He Zhang (Colleen)

He Zhang

Professor McClure

Writing 39C

August 29 2015

Ineffectiveness of Animal Testing

          As we know, animal experiments are widely used to develop new medicines and test the safety of other products nowadays. Millions of mice, rabbits and rats are used for testing in the name of science or medical progress every year. In an article “Animal Testing Should Be Banned” written by Admin, The British Royal Society, the supporters of the use of animals in experiments, claims that most medical achievement in the 20th century cannot success without the use of animals. However, with so many great contributions to the research about animal testing, we need to think about a question deeply that whether animal testing is truly reliable for humans. Kelly Overton, a founder and executive director of People Protecting Animals & Their Habitats, makes his argument that animal testing has never really worked and it proved penicillin deadly, strychnine safe and aspirin dangerous. Also, stated by Dr. Richard Klausner who is a former Director of the National Cancer Institute, “We have cured cancer in mice for decades—and it simply didn’t work in humans.” According to the statistics of failure of animal testing in the article “True Animal Testing Data”, the FDA in the United States cites an initial 92% failure rate for the drugs which successfully pass animal trials. In addition, Pat Dutt and Jonathan Latham, the writers of  article “The Experiment Is on Us: Science of Animal Testing Thrown into Doubt”, says that “official assurance of the safety of  chemicals are based largely on animal experiments that use rabbits, mice, rats and dogs. But new results from a consortium of researchers that published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggest such assurance may be worthless.” The following infographic can also show the great ineffectiveness of animal testing (Figure1. Failure Rate Infographic. NRDD).There is no denying that the animal species people picked for test may ultimately influence the impact of animal testing results in humans; however,  people do not know the exact

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                           (Figure 1.Failure Rate Infographic. NRDD)

kind of animals to choose until they realize what the medication does to humans. Thus, it causes a great amount of failure of animal testing. From my perspective, animal testing need to be put to an end, not only because it is cruel to animals, but also because it is useless to human.

           Time after time, although the history of animal testing can be traced back to the 2th century BCE that a Roman physician named Galen who dissects pigs and goats is known as the “father of vivisection”, animal testing is gradually leading to flawed outcomes that expresses the innate character of it - cruelty and ineffectiveness. When the author of “Testing on animals is unreliable and unethical” Kathryn Minniti talks about animal testing, she says, “not only is animal experimentation morally wrong, but many of its failures have actually negatively affected people”. Perhaps that is the reason why animal testing is becoming more and more ineffective. Now, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal, considers that animal testing is useless as well as costly in the case of diseases, especially in sepsis, burns and trauma because the body structure and DNA in animals are quite different from human DNA and body structure. Even scientists have already recognized that there are not any animal model can totally recapitulate the human condition, they are still trying to find out such a “good” model for testing. Nevertheless, the truth is, “this so-called recapitulation of the human condition may arise by very different mechanisms in animals due to the intrinsic differences between species”(NAVS. “The Failure of the Animal Model”).  Despite statistics, facts or related studies show the high rate of failure in animal testing, the FDA still requires for the animal testing, which means no matter whether exists some more effective methods for science or no matter how cruelty of animal testing that put animals go through, manufacturers will not use alternatives because these are against the FDA’s rules. 

          Moreover, in the article “Of Mice or Men - The problem with animal testing” written by Arthur Allen, he emphasizes the high cost and unhelpfulness of the animal testing and says, “The high-tech biology era has seen the discovery of thousands of new targets for pharmaceuticals, but the number of drug failures remains as high as ever. It's painful for the drug industry when $500 million goes toward developing a drug that then must be scrapped because of side effects that only surface in human trials.” And we must admit that it is bad for ordinary people as well when a product like Rezulin - Warner-Lambert's diabetes drug, is withdrawn from the market for the reason that it cause liver disease and deaths after 800,000 patients have taken it. New York Times reporter Gina Kolata writes, “As a result, years and billions of dollars have been wasted following false leads” and she also adds “helps explain why every one of nearly 150 drugs tested at huge expense in patients has failed” on her article. From what I talk about, it is easily for me to figure out who should responsible for such high proportion of failure among the entire animal testing that is someone who are stubborn to cleave the idea that animal testing is not always effective and it is necessary to find scientific alternatives to keep the safety and success of drugs on humans and prevent animals from suffering extreme pain.

