On April 6th, 2021 The Humane Society of the United States released a thought-provoking short film titled “Save Ralph”, which urged the public to demand the end of animal testing for cosmetics thus terminating the suffering tolerated by animals in laboratories. The poignant short film, with over 15 million viewers, has ignited conversations globally.
Animal testing universally violates animal welfare. Doctors and scientists continue to argue for it in the medical industry because alternatives such as in vitro still rely on biological processes to efficiently identify chemical hazards.
My personal opinion is that animal testing is horrific, and there is no need to perform it when unnecessary or when alternative testing methods exist or could be developed like testing on living tissue. I do however think that the medical industry’s critical role in discovering treatments for life-threatening conditions justifies using this practice solely when critical circumstances require it.
The Stanford University School of Medicine articulates the role of animal testing so far in the industry aforementioned: animals, particularly mice who share over 98% of their DNA with humans, are biologically similar to humans and are susceptible to similar health problems. Research on animals benefits both humans and animals, with many treatments and drugs being used for both.
Ideally, the medical field would significantly progress to the point where animal testing will no longer be needed. This can be achieved by setting a deadline by which animal testing is completely forbidden along with a financial incentive for the company that will share a cheap, accessible alternative.
A counter-argument is that the pharmaceutical industry currently cannot design new molecules that cure life-threatening conditions without animal testing in order to assess toxicity levels in the early stages of development. Testing directly on human subjects could lead to permanent disabilities or even death.
I am aware that animal research has contributed memorably to scientific and medical progress over the past century, resulting in a better quality of life and the development of new medicines and treatments. However, the scarcity of alternatives to animal testing available yet does not justify the continuous perpetration of this cruel and inhumane practice. The lack of alternatives does not mean they are impossible to identify or develop.
Our society must urgently channel considerable financial resources to develop new testing technologies that will involve neither animal nor human testing whilst ensuring that the abuse of animal testing is legally prohibited worldwide.
In conclusion, animal testing is a field of inquiry that is weighty, contemplative, and solicits our morals and ration. In order to eliminate this truculent testing method, we must be certain that alternatives to this procedure are developed, efficient, and safe to practice.
Citations:
“E.U. Bans Cosmetics with Animal-Tested Ingredients (Published 2013).” The New York Times,
2023,www.nytimes.com/2013/03/11/business/global/eu-to-ban-cosmetics-with-animal-tested-ingredients.html?searchResultPosition=3. Accessed 22 Feb. 2023.
“Is Animal Testing Ever Justified? (Published 2019).” The New York Times, 2023, www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/learning/is-animal-testing-ever-justified.html#commentsContainer. Accessed 22 Feb. 2023.
“Animal Testing Facts and Statistics | PETA.” PETA, 11 Nov. 2004, www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-used-experimentation-factsheets/animal-experiments-overview/#:~:text=Each%20year%2C%20more%20than%20110,%2C%20food%2C%20and%20cosmetics%20testing. Accessed 20 Feb. 2023.
“Animal Testing Policy.” Panda.org, 2020, wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?7802/Animal-Testing-Policy. Accessed 20 Feb. 2023.
Festing, Simon, and Robin Wilkinson. “The Ethics of Animal Research.” EMBO Reports, vol. 8, no. 6, 18 May 2007, pp. 526–530, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2002542/#:~:text=No%20responsible%20scientist%20wants%20to,only%20within%20an%20ethical%20framework., https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400993. Accessed 22 Feb. 2023.
“Confronting Cruelty | Opinion | the Harvard Crimson.” Thecrimson.com, 2023, www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/1/26/Animal-Cruelty-Testing-Harvard-Opinion/. Accessed 22 Feb. 2023.
“Alternatives to Animal Testing.” National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 2018, www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/science/sya-iccvam/index.cfm. Accessed 22 Feb. 2023.
I really hope you enjoyed this first opinion editorial on a societal issue, and if you have any suggestions to improve, I would love to see what feedback you have for me! Please leave me a comment at the end of this article to let me know what you think, and thank you to those of you who have already shared your thoughts with me via the comment feature or privately.
Sending virtual hugs and lots of happiness your way! 🧸 🌻 🤪
Interesting that you didn't mention rats being tested :( other than that, good job, was an interesting read ♥️
👍👍