testing due to lack of technology is no longer convincing. Sure, the current alternatives may be somewhat inaccurate, but that’s only because animal testing is allowed, which has slowed down the development of alternatives. If animal testing were to be banned, the need for alternatives would increase, and it is hard to say how far the technology would advance. There are already a number of alternative testing methods available today. Nevertheless, it’s wrong to stick to animal testing for reasons of budget savings and convenience. Even today, around 600 million animals are killed in animal testing every year, or 20 animals every second. Animal testing has been diverted from its original purpose and continues to be a means to fulfill human desires. It’s time to respect not only people’s rights, but also animals’ rights, and to ban animal testing and develop technologies to replace it.