           During the process of human evolution, molecular biology and genetics provides the evidence that animals and humans differ in profoundly important ways not only comes out in appearances or living habits, but also appears in DNA and body structures. We can tell that animal models will never be able to accurately tested for the diseases happens in the human conditions. Therefore, a few questions emerge in my mind. Does animal testing reliable? Do animal testing need to be stopped based on the high failure of results? If so, how scientist test the drugs to make sure it is safe for humans? These questions cannot be ignored when we hope to put the ineffective animal testing to an end because it tightly relates to our daily life. Everyday products, from soft drinks to baby foods, from paints to gardening products, from cosmetics to shampoos, all contain numerous artificial chemicals that are harmful to human, like preservatives, dyes, even contaminants.

           There is no denying that the drugs which are feasible to animals may not be safe or useful in humans. In the history of using animal testing for scientific researches, there are countless examples indicate that where reliance on animal models has been proven to be ambiguous and detrimental to human health. One of the famous examples talked by C Ray Greek in his article “How reliable is animal testing?” is thalidomide, a kind of medicine which is used in the 1950s as a sedative and prescribed to treat morning sickness in pregnant women, was pretty safe when it tested on animals and it led to birth defects in over 10,000 children when it used by mothers-to-be. So safe medicine on animals ultimately leads to thousands of little lives congenital defects. The data of safeness of thalidomide is quite reliable on animals but becomes so useless when it applies to humans. The ineffectiveness of animal testing should raise attention of society to stop animal testing. In an opposite way, the futile drug testing on animals may be helpful to human diseases. Another example is a widely used drug right now named penicillin. The animal testing of penicillin showed the ineffectiveness by treating infected rabbits; yet, it eventually proved safe and effective for treating bacterial infections in most humans after a long period of time. The data researches collect from the animal testing sometime does not so reliable because no matter it has been passed on animals or not, it may have a different result when it is applied on humans. The above-described two examples powerfully improve the invalidity of animal testing.  

         The problem of ineffectiveness of animal testing is now highly being concerned by the animal protection organizations and the public. A group called Uncaged declares that it is immoral "to subject animals to painful, distressing and lethal experiments when the results are not applicable to humans" and the animal rights activists in Britain appeals to people that the uselessness of animal experimentation in the development of human drugs should be replaced.  Although we cannot deny the medical advance that animal testing provides to humans since the 2nd century, the truth that the consequence of animal testing is actually not as trustworthy as we think before; instead, it is ineffective. In the article “33 Reasons Why Animal Testing Is Pointless” posted on peta2.com, it points out thirty-three reasons what we should not rely on the result of animal testing and some of them are really vital to human. It states that over half of side effects cannot be detected in lab animals. In addition, according to the former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences,  animal tests and human results agree only “5% ~ 25% of the time”. With these statistics, how can we deny the fact that animal testing is really ineffectiveness to human. Little mistakes in medical area will cause human’ lives, not to mention the less similarity between animals and humans.

