So many medicines, household products, skincare and beauty products, and soaps are tested first on animals before being sold for human use. Rabbits, guinea pigs, monkeys, and dogs are frequently exposed to chemicals and drugs in order to certify that these products will not harm or cause irritation to humans. While sometimes this can be done in a safe way that truly benefits humankind and some animals, other times this can be a painful and unnecessary process.
Animal testing for medicine has been going on for millennia, and many times for good reason. In 1933, a permanent mascara called Lash Lure had an untested chemical, resulting in many women getting painful blisters on their face, some becoming blind, and one woman dying. Similarly, in 1937, a drug company from Tennessee developed a liquid sulfa drug, which is an antibacterial, and added a sweet tasting liquid that would appeal to children, calling it Elixir Sulfanilamide. While the sulfa drug had been well-tested, the sweet liquid had not, and it contained ethylene glycol, which is the main ingredient in antifreeze and causes kidneys to fail. Over 100 people died as result (other medicines containing ethylene glycol were responsible for the deaths of hundreds more in developing countries throughout the 90’s), and led to the passage of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. It requires, among other things, that any new drug had to be tested and proven safe, which caused many companies to adopt animal testing. Safety testing is usually done for 4 years before going to clinical trials (testing on human participants) to make sure no animal develops cancer, has their genes mutated, develops infertility, or birth defects.
While animal testing may seem useful to prevent harm done to humans, according to Springer Link, there have been several instances where medicines that were safe in animals failed in clinical trials. They call for “a serious, large-scale, industry-wide consideration of the necessity of animal drug testing, involving all the stakeholders—regulators, scientists, politicians, developers of alternative testing methods,….” There are also many complaints of how animals and humans are too different for animals to be used to test drugs meant for humans. The difference in genes are too different, but that can be somewhat solved by using multiple species, like rabbits, monkeys, guinea pigs, and more. However, another problem is that lab tests cannot always accurately show real-world circumstances. Most animals are raised in a laboratory for most of their lives, and they sometimes don’t develop behaviors typical of their species and instead develop abnormal activities and distress. Some species of animals can suffer from chronic stress due to the watching of other members of their species be tested on, injected, or killed, which can add variables unaccounted for in experiments.
In addition to testing on animals, using placebo in human trials has also become controversial. Placebo is when a certain amount (often half) of the participants are given the real prospective medicine, and the other participants are given some harmless substance, like a sugar pill. This practice became widely popular after World War II and was one of the best sources of evidence for a new treatment. However, this has come under scrutiny for being more dangerous to those that do not receive the treatment, especially when there is already an existing treatment. If there is already another available treatment, placing participants under a placebo makes them unable to get the other treatment and can lead to their disease or condition progressing and becoming worse. Also, they may not be effective when the placebo group only shows symptoms of what the natural progression of the disease/condition is, and when there is bias in patients’ subjective symptom reporting. However, it can be quite useful when there is no effective treatment, and is less ethically pressing when not giving treatment will not result in irreversible harm and/or there is a “rescue treatment” and there are “escape procedures”.
To reduce the harm done to animals but still make sure new medicines and products are safe for humans, the FDA has greatly supported alternatives and regulations to animal testing, according to their website. They support valid alternative methods, although they acknowledge there are very few validated alternate methods for most medical products, as “the body is a highly complex, biological living system that is difficult to replicate in a testing environment,” and “alternative testing methods cannot always predict side effects and safety concerns.” (“Facts about FDA and Animal Welfare, Testing & Research”) They also help enforce the Animal Welfare Act, Public Health Service Policy of Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals from the National Institutes of Health Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW), and The Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals from the National Research Council. The “3Rs” – replace, reduce, and refine, – are the priorities of the FDA. What these mean is that finding new methods to use instead of animal testing, using animals less for testing, and changing some of the methods of animal testing to get the best outcome from the fewest animals are all priorities of the FDA.
Currently, 12 states in the US have laws banning the sale of cosmetics newly tested on animals, but similar laws should be implemented everywhere. Although animal testing has a large role in protecting human health, it is a very controversial and dangerous practice. While there are some efforts to find alternatives, the FDA and other organizations should do more and place a higher priority on balancing the benefits of animal testing and the goal to reduce animal suffering. This can lead to a better future with faster scientific achievements that benefit humans and animals.
Sources:
This article gives examples of why animal testing is sometimes necessary for the safety of humans.
National Research Council, et al. Science, Medicine, and Animals. Edited by Committee to Update Science, Medicine, and Animals. Www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, National Academies Press (US), 2004, pp. 21–28, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK24645/
This article explains the historic use of animal testing.
Hajar, Rachel. “Animal Testing and Medicine.” Heart Views: The Official Journal of the Gulf Heart Association, vol. 12, no. 1, 12 Jan. 2011, p. 42, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3123518/, https://doi.org/10.4103/1995-705x.81548.
This article was used for information on the use of placebo in humans trials.
Gupta, Usha, and Menka Verma. “Placebo in Clinical Trials.” Perspectives in Clinical Research, vol. 4, no. 1, 4 Jan. 2013, pp. 49–52. National Library of Medicine, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3601706/, https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.106383.
This website shows how the FDA is trying to help with alternatives for animal testing.
“Facts about FDA and Animal Welfare, Testing & Research.” FDA, 8 May 2024, www.fda.gov/news-events/rumor-control/facts-about-fda-and-animal-welfare-testing-research.
This gives some information on which states have banned cosmetic animal testing and condemn using animals.
Block, Kitty, and Sara Amundson. “Good News! Washington Becomes 12th State to Ban Sale of Animal-Tested Cosmetics.” Www.humanesociety.org, The Humane Society of the United States, 19 Mar. 2024, www.humanesociety.org/blog/washington-state-cosmetics-animal-testing-sales-ban.
This article claims and explains how the use of data from animal tests is flawed.
Bailey, Jarrod, and Michael Balls. “Recent Efforts to Elucidate the Scientific Validity of Animal-Based Drug Tests by the Pharmaceutical Industry, Pro-Testing Lobby Groups, and Animal Welfare Organisations.” BMC Medical Ethics, vol. 20, no. 16, 1 Mar. 2019, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6397470/, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0352-3.
This article shows how animal experimentation and testing can include flaws.
Akhtar, Aysha. “The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, vol. 24, no. 04, 24 Oct. 2015, pp. 407–419, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4594046/, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000079.