The Ends Justifying The Means... Animal Testing and Morality by Aleksandra Goluch

"My name is Aleksandra Goluch. I am a 2nd year law student who is interested in animal rights, travelling and ice skating."

Animal testing is an outdated and cruel method of conducting tests on new products. Each year over 100 million animals are used worldwide to test new products, study human disease and develop new drugs. Every 8 seconds 1 animal dies. Data from the ‘Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain 2018’ published by the U.K. Government, shows that 3.52 million procedures on animals were conducted in the United Kingdom. Moreover, of the 1.8 million experiments completed, 94,000 were classified as “severe,” including “long-term disease processes where assistance with normal activities such as feeding, and drinking are required or where significant deficits in behaviours / activities persist.” More recent statistics, released by the Home Office in 2020, indicate a decrease of 15%, comparing to 2019, in conducting animal procedures in British laboratories. Nevertheless, the United Kingdom, alongside France and Germany, is a top three country that uses animal in tests. Around 2.81 million animals were used in 2.88 million procedures, which can be split into two categories of purposes. First of all, there were experimental purposes, for which 1.44 million animals were used. Secondly, there were procedures for the creation and breeding of genetically altered (GA) animals which used 1.44 million as well. Subsequent to procedures, 86,395 of animals were classified as “severe’. This means the animals endured intense pain, suffering, or distress. 

In accordance with Animal Aid, a British animal rights organisation, laboratory animals are normally held in tiny and uncomfortable cages or kennels. Common animal procedures include for instance: exposure to infectious disease that cause illness, pain and distress, or death, genetic manipulation, short or prolonged periods of physical restraint, surgical procedures followed by recovery, infliction of wounds, burns and other injuries to study healing, behavioural experiments designed to cause distress, e.g., electric shock or forced swimming, etc. Finally, animals are subject to killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means. Those procedures are ‘justified’ by harm-benefit analysis which are supposed to assess the potential advantages for humans such as safety of new products. 

Legality of animal testing in the United Kingdom

In comparison to the whole world, UK has enforced one the strictest animal research regulations, which are guided by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA). This regulation forbids conducting research on great apes as well as animal testing for cosmetics or their ingredients. Moreover, dogs, cats, monkeys and horses were provided with additional protections, which mean they can only be used if other animals will not suffice. Furthermore, ASPA is not the sole legislation protecting animals in the United Kingdom. On the 11th of March 2013, the European Union launched The Cosmetic Directives which prohibited the use of animal testing on ‘vanity products’. In particular, it has established a ban on testing of finished cosmetic products and their ingredients on animals. Pus, it implemented a marketing ban, prohibiting finished cosmetic products or ingredients that have been tested on animals. As reported by the ‘Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain 2019’, since the EU Cosmetic Directive has been introduced, a drop of 17.9% in the number of animal procedures have been observed in the UK (prior to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU). As additional form of control, in April 1999, a local ethical review has been introduced. Namely, the Animals in Science Committee, which is responsible for providing impartial advice to the Secretary of State, animal welfare bodies and, previously, within the European Union on issues relating to the Ani Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act from 1986. 

Having said that, despite various statutes and regulations, many companies that apply for animal testing approval are being granted licenses. In order to receive such licences, companies are required to provide the minimum number of animals that will be used, explanations why non-animals methods cannot be used and how potential results justify the methods. What is more, they need to promise that discomfort or suffering will be kept to a minimum, as well as that protected species will not be used unless there will be no alternative available. As previously mentioned, granted licences are high in numbers. For instance, in 2019 there were 16,100 applications for the three types of licenses, which included a Personal License, a Project License and an Establishment License. In the first half of 2020, UK Government granted 235 licenses to researches. In practice, as reported by Animal Aid organisation,  experiments are allowed for almost any reason such as testing food additives, weapons, tobacco material and alcohol. Interestingly, Animal Free Research had even noticed a case where a licence applicant stated that alternative methods, as such ethical practices, could interfere with ‘their preferred, government sanctioned business model’. 

Lastly, it is important to mention that not only licenses are being ladled out, but also instances of various violations are being recorded. No animal researcher has ever been prosecuted under the 1986 Act, despite undercover investigations that proved, for instance, fabricated data as well as violent dogs’ abuse. Additionally, situations such as brain-damaged monkeys left unmonitored overnight in the aftermath of a surgery, and researchers laughing as they smashed alive mice against bench tops to kill them, had also taken place as explained by the Animal Aid’s ‘Killing animals and humans article’.

Two sides of animal experiments

Animal testing is a traditional approach of studying human reactions to medicines and chemicals. It has both advantages, as well as disadvantages. Advocates of using animal experiments believe that the benefits outweigh any related issues. One of the main benefits argued is that it puts no humans at risk during tests. Another one is that animal research has led to several medical advancements. This stems from the fact that according to the British Royal Society, almost every 20th century medical achievement relied on the use of animals in some way. Moreover, despite contradictory arguments, some people claim that there are no other testing alternatives which would be as successful. Genetic profile of some animals is said to be in 98% similar to humans, which might be helpful to predict human reaction to certain products. Interestingly, testing on animals also offers a different legal set. Animal testing is quite invasive, hence, the liability of accidentally causing the death of an animal vary to the accidental death during tests on humans. It should be noted that tests not involving humans or animals do exist, which will be explained further in the article.