          When animal testing continues being an ineffective and frustrating process, public concerns about safety and new laws have pushed the need for some better and cheaper alternative methods. Alternatives can not only end the cruelty of animals, but also provide a more accurate drug testing environment for human.They have many advantages over traditional animal test, including being more humane. Elizabeth Weise writes about the new policy of animal testing in her article "Three U.S. agencies aim to end animal testing" that she says, “In February 2008, three federal agencies, the National Human Genome Research Institute, the National Toxicology Program, and the Environmental Protection Agency, announced the establishment of a five-year plan to investigate new technologies that would allow for the rapid testing of large numbers of chemicals while also providing results more applicable to humans”. These three agencies predict that success of these high throughput mechanisms will result in a reduction or replacement of animals in regulatory testing. Never has this kind of science before that testing drugs and products in other ways, public policy, and consumer demand are all pursuing the same goal of more effective testing methods without the use of animal.In the article “Alternatives to Animal Testing” of The Humane Society of United States, it says that alternatives in an animal testing need to achieve one or more of the three R: “replaces a procedure that uses animals with a procedure that doesn't use animals; reduces the number of animals used in a procedure; refines a procedure to alleviate or minimize potential animal pain”. It should not to consider that alternative testing methods are easy to find that it may take several years to prove the impactful of these alternatives in order to ensure the safety of products and achievement of three R. Scientists at private companies, universities, and government agencies are developing new cell and tissue tests, computer models and other sophisticated methods to replace existing animal tests. These alternatives are not cruel and they also tend to be more cost-effective, rapid, and reliable than traditional animal testing. In the United States, the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods, who cooperate with other international bodies to evaluate the accuracy and applicability of new alternative methods, validates some alternative methods as Acute Toxicity in Vitro Starting Procedure, 3T3 Cells, Ames Test, (AAVS) and recommends them for use to the scientific and federal regulators.

            Find alternatives is far enough for the public to aware the ineffectiveness of animal testing; preferably, the platform of social media is the fastest and most efficient way to spread the knowledge about cruelty and uselessness of animal testing. David Grimm, a online news editor of science, reports that “Support for medical testing on animals has declined 12% since 2001 in the United States, and the Internet may be responsible, according to an analysis presented here today at the annual meeting of AAAS, which publishes Science.” The surge in Internet use leads the high attention of animal testing, especially in the young age group. The following picture (Figure 2. Pinterest) also shows people’s strong sense of getting rid of animal testing. Science reports on the findings, “54% of them 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                  (Figure 2. Pinterest)

[people 18-29] found animal testing morally wrong in 2013, versus just 31% in 2001. Animal rights and animal welfare organizations have a much stronger presence on social media than do pro-animal testing groups—PETA has more than 2 million followers on Facebook and nearly a half million on Twitter, for example, versus 130,000 and 1700, respectively, for the Foundation for Biomedical Research” (Alexis Croswell, “Social Media May Be Changing Public Opinion on Animal Testing”). The social media helps people deeply realize the ineffectiveness and immorality of animal testing. The results of social media are incredibly encouraging, and demonstrate the public’s opinions on animal testing have changed in a fairly short amount of time. Opposition voices to animal testing has risen in all demographic groups, particularly increase in the group of 18 to 29 year olds. We must admit how powerful the social media influences the views of people. At the same time, with the strong development of social media, it means when you share information about animal testing, or other animal issues, you are showing the world what issues matter. When a large group of people share information, it has the ability to make an even greater impact. The significance of social media is becoming more and more. Organizations like PETA, The Humane Society of United States, etc. are successfully using social media as a platform for them to provide important information to the public, including how cruelty animal testing is, Does animal testing reliable. They even raise a donation for everyone to give a little amount of money to save the animals through their website. Through the social media, people who support to end the animal testing can set up a group on the Facebook to appeal more people to join them. On the twitter, animal lovers can post related articles, videos, or photos to spread the knowledge about animal testing. There are so many positive aspects to use social media to put an end to ineffectiveness animal testing not only to protect animal welfare, but more importantly, to make sure the safety of drugs and products before appearing on the market.

