Deisi Bautista
ENGL 21003
Prof. McIntosh
March 28, 2019
Animal experimentation is deemed to be a “necessary evil” in the scientific community. The use of animal models in scientific research has allowed for extensive achievements in the biomedical field. It is even argued that essentially every medical advancement in the twentieth century relied on the use of animals in some form. Today, animals are used as models in basic biomedical, agricultural, behavioral and drug development. Debate regarding the use of animals in laboratories stems from the process being parasitic, where one benefits due to the suffering of the other. Laws prohibit gratuitous suffering for animals but once there is a human purpose it is justified. Despite, their significant role in the biomedical field, given its harmful nature, the use of animals for experimentation and testing is scrutinized for being an archaic and unethical practice.
To understand the scrutiny and justification for nonhuman experimentation, the notion of scientific merit is vital. According to Denise Russel, “the ethical question, concerning whether animals can be our testers, becomes mixed up with the issue of scientific merit” (Russel, 50). It is important to note, that this is where the controversy stems from. Experiments that follow the scientific method possess scientific merit, and are therefore justified. However, many modern-day nonhuman experiments are poorly conducted and lack scientific merit. In order for an experiment to be valid it must meet a set of implications, such as: “The hypotheses which they are designed to test are important. The experiments make no unwarrantable background assumptions which vitiate their method. What the experiments are meant to prove is clear and coherent, and well worked out by its begetters” (Russel, 45). By setting standards, it is easier for the public to measure the experiments validity. It is no longer a one-sided argument, but open to interpretation. This explains the growing controversy, people have become more involved, it’s acceptable to have an opinion without being a scientist because of the immense research available for both arguments.
Animal research becomes problematic when research is aimed at producing suffering and the experiments findings lacks scientific merit. Psychological and behavioral research tends to fall under these circumstances. In psychological experimentation, primates are often used due to their apparent closeness to humans, in appearance and ability to feel pain. When an experiment in intended to inflict pain, it is no longer morally ethical. As the dominant species, human interest excuses the use of primates, however ethical committees and animal activist organizations publically oppose. According to them, animals deserve equal rights as an individual and should not be used for human benefit. In the late twentieth century primates were used for the study of mental illnesses such as depression, addiction, and they aided in the study of abuse. In a 1983 study, Scientist Schapiro and Mitchell conducted a study with macaques, where the goal was to study maternal abuse. Here “the act of abuse was not observed, yet the mothers are blamed: they either but the infants themselves or were incapable or unwilling to protect the infant from the attack of a conspecific.” (Russel, 47). The conclusions of this study were based off assumptions and not observations. In addition, studies regarding behavior tend to disregard the abnormal situation that their test subjects are placed in and the affects it has. The lack of consideration questions the compatibility of primates and humans, signifying that animals are not optimal in human behavior.
Opponents to animal experimentation argue against the continuous malpractices conducted under research. As previously shown, in the past experiments were conducted with little merit and were poorly executed. However, those practices still continue today. For example, a recent January 2018 study conducted by the Food and Drug Administration was shut down due to its poor practices. The goal of the study was to test how different doses of nicotine affect addition in young adults. Adolescent and adult squirrel monkeys were trained to give themselves doses of nicotine by pressing a lever. Once they were addicted, scientist observed their reaction to decreasing levels of the infusions of nicotine (McGinley). There was a total of 26 monkeys involved and the study resulted in four deaths. In this experiment, the hypothesis was not established nor was the experiment well-designed. Given that the study was shut down after the damage and four months shows the low regulation of animals in laboratories.
In the past and now, animal have been successfully utilized as model organisms. Model organisms help scientist understand biological processes, especially under new or developing drugs. Model organisms are also useful in genetic research, where given their short lifespan and large populations, they are ideal in studying mutations and diseases. Model organisms have taught scientist nearly all of cell biology, “the transcriptional control, RNA quality control and the structure of chromatin” (Arora). The most common of all model organisms is the mouse, other microorganisms include Danio rerio, Yeast, fruit flies, roundworms, frogs etc.
