Animal testing has been viewed as a process to improve human health and safety, but it raises questions about the ethical and moral value of life. Animals are unnecessarily sacrificed in commercial, medical, and military experiments, and the results are often not valid for humans due to physiological differences between humans and animals. There are many alternatives, such as cell tissue culture, chemical analysis, and computer simulations, that can be used to replace these methods, and more ethical alternatives are needed.
Historically, humans have valued animals according to how much they contribute to their own interests. This instrumental view is deeply ingrained in human traditions and habits, perceiving animals as existing to fulfill human desires: to feed us, give us comfort and pleasure, provide us with clothing and household goods, or even fight for us. This has been done without question or criticism from ancient times to the present. However, as it has become increasingly recognized that animals have more than just instrumental value for humans, people have begun to criticize this immoral perception of animals. The realization that animals are not just moving tools without souls, minds, emotions, and personalities has brought to light some of the immoral acts against animals that humans have long taken for granted. In particular, animal testing is now recognized as a completely immoral act that does not promote a pressing human need and lacks any justification.
By human vital interests, we mean those that are essential to survival, which in modern times has come to include good health and longevity. To fulfill these interests, animal testing continues to be practiced, but this has become a serious problem from a bioethical and moral perspective. In this article, we’ll break down the ongoing practice of animal testing into product testing, medical testing, and military testing to explore the cruelty and ineffectiveness of animal testing, and discuss practical alternatives to testing.
First, let’s look at product testing. Toxicity testing, which is performed to determine whether a newly developed product is harmful to humans, is immoral and unnecessary because it does not serve a compelling human interest. Two common examples of toxicity testing are the Draize test and the LD-50 test. In the Draize test, a rabbit or dog’s head is pinned down and experimental substances such as ink, bleach, or cleaning agents are injected into the eyelids to observe how much pus forms in the eye and how far the infection progresses. The test is repeated several times over the course of up to three weeks, and the animals are made to suffer excruciating pain before being killed. The LD-50 test measures the lethal dose of a particular substance that kills half of the animals in the test. The test involves inserting a tube down the throat of the test animal to administer the test product, and the test continues until half of the animals are dead. While it’s easy to argue the need for such toxicity testing, animals are deprived of their right to life and subjected to extreme cruelty during testing, an act of cruelty that is driven by human self-interest and can never be justified. Newly developed products are often not essential to human survival, so the need is to improve the quality of life through the improvement of existing products rather than toxicity testing. Therefore, commercial product testing is not driven by a pressing human concern, but simply by the economic interest of companies to profit from new products.
In the case of medical testing, the development of new drugs may seem essential to improving the quality of life for humans, but the way medicines for humans are tested and marketed on animals is inefficient and dangerous. Due to anatomical, genetic, and histologic differences between animals and humans, the results of animal testing are not directly applicable to humans and can pose significant risks. For example, the anti-emetic thalidomide, which was developed to relieve morning sickness in pregnant women, caused no problems when tested on animals, including dogs, cats, and monkeys, but caused severe deformities in human fetuses, resulting in great harm. There are many examples of animal testing results that have adversely affected humans, demonstrating that animal testing can endanger human health. While some people have been helped by drugs introduced through animal testing, many lives have been lost as a result. Overconfidence in the results of animal testing jeopardizes human health, and it is unconscionable to continue testing without acknowledging that biological differences can lead to different results.
Animal testing in the military is also not in the best interest of humans. For example, monkeys are subjected to radiation and electric shocks to learn how pilots are affected when flying missions in radiation-exposed environments. At Fort Detrick and the UK’s Fort Down Defense Research Laboratory, beagles and other animals are dosed with TNT, glutamate, and more to observe symptoms such as dehydration, anemia, and convulsions. These military experiments have nothing to do with a pressing human need, and are simply animal cruelty.
Many of these animals are put to death before they are even used for their intended purpose. After the tests are over, the remaining animals are slaughtered because they can’t return to the ecosystem, creating a cycle of unnecessary sacrifice for the sake of biotechnology. Practical alternatives include cell tissue culture, physicochemical methods, and computer simulations. Culturing human cell tissues can produce results that are more directly valid for humans than animal testing, while physicochemical assays and computer simulations can be used to replace animal testing. If these alternatives are fully utilized, the need for animal testing can be greatly reduced.
In conclusion, most animal testing is irrelevant to human needs and does not contribute to human life, health, and happiness. Animals are being sacrificed as a tool for human greed and economic gain, which is immoral and unreasonable. Therefore, we must take the time to find alternatives and uphold ethics and morality. The future of humanity will continue to develop in a world where all living things coexist.
