Running Head: ANIMAL TESTING

Animal Testing: When Innocence is Taken for Granted

British Literature Honors
E. Tawes

Toni McCoy
April 15, 2015

ANIMAL TESTING

Animal Testing: When Innocence is Taken for Granted

What is animal testing?
One of the most controversial topics people talk about today is whether or not to use
animals for experimentation with cosmetics, medication, or food additives. Many people argue
that animal testing takes away the freedom and safety of undeserving animals for selfish human
purpose. The others argue that experimenting on the animals is a part of science, product testing,
and education, so it is essential (MacClellen, 2014). Sadly, some people do not know the cruelty
that goes on in the testing facilities where animals are being held, caged, and killed. A good
amount of the research that we have on certain products have relied on animal testing, whether it
be directly or indirectly (MacClellen, 2014). Animal testing is used for human benefit, relying on
the similarities between humans and animals and is regulated all across the world, while also
being outlawed in many countries. (MacClellen, 2014). No specific type/breed of animals are
used for testing in laboratories. Many species of vertebrates/invertebrates that are used include:
nematodes, zebrafish, fruit flies, and mice as popular choices (MacClellen, 2014).

Why is it so bad?
People seem to go against animal testing mainly for the reason that there is no benefit on
the animal (MacClellen, 2014). According to Harm and Suffering,
Every year in the U.S., over 25 million animals are used in biomedical experimentation,
product and cosmetic testing, and science education. This includesdogs, cats, ferrets,
rabbits, pigs, sheep, monkeys, chimpanzees, and more. However, the majority of animals
in labs (over 90 percent) are rats, mice, and birds. Some estimates place them in the tens
to hundreds of millions
When millions of animals are being tested each year, the population is affected greatly. In

ANIMAL TESTING

toxicity tests, it is not uncommon in any way for an animal to die, even before the test is over.
Animals with which researchers are finished and survive in their research can still be killed
afterwards, with the exception of chimpanzees (Harm and Suffering). It is not fair for an animal
to be taken into a laboratory and be shoved into a small cage just for them to die soon after with
torturous tests being put on them. Many animals do not even get to experience their lives due to
being put right into testing facilities after birth.
Life in the testing facilities are anything but comforting. Along with the tight, compacted
cages, the animals stress level can become dangerously high. All they can do is sit inside of their
cages, unexposed to fresh air and natural behavior. Though some facilities do have outside
cages, they rotate the animals, which does not give them a lot of time outside. The loud noises,
cramped cages, bright lights, and lack of enrichment can all be causes of the animals high stress
level and can even lead to physical symptoms (Harm and Suffering). The term stress-induced
psychosis is used to describe the stress level the animals undergo in the laboratories. An
undercover lab investigation was done in 2009 that revealed monkeys spinning around in their
cages, biting open wounds, chewing off their fur, and basically mutilating themselves (Harm and
Suffering).

Testing
Animals do not go through just one type of test. One of the more popular tests that get
put on animals is for cosmetic purposes. This is also one of the most controversial types of
testing because people know that cosmetics have nothing to do with animals, therefore should
not be the subject of choice (MacClellen, 2014). Some cosmetic tests include skin care and hair
dyes and can include painful tests (Do You Know How Your Mascara Is Made, 2014). Despite
cutting-edge technology, the majority of Americans disagreement, and the harm done on the
animals, the United States still supports animal testing for cosmetic products simply because it is