Beside playing the roles of models/replica’s, laboratory animals also serve as “instruments”, where they are used as measuring devices. Marcel Weber identifies an instrument as, “In a typical instrument, a casual input leads to an observable signal. What the user of an instrument is interested in is the process or object that is responsible for the casual input.” (Germain, 116). Germain provides examples where laboratory animals are used as instruments and models. For example, the Xenograft model was used in conjunction with the study of cancer cells in the late nineteenth century. Xenotransplantation is the transplantation of living cells, tissues or organs from one species to another. Given that “normal adult tissues quickly resorbed, while tissues of embryonic origin or malignant cancers could be engrafted successfully” (Germain, 118), Yale pathologist, Harry S.N. Greene, performed an experiment where cancer cells were transplanted to mice. Greene found that malignancy, the process by which disease cells divide without control and can invade nearby tissues can be observed in their behavior. And so, in his experiment, cancerous and normal cells were transplanted into mice and the cells behavior was studied. Here the mouse was a device for the detection of cancer and a measuring device for the clarification of the type of cancer.
The study of Cancer Stem Cell (CSC) model is built on and continuously expanded on the use of animals, specifically mice. The Cancer Stem Cell model follows that cancer development is driven by a small subset of tumor cells and are then capable of reproducing at abnormal rates. Scientist first transplant cancer cells into one mouse, they then harvest the cells of newly grown tumors and transplant them to a second mouse. They then observe the second mouse to detect possible tumors. If the second mouse develops tumors, then the initial population of cells contained cancer stem cells. The goal here is to use immune-compromised mice, “meant to reduce immune reaction to the foreign (trans-specific) tissue. Otherwise one would not be able to see the difference between an immune rejection of the transplant and an intrinsic incapacity of the cells to form tumors.” (Germain, 120). In the study of cancer cells, mice are not experimented on because of their resemblance to the human body, they present valuable information of diseases, possible cures etc. During such experiments, the harm of the mice is not considered due to their small physical role and inability to measure harm.
“Alternatives” or “substitutes” for animal use are defined as methods or techniques that help reduce or eliminate the use of animals in biomedical research. The techniques do not necessarily support or argue against animal use, they allow for scientific advancement but each possess shortcomings. Debates regarding alternatives exists, it is hard to determine if sub situates hurt or benefit the cause. With technological advancements, computer simulations or mathematical analysis can replace animals. When biological effects can be represented by known equation or algorithm, computers can simulate virtual human organs and metabolisms that can predict drug effects more accurately than animal models. For example, as Arora, Mehta and Joshi stated, “the protease inhibitors for patients with HIV were designed by computer and tested in human tissue cultures and computer models, bypassing anima tests due to urgent need for treatment.” (Arora, 3). Despite researcher’s efforts to create a “virtual human”, computer stimulations must be verified with human or animal use. Therefore, animals are still experimented on but it is done efficiently since the results are present, research would focus on the means to validate data. Physical-chemical techniques exists that help observe human responses to chemical and biological substances (i.e. vitamins, drugs, etc.). For example, Chitosan films are “capable of simulating the flux of model drugs” (Arura, 3) in virto permutations. Studies found that “In virto permeation of both 5-flouroiracil and indomethacin across optimized film formulations was found to be comparable to that obtained across rat, rabbit, and human epidermal sheets” (Arora, 4). Thus, conclusions obtained by Chitosan films, which are formed by the most abundant biopolymer, are reliable in ethical.
When debating animal use and experimentation, most individuals lie somewhere in between. This is because mankind’s relationship with animals is so complex. Thus, a spectrum of types of relationships exist. And often times one’s actions and personal beliefs contradict one other. For example, one can be strongly against the use of animals for science but consume animals, animal byproducts, animal tested products, etc. One is acceptable under scientific merit and another is acceptable under personal convenience. Do these processes excuse animal suffering? Why is one scrutinized while the other is an overlooked daily occurrence?
Studies have been made to explain the perceptions of animal experimentation and testing. Fabienne Crettaz von Roten from the University of Lausanne conducted a series of surveys that measured public attitudes towards the environment, science and its relativity to animal experimentation. Although his study was conducted in 2008 and consists of Swiss population, its findings can still be applied today, since current attitudes align with those in 2008; where a decline in animal experimentation acceptance is present and the general population is collectively opposed to it. According to the study’s findings, there are four explanatory factors: sociodemographic factors, science related factors, nature and values. If an individual values equality and nature, they are more willing to limit human progress. Unlike in 2008, scientific factors consist of the disconnect between scientist and the public, where today scientific factors that contribute to the opposing of animal testing is data regarding animals and malpractices.
