Do We Still Need Animal Testing?
No, we don’t, and here is why
It’s all over the news: the Humane Society of the United States rescued about 4,000 beagles from a breeding facility in Cumberland, Virginia owned by Envigo, a life sciences organization that sells the animals to medical research facilities. Their website says that it breeds “healthy, well-socialized animals” but a number of inspections by U.S.Department of Agriculture officials found otherwise. Seriously injured or sick puppies didn’t receive veterinary care but were killed, and not only that, they didn’t get any anesthetics (as required by the law) before being put down. Inspectors found extremely underfed dogs, ill dogs, and dead puppies. Because of the many grave violations of federal regulations, a Senior U.S. District Court Judge permanently barred Envigo from breeding and raising dogs for sale and experimenting on animals. The evacuated beagles are being placed in the care of the Humane Society which, together with a number of other rescue organizations, will provide them with necessary veterinary care, vaccinate them, have them spayed and neutered, and then find loving homes for each of them.
As uplifting as this rescue operation sounds, my moment of joy didn’t last very long after I found out that every year almost 65,000 dogs are being abused and tortured at countless research facilities.1 There are, for example, the large breeding warehouses owned and operated by Marshall BioResources, which houses approximately 23,000 dogs on any given day. And they also raise and sell cats, mini pigs, ferrets, mice, rats, and other animals. Like Envigo, their website claims that “Animal Welfare Is Our Top Priority”, which is a cruel, sadistic joke. Of course, it only gets worse for the animals once they leave this hellhole and a shipping truck takes them to a new cage – this time inside of a laboratory. The experiments they have to endure are too horrifying to list here. I don’t want to cause nightmares, but believe me, it is ghastly.
So, I wanted to find out whether there were any alternatives. One area where animal testing already got a bad rap is cosmetics and household products. In the United Kingdom (1998) and the European Union (2013) animal testing for cosmetics has been banned2, although there are exceptions. For example, China requires that imported cosmetic products are tested on animals. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) demands that manufacturers of cosmetics and household products prove that their merchandise is safe for humans, but allows non-animal tests. Which means that some companies can proudly claim that no animals were harmed, but if you care about this, you’ll have to do some research. Luckily, there is an app for your phone: Beagle Freedom Project's Cruelty Cutter. It lets you scan the barcode of a product, and then immediately tells you whether it’s cruelty-free or not.
Unfortunately, it’s a different story when it comes to medical research. Take a look, for example, at the Oregon National Primate Research Center, part of Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, OR (and one of SEVEN NPRCs in the nation). They host over 5,000 monkeys (rhesus monkeys, Japanese macaques, baboons, and other monkey species). There have been many incidents of sick, injured, and mistreated animals3, but the allegations have been denied or trivialized. However, a virtual tour presented by the Center hardly inspires confidence that these animals lead a happy life. The ones used for experiments permanently live in cages, while the monkeys used for breeding run around in a tree/shadeless area that resembles a kids’ playground but hardly a species-appropriate environment. They have markings on their backs resembling numbers or letters. I don’t doubt that the staff are sincere when they claim that they care for the monkeys in their custody, but the video clearly shows that the animals get the worst of two worlds: they don’t live in their natural environment and are not free. But their contact with humans is restricted by surgical gloves, fences, and lab coats. The primates are models for testing, not real living beings.
I have a soft spot for monkeys. When I rented a house in Kathmandu/Nepal for a few months, near the Swayambhu Temple, I quickly learned NEVER to leave a paper bag or purse or similar item unattended, even when right next to me on a bench – a monkey would scoop it up with lightning speed, and I’d never see it again. But the most amazing encounter I had with a begging Mom. There were no glass panes in the windows on the second floor, but carved wooden rods offered some protection from the outside world. I heard some plaintive noises, and saw a female monkey with a baby in her arm, pushing her up-turned hand through the rods and clearly begging for food! She had only one eye. I’ll never forget her resourcefulness and ingenuity.
When I lived in Japan a few years later, monkeys were a common sight in Kyoto around some temples, but were totally fascinating to watch near Nagano in the winter, where they soaked in a hot spring surrounded by ice and snow. The hot water quickly evaporated in the cold air, adding a misty, dream-like flair to the scene.
No wonder I’m not in favor of medical testing on animals. Particularly because this is no longer necessary in order to develop life-saving medicine. More humane, technologically advanced non-animal test methods have been developed which actually yield more accurate results because animals have different DNA and chromosomes. For example, the Wyss Institute at Harvard University has developed human organs-on-chips which are “living, three-dimensional cross-sections of human organs [that] provide a window into their inner workings and the effects that drugs can have on them, without involving humans or animals.” And there is In Silico Modeling that simulates human biology and the progression of developing diseases.
Although some medical schools still use live pigs for surgery training, this violates the federal Animal Welfare Act because alternatives to animal use exist, such as patient simulation which is also in use for Emergency Medical Technicians’ education. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has been on the forefront of the movement to end testing on animals. The founder of the organization, Neal Barnard, MD, FACC, is an award-winning medical professional and may inspire more confidence than PETA, for example, when claiming that animal experiments are no longer necessary.
I do acknowledge that some great medical advances and breakthroughs were made possible because of animal testing. But times have changed; not only because current technologies make it obsolete, but also, because humanity’s view of animals is shifting. They’re no longer an exploitable commodity but living, feeling, intelligent beings who are as much part of this strange world as we are.
Such a well-researched article on something I've always been against but had never done a deep dive into. Thanks for your insight!
Very happy to hear about the alternatives. I remember reading an article a few years back that stated that 7 million animals are used for medical research in the UK alone . It seems to be going down, which very hopeful.