In this blog post, we will consider whether the numerous animal tests that sacrifice lives for the sake of human life are justified, and the ethical issues hidden behind the pretext of protecting life.
With the recent advances in biotechnology, various new drugs have been developed, greatly helping in the treatment of human diseases and extending life expectancy. However, we often overlook the fact that animal testing is behind these advances in biotechnology. We are only used to using the results of such testing, thinking that it is a good thing if it is helpful to us. However, animal testing is currently increasing rapidly worldwide along with the development of biotechnology. In Korea alone, more than 4 million animals are sacrificed for animal testing every year. This is equivalent to about 10% of the population of Korea. So, is it really natural and justifiable that such a large number of animals are being experimented on and killed for the sake of humans?
There is a saying that has been passed down since ancient times: “Man is the lord of all creation.” Article 10 of our Constitution also emphasizes the guarantee of the dignity and the right to pursue happiness of the people. The Bible also says that God created humans in his own image. In this context, humans are recognized as more dignified, superior, and noble than any other being on earth.
Humans have distinguished themselves from animals. Animals literally mean “living things that move.” Although humans are living things that move, humans define themselves as independent beings that do not belong to animals and consider themselves superior. Based on their unique reason, creativity, language, and culture, humans distinguish themselves from animals and have been given superior rights and justifications for domination compared to animals.
But if you think about it, these superior rights that humans grant themselves are based on their high intelligence. High intelligence gives them the ability to judge right and wrong, enables them to think creatively, and allows them to develop language and accumulate knowledge and culture.
So, what if animals are more intelligent than humans? Would humans still recognize that animals are superior to humans? Or would they claim, as they do now, that humans are exclusive, superior, and noble? The 1968 film Planet of the Apes shows a situation in which the status of humans and monkeys is reversed. In the movie, humans are kept by monkeys and become the subjects of biological experiments. Humans have only the intelligence and culture of a primitive man and cannot even speak. On the other hand, monkeys use language, lead a splendid culture, and dominate humans. Human rights are not guaranteed here at all. If intelligence is the criterion for justifying superior rights, it would seem natural for a monkey with a higher intelligence to dominate and have a superior position over a human with a lower intelligence. However, people who have seen this film feel sorry for the situation that humans are in and are horrified by the fact that the monkeys are in a superior position to humans.
Indeed, can high intelligence be given absolute legitimacy to give superior rights to one side? If high intelligence is the basis for claiming superior rights for humans, mentally retarded people with low intelligence should not be guaranteed rights. However, we guarantee human rights to them as well. On the other hand, no rights are guaranteed to monkeys with the intelligence of a child, and even monkeys with high intelligence are not considered equal to humans. This shows that there is a significant contradiction in the justification for human superiority. In other words, in reality, humans are not given rights and dignity because of their high intelligence, but they believe that they are superior to animals simply because they are human.
Since the industrial society, humans have not been able to escape from human-centered thinking. Humans have seen nature as a tool for their own happiness and have treated animals as less important than humans. Chickens in corporate-style poultry farms are fed with feed while sticking out their necks in a space barely large enough for one body, and only lay eggs to become chicken meat for humans. Dogs bred for food spend their entire lives in small cages and end up as ingredients for the dog meat trade. Laboratory monkeys are painfully sacrificed as subjects for human drug and brain research. They often die a painful death due to various side effects that occur during the process. Humans attribute meaning to the fact that monkeys used in experiments contribute to the development of humanity, but they do not want the same thing done to them.
Can we have the right to treat animals as we please just because we are human? We must now move away from anthropocentric thinking. We must realize and acknowledge that humans are also a part of nature and one of its members. It is time to protect and respect not only human rights but also the right to life. There is no absolute basis for concluding that animals, plants, or nature are inferior to humans. The value of all life, not just human life, is precious.
Recently, there has been a global trend away from this human-centered thinking and towards protecting and respecting animals. As animal abuse has become a major issue, many countries have enacted laws to protect animal rights, such as animal protection laws, animal abuse prevention laws, and animal testing ethics laws. The European Union has banned the sale of cosmetics made through animal testing, and Korea enacted the Act on the Protection of Experimental Animals in 2010 and the Animal Protection Act in 2011. However, the enforcement of the laws is still immature, making it difficult to verify the facts in the laboratory, and even if the law is violated, the penalties are only advisory. As such, the protection of experimental animals through laws still seems insufficient.
In Korea alone, about 4 million mice, rabbits, dogs, monkeys, etc. are used for animal testing for humans every year. The use of laboratory animals is increasing due to the development of biotechnology, and laboratory animals are still used for drugs for human health, cosmetics for beauty, and experiments on living organisms.
Humans should not conduct animal testing for the sake of human interests. Some people think of animal testing as the same as eating meat and argue that animal testing is inevitable just as killing animals for meat is inevitable. However, while eating meat is a natural law and part of the ecological order, animal testing is nothing more than the sacrifice of innocent animals for human greed and superiority.
Is such sacrifice really necessary for human development and protection of life? Animal testing has already reached its limits. There are fundamental differences in physiology, anatomy, and genetics between animals and humans, so animal test results do not apply to humans in the same way. In many cases, new drugs that have been confirmed to be safe through animal testing cause side effects in humans and are banned. For example, thalidomide, an anti-nausea drug developed in the 1960s, was withdrawn from the market in 1962 after pregnant women who took it gave birth to children with limb defects. As such, animal testing is not an essential part of new drug development and may even cause side effects.
If animal testing is for the advancement of human beings, stronger legislation is needed than what is currently in place. Efforts are needed to raise the standards for animal testing, guarantee animal rights, and reduce animal testing. We need to think deeply about the ethical aspects of animal testing and move towards a life-centered mindset rather than a human-centered one. Now is the time to create a world where humans and animals can coexist in mutual respect.
I was shocked when I came across animal testing videos and records during my high school years. And even now, many years later, I have seen that animal testing is still being carried out in the name of human progress. I will urge for the strengthening of animal protection laws even if my strength as an individual is weak, and I will work to promote alternative testing methods instead of animal testing.