Unlike countries such as Great Britain and New Zeeland, the United States falls behind in having strong legislation for the use of animals in scientific experimentation and product testing. The Animal Welfare Act of 1966 governs the treatment of animals from a wide range of settings, such as zoos, pet shops and laboratories. Under this law, the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Services, performs unannounced inspections and if violations were to exist, they would either be fined or taken legal action. The Animal Welfare Act was a result of public outcry for the treatment of dogs in laboratories and puppy mills (Galgut, 6-7) Similarly, to the general public, this Act favors warm blooded, domesticated animals. Thus, the regulation address certain animals such as dogs, cats, rabbits, and monkeys but lacks the attention of rodents, fish etc. 93% of research is conducted on animals that fail to be counted and regulated under the US Animal Welfare Act. According to Latham, law focuses on “setting demanding, detailed standards for animal housing and basic standards for pain control. It supports only minimal review of the scientific merit of research protocol’s but it requires researchers to make efforts to reduce, replace and refine” (Latham, 26). Instead of having strict legislation, the ethics is left to scientist and researchers. The Three R’s are guiding principles which were established by W.M.S. Russel and R.L. Burch in 1959. Reduction is “implemented by animal sharing, improved statistical design and use of better quality animals e.g. animals with implanted catheters.” (Arora). Essentially reduction refers to methods that enable comparable levels of findings from fewer animals. Replacement refers to the “use of non-animal living systems, use of non-living system and computer simulation.” (Aurora) Lastly, Refinement refers to the “decreased invasiveness, improved instrumentation, improved control of pain and improved control of techniques used for animal research” The Three R’s are universally accepted principles that helps comeback the controversy and bridge a compromise between science and society. However, these principles can only be used by researchers and can be subjective.
There is no question that animal experimentation has and continues to pave way for scientific advancement. However, the means and purpose in which research is conducted is under scrutiny. Animal experimentation is a subject that finds itself caught between science and social moral. Where in order to achieve a compromise, scientist must bridge the gap between research and the public. There exists substitutes and laws to decrease and control the use of animals but to avoid human experimentation, scientist will always result to the use of animals. For that reason, animal experimentation is deemed a “necessary evil”, however researchers should question the necessity for animal use. Human care of animals is essential, both ethically and scientifically to create valid findings.
Citations
Arora T, Mehta AK, Joshi V, et al. Substitute of Animals in Drug Research: An Approach Towards Fulfillment of 4R’s. Indian J Pharm Sci. 2011;73(1):1–6. doi:10.4103/0250-474X.89750
Germain, Pierre-Luc. “From Replica to Instruments: Animal Models in Biomedical Research.” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, vol. 36, no. 1, 2014, pp. 114–128. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/44471266.
Russell, Denise. “Animal Experimentation in Psychology and the Question of Scientific Merit.” Ethics and the Environment, vol. 2, no. 1, 1997, pp. 43–52. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27766030.
MARKS, JOEL. “Accept No Substitutes: The Ethics of Alternatives.” The Hastings Center Report, vol. 42, no. 6, 2012, pp. S16–S18. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/44159180.
McGinley, Laurie. “Monkeys in a nicotine experiment can relax. Their future is looking up.” Washingtonpost.com, 26 Jan. 2018. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, https://link-galegroup-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/apps/doc/A525166284/OVIC?u=cuny_ccny&sid=OVIC&xid=fef8ca50. Accessed 17 Mar. 2019.
Roten, Favienne. “Mapping Perceptions of Animal Experimentation: Trend and Explanatory Factors”.Social Science Quarterly, vol. 89, no. 2, 2008, pp 537-549.
Galgut, Elisa. “Raising the Bar in the Justification of Animal Research.” Journal of Animal Ethics, vol. 5, no. 1, 2015, pp. 5–19. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/janimalethics.5.1.0005.
