In this blog post, we will examine the necessity and ethical issues surrounding animal testing and consider whether it is more reasonable to conduct such testing under appropriate regulations rather than imposing a blanket ban.
Animal experimentation refers to experiments conducted on live animals for scientific purposes, such as education, testing, research, and the production of biological products. Generally, when people think of animal experimentation, they imagine experiments in the medical field—such as those conducted on animals to verify the efficacy and safety of new drugs or treatment technologies, or to investigate the effects and side effects of cosmetics and food products. However, it also includes experiments involving dissection or the observation of differences in an animal’s growth process or behavioral patterns. Rather than banning such animal experiments, it is reasonable to continue conducting them under appropriate regulations.
Of course, there has been ongoing controversy recently regarding the actual effectiveness of animal experiments and the ethical issues they raise. According to the Animal and Plant Quarantine Agency, 1,834,285 animals were used in experiments in South Korea in 2012. From a moral standpoint, it may be correct to argue that animal testing should be banned. However, upon comprehensive consideration, I believe that rather than banning all animal testing outright, we can continue to conduct it by distinguishing between necessary and unnecessary experiments and regulating them appropriately.
The purpose of animal testing is to minimize potential harm to humans and increase the likelihood of successful outcomes by first testing on animals before applying the findings to humans. In fact, animal testing allows us to first verify the effectiveness of a treatment, determine its extent, and decide whether to continue the research. If problems arise after conducting research without animal testing and then applying the results to humans, how should the costs and time lost up to that point be compensated?
Furthermore, there are cases where animal testing is unavoidable. In fact, there are situations where animal testing is the only way to investigate genetic characteristics that manifest across multiple generations. Since a single generation in humans spans several decades, conducting experiments directly on humans is practically impossible. In fact, in the early 20th century, Morgan studied chromosomes using fruit flies, which contributed to the development of the chromosomal theory—the idea that genes are located on chromosomes. Morgan’s research had a profound impact on biology. Thus, it can be said that animal testing is unavoidable in cases where there are no alternative experimental methods.
However, opponents of animal testing argue that since animals are living beings with their own lives, humans cannot use them for experiments at will; furthermore, they contend that animal testing should be banned because the way animals used in such experiments are treated is highly inhumane. In fact, tests such as the Draize test—which measures the irritancy of chemicals using the mucous membrane of a rabbit’s eye—can be considered unethical. Furthermore, opponents argue that animal testing for cosmetics development—as opposed to testing for drug development or new treatments—should be regulated because it is conducted solely for economic gain.
While I agree that some animal testing is unethical, we cannot ban it simply because the animals are pitiful. Alternative methods to animal testing include computer simulations or experiments using human cells and tissues rather than animals. However, we must acknowledge that these methods still have limitations and that there are practical differences compared to animal testing.
Nevertheless, as interest in the rights of animals used in experiments has grown in modern times, laws and regulations have emerged to regulate cruel and inhumane animal testing. For example, there are the 3R principles of animal experimentation advocated by William Russell and Rex Burch. Commonly referred to as the 3Rs—an acronym for “Reduction, Refinement, Replacement”—these principles aim to minimize redundant experiments to reduce the number of animals sacrificed, minimize the suffering inflicted on animals, and strive to conduct experiments in ways that avoid the use of live animals.
Furthermore, the argument that animal testing should be banned simply because it causes harm to animals can be viewed as overly idealistic. Opponents of animal testing argue that all such experiments are ultimately conducted solely for the benefit of humans. Is conducting animal testing for the benefit of humans truly wrong? Or should we refrain from animal testing because the process is cruel and no different from animal abuse? We must first consider these questions.
I believe that indiscriminate animal testing conducted solely for human self-interest should be restricted. However, regarding the position that opposes animal testing because the process is cruel, as mentioned earlier, this can be countered by pointing out that regulations are currently in place to restrict unnecessary animal testing. Animal testing used in cosmetics development—which falls under the category of experiments conducted for human self-interest—is already restricted or banned in many countries, and groups and movements have emerged that refuse to purchase products from cosmetics companies that conduct unnecessary animal testing.
However, animal testing cannot be banned simply because it is cruel. Aren’t those who think this way merely approaching the issue from an emotional standpoint? Who, exactly, sets the standard for what constitutes “cruelty”? People use animals not only in animal testing but also in dissecting and observing living animals, raising them as livestock, and in the processes of manufacturing other products using animals. Using animals to make products such as clothing or bags is also a form of animal use. Of course, there is much controversy surrounding this issue as well. One could argue that using animals to meet human needs is, in itself, cruel. I believe it is appropriate to establish standards and impose sanctions on experiments that go beyond a certain limit, rather than simply arguing that all animal testing should be banned.
Furthermore, I believe animal testing should be permitted if it is necessary for research that benefits all of humanity. I do not view the use of animals for human benefit as inherently wrong. After all, on this Earth where we live, humans occupy the top of the ecological pyramid; using other non-human organisms for food, or using animals for work or transportation, is also a form of utilizing animals for human purposes. I acknowledge that animals, as living beings, are entitled to a minimum set of rights. However, when we consider the actions we have taken throughout history up to the present day, don’t you think we have already come a long way before we can acknowledge that animals and humans are on the same level?
Another reason I support animal testing is that it has led to significant advancements in various fields, including medicine. It can be said that animal testing has played a crucial role in the development of vaccines and treatments for various diseases. Research using non-human primates, including rhesus macaques, was also conducted during the development of the Ebola virus vaccine. Pavlov’s conditioned reflex experiments were also animal experiments using dogs.
Without such animal testing, there could have been situations where treatments were administered directly to humans without undergoing clinical trials; the resulting loss of life would have been incalculable, and it would have sparked even greater ethical controversy than animal testing itself. In fact, South Korea experienced an incident involving humidifier disinfectants that had not undergone sufficient clinical trials, resulting in numerous deaths and victims; another notable example is the incident involving sulfanilamide. This antibiotic was developed in the United States but was administered to people before its safety had been adequately verified, resulting in 107 deaths. The toxicity of the drug was subsequently confirmed during the investigation, and this incident served as a catalyst for strengthening safety verification procedures for pharmaceuticals.
Although animal testing has been the subject of much controversy to date, as mentioned earlier, there are cases where it is unavoidable, and since many medical advances have been made through animal testing, I believe it is an indispensable form of experimentation. If animal testing were conducted in an environment that guarantees at least minimal animal rights—rather than in inhumane and unethical conditions—wouldn’t the controversy surrounding it be reduced?
