Passing The Test: The Ethics Of Animal Testing

Ethics Of Animal Testing

Animals in research have long been a standard part of the drug testing process. These days, an estimated 26 million animals are used for scientific and commercial testing purposes in the U.S. each year, although this number is incredibly variable. These days, rodents make up the greatest proportion of laboratory animals, with mice and rats making up 95% of all testing subjects. Their conveniently small size, short reproductive cycle, mild temperament, and familiar physiology (and similar organ systems) make them a logical choice for live test subjects. Other common subjects include birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians. Arguably, research methodologies are much more highly regulated, and animals benefit from greater protection than in the days of the Ancient Greek philosophers, but the jury is still out on how to proceed with animal testing.

Many researchers maintain that animal testing contributes to life-saving cures and treatments as they are the closest living, whole-body system resource we have, save for human volunteers. Yet much of their argument is contingent upon well-regulated, humane treatment conditions—a highly variable point of contention.

Yet PETA and its supporters have long capitalized on this variability, arguing that animal testing is cruel and inhumane. Animal advocates have pointed out the many downsides of incorporating animals into laboratory research—not only are they expensive to care for, but they can also serve as poor placebos for human beings. Especially when it comes to more complex human neurological diseases, performing tests on humanoids rather than humans doesn't necessarily yield reliable results for potential human impacts. This doesn't even begin to address the treatment of animals in laboratories—they're deprived of their natural habitats, oftentimes socially isolated, and psychologically traumatized. Many of the subjects are permanently maimed, if not killed, during the research trials.

The Animal Welfare Act, signed into federal legislation in 1966, was the first law designated to regulate the usage and treatment of animals in research, in addition to other areas. Covering areas such as housing, sanitation, handling, food, and water, the act has been amended for years to date but falls short in its protection of laboratory animals. Many of the most commonly used research animals—including mice, rats, birds, and cold-blooded animals—aren't covered at all by the minimal protections of the act. Because of this, rodents, birds, and cold-blooded mammals in labs aren't adequately accounted for, leading to a potentially drastic misestimation of the number of animals in labs scattered across the country.

What Are The Alternatives To Animal Testing?

The good news is that modern-day technology has presented companies with an abundance of new options for testing their products, cosmetics, and medications.

While the recently passed Modernization Act doesn't outlaw animal testing outright, it's notable progress in allowing manufacturers to look towards other testing methods to collect the data they need to certify the reliability of their products. Despite stemming from discrepancies between how animals and people react to drug and medication trials, scientists have begun to develop alternative, cruelty-free methods of testing.

Microfluidic organs-on-chips are miniaturized clear polymer devices that contain different types of artificially-produced human cells, pushing fluid through minuscule channels to emulate blood flow. These chips can be modified to simulate all sorts of individualized bodily functions—the liver, stomach, brain, and more—which are then analyzed to determine the effects of whatever trial drug is being tested.

With the advent of the lab-manipulated human stem cell, scientists have found that by feeding clusters of cells specific nutrients and genetic instructions, they can manipulate the human characteristics displayed by the tissue, essentially cultivating testable human organs in a lab dish. Called organoids, these models have been shown to accurately predict patient responses to drugs developed to treat chronic illnesses.

The rapid-fire development of artificial intelligence and machine learning could prove an additional alternative to the intensive process of bringing live animals into the lab. Instead of the lengthy process of observing animal behavioral changes over time, computer simulations may get to the point where they are more accurate predictors of the effects of drugs on human diseases.

While it's still just as stringent a process to get a drug approved by the FDA, these new technologies provide a very legitimate—and likely cheaper—new option for exploring the effects and implications of newly-manufactured drugs and medications. Estimating the annual number of lab animals used in testing is an imprecise science itself. While it's still hard to say quite how the advents of animal-free drug testing options will impact the number of lab animals used each year, it's a drastic and mutually beneficial step in moving away from animal testing towards more accurate and affordable drug testing methodologies.

While many of these alternative testing methods are promising, they're still in their infancy and have a ways to go before being a comparable—or better—alternative to live test subjects. A general consensus amongst researchers is that the best method is to conduct several different tests during a drug's trial period and cross-reference findings to create the most accurate study.

‍

The Power Of People

While affecting the operations of research laboratories around the world may seem relatively unfeasible, consumers can leverage their purchasing power in favor of animal rights. While the general sentiment for animal testing slowly trends towards the negative and federal policies change to reflect the dissent, making well-informed choices of the products we consume can be an additional source of pressure for companies still abiding by animal testing.

Taking the time to be an intentional consumer is not only a generally more sustainable practice but can slowly shift the demand for more cruelty-free products. Many products display a logo that indicates their products aren't tested on animals, but a quick Internet search can prove valuable in choosing brands that refrain from animal testing.

Ultimately, animal rights, while lauded by environmentalists, aren't necessarily viewed in conjunction with achieving a more sustainable society. However, a world in which most cosmetics and medications are generally cruelty-free only serves to benefit every inhabitant of the planet, big and small—the true premise of sustainability.