           Last but not least, seeking related policy to stop the ineffectiveness of animal testing in the law courts is also a good way to solve the problem. In the article “ALDF Lawsuit against California Animal Testing Facility Gains Support” written by Matthew Liebman, a ALDF senior attorney, he talks about a lawsuit that “in January 2013, ALDF filed using the California state anti-cruelty code against an animal testing facility known as Santa Cruz Biotechnology that ‘harvests’ blood from tens of thousands of animals”. The ALDF documents this lawsuit to protect the animals housed at the facility, who have been neglected and mistreated. Moreover, in the United Kingdom, animal testing is strictly regulated. This is due, in part, to the increase in public concern over animal testing during the latter half of the twentieth century as well as the government's own commitment and care to protecting animals and ensuring their use is ethical and humane (Ian Murnaghan, “Local Laws on Animal Testing”). Thus, some animal testing laws have been executed. One of them is Animal Act, which passed in 1986 and applied to animal testing in the United Kingdom. It enforces the general premise or idea that an experiment must be governed by three different licenses. The first license for the head researcher who oversees the experimentation and it details the experiment itself and its aims, providing the specifics of how many animals will be used as well as which types of animals need to be used in the experiment. The second license is a certification for the agency, which serves to confirm that it has appropriate facilities The third license is for every researcher or technician who will be involved in fulfilling the procedural requirements. The law named Animal Act is extremely strict in order to prevent animal testing from ineffectiveness and uselessness. The implement of animal testing laws highly ensures the animal welfare as well as end the unhelpful animal testing.

           To sum everything up, I find the ineffectiveness of animal testing should be banned not only because it is cruel and wrong, but also because it does less help to human development. We always consider ourselves as humanist society that we have progresses, science, and morality, far beyond the need of animals. However, animals do not born for testing that they are same as human. They do not deserve pain and sacrifice themselves just for the benefits of human by testing the chemicals of drugs. Even though that some kinds of animals structure as rats are similar to human structure, it does not mean that animals should be tested for human, not to mention the ineffectiveness of animal testing that it fails on human but successes on animals. It is always a question that need people to think it gravely. Government and social media only provide a way to solve the useless of animal testing, but for real, complete solution, it depends on everyone. Less animal testing, more alternative methods; less cruelty to animals, more care to them. Everyone should voice his or her innermost thoughts to protect animals and end the unhelpful animal testing forever.

 

 

 

Work Cited

Arthur, Allen. “Of Mice or Men. The problems with animal testing”. Slate. Web. June 1, 2006

Animal Liberation Front.com “True Animal Testing Data”. animalliberationfront. Web. December 2008

Admin. “Animal Testing Should Be Banned”. AQUINASHISTORY. Web. September 24, 2013

“The failure of animal model”. Animal in Science. navs.org: 403. Web.

Capaldo, Theodora. “Animal Data Is Not Reliable for Human Health Research (Op-Ed)”. livescience. Web. June 06, 2014. 01:49am ET

“33 Reasons Why Animal Testing Is Pointless.” peta2:33. Web. 2014.

Grimm, David. “Is Social Media Souring Americans on Animal Research?”. scienceshot:2014/02. Web. February 16, 2014

“Limitation and Danger.” neavs.org. Web.

“Alternatives to Animal Testing.” humanesociety.org. Web. February 8, 2013

Murnaghan, Ian. "Local Laws on Animal Testing". aboutanimaltesting.co.uk. Web. March 6, 2015

Dutt, Pat and Latham, Jonathan. “The Experiment Is on Us: Science of Animal Testing Thrown into Doubt.” Independent Science. Web.             May 6, 2013

Greek, Ray. “How reliable is animal testing?; Podium”. THE INDEPENDENT. independent.co.uk. Web. March 9, 1999

Croswell, Alexis. “Social Media May Be Changing Public Opinion on Animal Testing”.

onegreenplanet .org. Web. February 18, 2014

Liebman, Matthew. "ALDF lawsuit against California Animal Testing facility Gain Support". aldf.org. Web. January 28, 2014

Minniti, Kathryn. “Testing on animals is unreliable and unethical”. Northern Star. northernstar.infor. Web. April 6, 2011

All Animal Rights. “How Reliable Are Animal Experiments? Exposing the failure rates from animal labs”. slideshare. Web.

          December 10, 2012

Overton, Kelly. “Stop animal testing - it’s not just cruel, it’s effective”. The Baltimore Sun. baltimoresun.com. Web. June 23, 2006

Weise, Elizabeth. "Three U.S. agencies aim to end animal testing." usatoday. Web. February 14, 2008

Horon, Sonia. “Why animal testing is useless”. global animal. Web. February 19, 2013