ANIMAL TESTING

what we have always done (Do You Know How You Mascara Is Made, 2014). A good amount of
countries have even outlawed cosmetic animal testing: India, the United Kingdom, the rest of the
European Union, China, and North Korea, (Do You Know How Your Mascara Is Made, 2014,
MacClellen, 2014). Instead of continuing testing on innocent animals, the researchers could use
information from the past and see what ingredients could be reliable for future products (Do You
Know How Your Mascara Is Made, 2014).
Another type of test put on animals is the toxicity test. Toxicity tests involve needles, and
can cause possible diarrhea, convulsions, bleeding, paralysis, seizures, and even sometimes
fatality. In the oral toxicity test, a syringe is inserted into the mouth of usually a rat, and an
excessive dose of a certain substance is forced down the throat. This test is to see the amount of
the particular substance causes death to the animal. This test can go on for months until the
researcher gets the information that he or she needs (Do You Know How Your Mascara Is Made,
2014). Human clinical and epidemiological studies, experiments with cadavers, volunteers,
patients, computer simulations, and mathematical models are all different alternatives that could
be used for toxicity tests (Bidnall, 2007). Even toxicologist Kristie Sullivan believes that we
need better ways to test certain toxic chemicals (Mone, 2014). Another type of toxicity test is the
reproductive toxicity test. The researchers expose pregnant rats and mice to certain substances a
for up to two generations, and often do this test by force feeding the rodents (Do You Know How
Your Mascara Is Made, 2014).
A third type of test is the carcinogenicity test. This is where rodents are exposed to to a
certain product every day for up to two years. Scientists do this test to see whether or not the
rodents develop tumors (Do You Know How Your Mascara Is Made, 2014). Being exposed to a
chemical everyday for two years is very cruel, and just for the outcome to see whether or not the
animal develops a tumor should not be worth all of the pain the animal has to go through.

ANIMAL TESTING

A Literary Comparison
In the novel Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, Dr. Frankenstein takes his curiosity and
testing to the extreme. He developed a test with dead body parts, put them together, and brought
the creation to life. This associated to animal testing because both Dr. Frankenstein and
researchers take science too far with what they do. Putting the lives of the villagers in danger
with the monster Dr. Frankenstein creates, and the lives of the animals being tested on takes
science too far.
In Conclusion
Animal testing is disapproved by anyone who is not actually doing the harm to the
animals. Many other methods exist to test certain products instead of locking up animals in
cages only for them to be mentally and physically abused. MacClellen (2014) argued the
following:
Those opposed to animal testing on scientific grounds cite the unreliability of predicting
effects in humans based on animal models. Some argue that animal testing is not costeffective; they assert that, given the substantial costs of conducting animal tests, which
often last years and cost millions of dollars, the goal of improving human health would be
more fully and efficiently realized through a reallocation of funding to implement
existing medical technologies more widely. Some argue that much animal testing is
immoral because the animal suffering caused is greater than the expected benefits to
humans. The stronger animal rights view is that each animal has inherent moral worth,
which prohibits humans from using them as experimental subjects for any reason.
Any country that still relies on animal testing for certain products/research should try more
efficient methods that do not offend the majority of the people in their country while also
harming and taking advantage of innocent animals that have no control over what tests scientists
do on them. In the words of Jeremy Bentham, The question is not, can they reason, nor, can

ANIMAL TESTING
they talk. But, can they suffer? (Harm and Suffering)

ANIMAL TESTING

References

Animal Aid. (n.d.). Retrieved April 15, 2015, from

http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/CAMPAIGNS/experiments/ALL/730/
Bidnall, D. (2007). Animal testing. Alive: Canadas Natural Health & Wellness Magazine, (299), 48-51.
Retrieved April 16, 2015, from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?
vid=2&sid=824dace8-9f1a-4a5c-8b0c-b682c7a9edc3%40sessionmgr4005&hid=4103
Croswell, A. (2014, January 7). 5 Ways Animal Testing Hurts Humans. Retrieved April 15, 2015,

from

http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/5-ways-animal-testing-hurts-humans/
Do You Know How Your Mascara Is Made? (2014, February 10). Retrieved April 16, 2015, from
http://www.humanesociety.org/news/magazines/2014/03-04/be-cruelty-free-campaign-to-endcosmetic-animal-testing.html
Harm and Suffering | Animal Use in Research. (n.d.). Retrieved April 15, 2015, from
http://www.neavs.org/research/harm-suffering
MacClellen, J. P. (2014). Animal Testing. Salem Press Encyclopedia. Retrieved April 15, 2015, from
http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?sid=41dc7f63-5b30-453d-83ede3af97891fb6%40sessionmgr4004&vid=3&hid=4110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2
NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#db=ers&AN=89473959
Mone, G. (2014). New Models in Cosmetics Replacing Animal Testing. Communications of the ACM,
57(4), 20-24. doi:10.1145/2581925. Retrieved April 15, 2015, from
http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=41dc7f63-5b30-453d-83ede3af97891fb6%40sessionmgr4004&vid=7&hid=122