Nonetheless, information obtained through animal methods has been proven to be unreliable. Many drugs that have been safety-tested on animals might cause a negative side-effect in people, such as death. This includes, for instance, an arthritis drug called Vioxx. It was reported to have caused up to 140,000 heart attacks and strokes before being withdrawn. In 2006, the British Medical Association announced that at least 250,000 people are hospitalised every year which stems from detrimental drug reactions. Another study conducted in 2004 discovered that damaging side-effects of drugs are responsible for 4% of hospital bed capacity and cost the NHS £466m annually. The fact that negative side effect can occur in humans and not in animals, can work conversely. Medicines such as aspirin and paracetamol, are highly poisonous to cats. Penicillin, despite being discovered by A. Fleming in 1928, was not in use until ten years later. Initially, it was successfully tested on mice and subsequently on humans. Had the researches chosen to test it on hamsters or guinea pigs, it is unlikely that penicillin would have been in use nowadays, as it is lethal to both. 

What is more, animals’ bodies are built differently to humans, thus, it is another reason why animal-tested information is misleading. For instance, a review by Spriet-Pourra and Auriche from 1994 indicated that only 6 out of 114 human toxicities had animal correlates. Chimpanzees, for one, are less susceptible to AIDS than humans. Thousands of chimpanzees have been experimented on with the aim of finding a cure for AIDS. However, whilst it kills humans, AIDS won’t kill chimpanzees. Furthermore, according to PETA, the research on the link between smoking and lung cancer was animal-tested, hence, it was conducted in vain. This is because no animals developed cancer when forced to inhale tobacco smoke as they were not susceptible to this disease. 

A new wave of changes?

In recent years, animal rights activists and various organisations, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), World Animal Protection (WSPA) or Organisation for Animal Protection (OIPA), have increased the society’s awareness regarding animals’ rights. Hence, various alternations have been made to testing novel products, studying human disease, and developing incoming drugs across the globe. 

For instance, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development approved a combination of multiple non-animal tests to identify substances that cause skin allergies. Moreover, a study by European Commission’s Joint Research Centre’s experts, ‘Review of advanced non-animal models in biomedical research’, published more than 550 non-animal models with a use for research on neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer or Parkinson. Additionally, experts from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency announced that the forced swim test and similar animal-tested methods are not an efficient way of testing potential antidepressant drugs. Also recently, coronavirus, despite having poor effect on humans, turned out beneficial for the animal welfare. Pfizer and Moderna, COVID-19 vaccine producers, officially decided to rely solely on a human data to demonstrate vaccines’ efficiency. Lastly, PETA advocates modern technology as an alternative form of testing, such as organs-on-chips and Summit, one of the world’s fastest supercomputers.

Conclusion

Animal rights are a vast sector filled with controversy. On one hand, traditionally, it might seem necessary to conduct test on animals as it might provide safe use of various products by humans. However, on the more modern side, it can be argued that animal testing is outdated and there are different, interchangeable methods such as the ones explained above. 

Personally, I believe that lives of the animals, just like any other living beings, should be respected. Technology, medicine, pharmaceutical sectors, are constantly evolving, thus, there is no need to stick to outdated ways which are causing suffering. Arguably, animal experiments are essentially nothing more than a waste of time, money and lives. 

Sources:

• ‘About Animal Testing’ (Humane Society International)
• <https://www.hsi.org/news-media/about/>
• ‘Animal Research Regulations in the UK’ (Speaking of Research)
• <https://speakingofresearch.com/facts/animal-research-regulations-in-the-uk/>
• Chelsea Munro, ‘2.88 Million Procedures Using Animals Occurred in British Laboratories in 2020’ (PETA UK) <https://www.peta.org.uk/blog/animal-testing-annual-statistics-2021/>
• Harry Clarkson-Bennet, ‘Animal Testing in the UK’ (Red Orange Peach, 1 September 2021) <https://redorangepeach.com/animal-cruelty/testing-in-the-uk/>
• ‘Home Office licenses reveal the millions of animals set to suffer and die in experiments’ (Animal Free Research)
• <https://www.animalfreeresearchuk.org/home-office-licences/> 
• ‘Killing animals and humans’ (Animal Aid) 
• <http://animalaid.wpengine.com/the-issues/our-campaigns/animal-experiments/killing-animals-humans/>
• Louise Gaille, ‘14 Pros and Cons of Animal Research’ (Vitanna, 21 August 2021) 
• <https://vittana.org/14-pros-and-cons-of-animal-research>
• ‘Smoking Experiments on Animals’ (PETA) <https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-used-experimentation-factsheets/smoking-experiments-animals/> 
• ‘UK animal research regulation’ (Understanding Animal Research) 
• <https://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/openness/regulation/>
• U.K. Government, ‘Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain 2018’
• U.K. Government, ‘Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain: 2020’

The opinions of this article are solely those of the author and are not intended to provide accurate legal advice for anyone to rely on. While the content is intended to be factually correct, the author does not accept any responsibility or liability arising from the use or misuse of this article or any loss/inconvenience/damage stemming from this. Legal advice should be sought from a qualified professional, not this blog. The opinions represented in this blog are personal and belong solely to the blog owner, and do not represent those of the people, institutions, or organisations that the owner may or may not be associated with in a professional or personal capacity, unless explicitly stated. The views expressed by any podcast guest are their own entirely, and do not necessarily reflect those of the blog owner. The blog owner is not responsible and liable for any discrepancy, if any. Any content provided by this blog or its companion podcast is not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organisation, company, individual, or anyone or anything.