In science animals seem to be seen as renewable resources' rather than as organisms of value. This violates the principal of respect for ... Continue reading →]]> There has been a long tradition of animal testing for scientific (especially medical) and psychological research. I have already written an article about the case for animal testing in order to give a more balanced view of what has become a highly emotive subject. The arguments for and against animal testing are highly complex, and it is not a simple question of it being right or wrong, and it is important to point out that no matter what our views are, most (if not all) of us will have benefited from animal testing in one way or another. In this article I will look at some of the arguments against animal testing.

Although there are laws which must be followed before and during carrying out tests involving animals, in the past the use of animals has been much less strictly moderated. Some of the research carried out has been nothing short of barbaric (for instance Harlow’s research with rhesus monkeys), and some of the conditions that animals have been kept in are just appalling. Luckily in the UK, laws are relatively strict (more so than in many other countries), and luckily animal testing for cosmetic purposes is no longer common. However, despite these laws, there is still animal testing going on which causes suffering to animals.

One of the main arguments against the use of animals in research is that animal studies can’t actually confirm or refute hypotheses about human physiology or pathology. In straightforward terms, it can be argued that only research done with humans is relevant to humans. Luckily, alternatives to animal testing are gradually being developed (for instance PET scans on human brains). Hopefully in time these alternatives will lead to the eradication of animal testing.

Animal testing generally occurs as a result of developing a cost-benefit model. Basically, if the benefit of the research (to humans) looks high, then it is seen as being worth the costs (to animals). For instance it is seen that if animal research is likely to save the lives of many humans that it is worthwhile. However, it can be argued that all sentient beings have the same rights, and that costs to animals are as important as costs to humans. There is no moral basis for elevating the interests of one species over another this is specieism.

In science animals seem to be seen as renewable resources’ rather than as organisms of value. This violates the principal of respect for all species. No matter what our views on animal testing are, it is without a doubt that all animals deserve respect. With any research it is not possible beforehand to predict that the research will actually benefit anyone, so there is a risk that the test will be totally unnecessary.

An article of this length cannot possibly address all of the arguments against animal testing. The whole subject is extremely complex, and it is certainly not a case of being able to say “animal testing is right” or “Animal testing is wrong” that would be ignorant. However, it is clear that there has been unacceptable testing on animals carried out, and that animals do have a right not to suffer as some testing has made them.