In this blog post, we’ll examine the relationship between the various chemical products and medications we use in our daily lives and animal testing, as well as the medical value and ethical issues surrounding animal testing, and methods to replace it.
In the morning, as he starts his day, Mr. A wakes up to go to work. He washes his hair with shampoo and conditioner, cleans his body with soap, and shaves using shaving cream. After breakfast, he takes his usual medications and vitamins. He changes into his work clothes, applies toner and lotion to his face, and uses cosmetics to lightly cover any blemishes. He styles his hair with wax, and finally, sprays perfume on his wrist before leaving the house. Like Mr. A, many people leave home having used or applied various types of medications and chemical products to their bodies. Although we come into contact with various chemical products in our daily lives, we do not generally consider them to be particularly harmful to our health. The fact that humanity can use and ingest these chemical products with relative peace of mind is largely due to the historical advancements in medicine and safety verification achieved through animal testing. Animal testing refers to experiments or scientific procedures conducted on laboratory animals for educational, experimental, research, and scientific purposes. Globally, it is estimated that approximately 300 million vertebrates are used as laboratory animals each year. These experiments are conducted extensively in various settings, including universities, hospitals, farms, pharmaceutical companies, cosmetics companies, and food companies. While they are used in pure research to observe genetic characteristics, growth processes, and behavioral patterns, they are also employed in drug response testing and toxicity testing. Groups opposed to animal experimentation criticize it as both ineffective and unethical, arguing that the desired results can be achieved through alternative methods. Despite this critical perspective on animal experimentation, it remains an important research method for various reasons. Scientific achievements derived from animal experimentation have driven the advancement of modern medicine and the life sciences. From ancient times until the 16th century, when human anatomy was advanced by Vesalius, humanity laid an important foundation for medical progress through the dissection and experimentation on animals. In the modern era, the French physiologist Claude Bernard argued that since the effects of a specific substance on humans and animals differ only in degree, experiments on animals could serve as reliable evidence in toxicology and hygiene. Subsequently, Pasteur demonstrated the efficacy of vaccines through his research on anthrax in sheep, and Pavlov discovered the phenomenon of conditioned reflexes through his “Pavlov’s dog” experiments. Throughout history, animal experimentation has been utilized in medical and physiological research, and even today, many medical theories and technologies—such as the development of cancer treatments and stem cell research—undergo validation processes through animal testing.
Animal testing has also made a significant contribution to ensuring the safety of chemical substances. As various compounds were created and discovered in the past, reports began to emerge regarding the hazards of some of them. Consequently, as drug regulations were tightened and toxicity testing became more important, the procedure of testing newly developed drugs on animals before use came to be regarded as essential. In fact, the development of new drugs requires a process to verify safety through cell experiments and animal testing. Furthermore, chemical products commonly used in our daily lives—such as shampoos, conditioners, and cosmetics—undergo various safety verification procedures to confirm their safety and evaluate potential side effects before being sold to the general public. We cannot overlook the fact that these safety verification processes have contributed to the level of trust we place in the safety of these products—whether it’s when shampoo gets in our eyes while washing our hair or when taking cold medicine.
Opponents of animal testing argue that such testing must be halted to protect animal rights. However, should animal rights take precedence over human health and life? Historically, there has been a philosophical perspective that human rights should take precedence over animal rights. In the past, animal rights were not highly valued in the Western world. Aristotle believed that plants exist for the sake of animals, and animals exist for the sake of humans; in medieval Christianity, it was deemed acceptable to use animals for human purposes. Descartes held that animals lack a mind or soul and, unlike humans, cannot feel pain arising from the body. Kant also believed that the interests of humans—who possess reason and morality—should be given priority over those of animals, which lack these qualities. Therefore, until the modern era, using animals as experimental subjects or killing them was not considered an unjust act. From a modern utilitarian perspective, animal experimentation itself is not rejected; rather, the concern lies with situations where such experimentation leads to an overall reduction in welfare. If animal experimentation were to cease, medical progress would slow down, which could result in the loss of more lives—including those of animals.
As such, animal experimentation can be viewed from various perspectives depending on one’s philosophical standpoint, and the criticism that it should be banned simply because it is unethical and violates animal rights merely focuses on one aspect of the issue. Given that advances in medicine and pharmacology resulting from animal experimentation can save more lives, such experimentation still holds significant importance. So, is it possible to completely replace animal experimentation? In fact, methods such as computer simulations and cell-level experiments are being developed to complement animal testing. However, these methods currently serve only to reduce the frequency of animal testing; they cannot yet completely replace all animal testing. According to data from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences on animal research, there are limitations to fully modeling all phenomena occurring in the molecules, cells, and tissues of living organisms using computer programs. Therefore, in order to determine whether medical treatments or chemical substances cause side effects in humans, it is sometimes necessary to conduct experiments on living organisms. Given that alternative methods are not yet sufficient, and since methods whose risks have not been verified cannot be directly applied to humans, animal testing remains an unavoidable choice for humanity.
Animal testing has played a crucial role in the advancement of science and human health. Without animal testing, it would have been difficult for humanity to overcome so many diseases and enjoy the conveniences provided by chemistry as we do today. Of course, since animal testing causes suffering to animals, the scientific community strives to follow the 3R (Three Rs) principles—guidelines for conducting animal testing while respecting life. The 3R principles refer to Replacement—using alternative experimental methods that avoid the use of live animals; Reduction—minimizing the number of animals used to obtain the same amount of data; and Refinement—alleviating the suffering experienced by animals through measures such as anesthesia. Based on these principles, laws exist to prevent the indiscriminate use of animal testing. In conclusion, given that there is currently no means to completely replace animal testing, it is believed that animal testing conducted to promote the overall welfare of both humans and animals can be carried out with sufficient care and responsibility toward the animals. When conducting animal testing, both the promotion of human welfare and the dignity of animal life must be taken into consideration.
