104 Animal Testing

Introduction

Animal testing consists of experiments on live, nonhuman animals to assess the effectiveness or safety of cosmetics, household products, and medicines. The earliest sign of animal testing dates back to 500 BCE, but it gained noticeable attention in the 19th and 20th centuries with the rise of biomedical research. This chapter will explore how animal testing relates to science and technology in society while defining various types of animal testing.

Connection to STS

STS is a field that examines the social, cultural, political, and ethical dimensions of science and technology. Animal testing relates to STS as the relationship between science, technology, and society explores the use of animals in research. STS allows the question of ethics, and animal testing causes questions regarding the ethical aspect of the treatment of animals and societal values. STS also gets involved when it comes to the development of alternative methods of animal testing.

Exploring other factors, such as social and cultural, open up communication and acceptance of alternative technology and techniques within the scientific community. Animal testing also varies across different countries and cultures. STS provides an outlet that allows others to understand how cultural differences influence attitudes toward animal testing and the development of policies. STS allows people to explore the controversial differences between societal values, ethical considerations, and scientific practices, which allows more of a comprehensive understanding of the overall implications of this topic.

Types of animal testing

Animal testing, a practice ingrained in scientific research and product development, involves subjecting animals to various experiments to evaluate the safety and efficacy of different substances and procedures. From pharmaceutical trials to toxicity assessments and cosmetic testing, the ethical implications of such practices have sparked widespread debate. The ongoing discussion reflects the complexity of balancing scientific progress with ethical considerations with animal experimentation.

Pharmaceutical Testing

Animals, such as rats, are used to test the efficiency of a new drug before it advances to human clinical trials. This testing involves studying the drug’s effect on metabolism, organ systems, and overall health.

Genetic Research

Animals can be genetically modified or manipulated to study specific genes and their functions. It can help scientists understand genetic disorders, develop gene therapies, or investigate the role of genes in various biological processes.

Behavioral Studies

Animals are used in behavioral research to study learning, memory, cognition, and other aspects. These studies involve various setups, such as mazes and observational techniques.

Biomedical Research

Animals are used in biomedical research to understand the biological process, study diseases, and develop new medical treatments. For example, in the discipline of genetic engineering, mice are used as “transgenic animals.” These organisms are permanently altered by the addition of a foreign DNA sequence to its genome. A genome is the complete set of genetic information in an organism. These transgenic animals are used to study the function of human genes. The mouse below was injected with the human gene for obesity.

Animal testing within the cosmetics industry

Animal testing has long been a controversial practice within the cosmetics industry, with various ethical and scientific concerns surrounding its use. Traditionally, animals like rabbits, mice, rats, and guinea pigs have been subjected to tests to evaluate the safety and efficacy of cosmetic products. These tests often involve applying substances to the animals’ skin or eyes, force-feeding them chemicals, or even inhaling substances to assess potential toxicity. Such practices have sparked significant public outcry and have led to calls for more humane and alternative testing methods.

Despite advancements in technology and increasing societal pressure, animal testing still persists in certain parts of the cosmetics industry. Well known brands such as Estee Lauder, Benefit, and dozens of subsidiary brands are some of the largest contributors. A brand like Estee Lauder generates around $15.15 billion in revenue per year, making it difficult for animal testing practices to change given their financial success.

However, there has been a growing trend towards phasing out animal testing in the cosmetics industry, driven by consumer demand for cruelty-free products and advancements in alternative testing methods. This rising trend, popularized amongst the younger generations by social media, has resulted in many new brands entering the market with high quality, cruelty free products. Rare Beauty, a cruelty free cosmetics brand owned by singer Selena Gomez, has skyrocketed in success over the past 5 years. Starting from nothing, the brand has been hugely successful with authentic campaigns that are focused on quality and authenticity of product sourcing. In 2024, Rare Beauty is projected to gross $300 million. This is just one example of the power of branding and imagery in how animal testing can be leveraged effectively in society today.

international impact on the cosmetic industry

One of the key hurdles in addressing animal testing internationally is the lack of harmonization among regulatory agencies across different countries and regions. While some jurisdictions have made significant progress in phasing out animal testing, others still require it as a regulatory requirement for cosmetic products to be sold. This lack of uniformity complicates efforts to adopt alternative testing methods on a global scale and restricts the ability of companies to standardize their practices across markets. This is another hurdle for multinational companies to overcome.

Moreover, cultural norms and attitudes towards animal welfare vary widely around the world, further complicating efforts to eliminate animal testing in the cosmetics industry internationally. In some regions, there may be less public awareness or concern about the ethical implications of animal testing, making it challenging to gather support for legislative changes or industry-wide initiatives. Bridging these cultural differences and fostering international collaboration will be crucial in overcoming the challenges associated with animal testing and advancing towards a more humane and sustainable cosmetics industry on a global scale.

UnRELIABILITY OF ANIMAL TESTING

Animal experimentation is designed to inform human biology and health sciences and to promote the safety of potential medical treatments (Akhtar, 2015).  While medicine in general should be held to a certain standard in which it is evidence-based, this has not always been practiced with regard to animal testing.  Thus, this makes it difficult to understand why animal testing has served as the basis of preclinical testing for many years, typically supported without critical examination of its validity (Akhtar, 2015).

The first flaw that undermines the reliability of animal testing is concerned with laboratory environments.  Such environments are able to affect animal physiology and behavior, affecting research outcomes that will likely be translated to humans.  Think of a laboratory: animals are usually kept in confined spaces, lacking windows, natural sunlight, open space, and other characteristics that they experience in their normal lives (Akhtar, 2015).  Such conditions can directly affect mental processes like stress and anxiety within the animals.  These conditions are correlated with effects in heart rate, blood pressure, and other factors that are crucial in examining the effects of medicines (Akhtar, 2015).  While some researchers do control for these confounding variables, this is not the case everywhere and leads to data inconsistencies.

Disparities between animal models of disease and human diseases pose another threat to reliability of animal testing.  Humans are much more complex animals when compared to the animals usually used in testing.  While human diseases are able to be artificially induced in said animals, there is no congruence in replicating the complexity of the human genome in, for example, a rat.  For example, there are a plethora of diseases in which drug development has an extremely high failure rate due to the fact that animal models are unable to produce the complexity of a human (Akhtar, 2015).  Cancer, ALS, traumatic brain injuries, and Alzheimer’s are just a few examples of scenarios in which animal models are unreliable and unable to replicate human outcomes.  Factually, the FDA has estimated nearly 96% of drugs that pass animal tests fail during human trials due to a lack of effectiveness and safety that was not accounted for during the animal trials (Akhtar, 2015).  This alone speaks to how animal models may be unsuitable for reliably translating to the complexity of the human body and how different practices are needed in the future.

 The above discrepancies between animals and humans pose a huge threat to human wellbeing with regard to vaccine development.  Regardless of these factors, though, animal experimentation continues to influence drug development (Akhtar, 2015).  This can lead to a state of great trouble for humans as such experiments are misleading and lacking in safety while also potentially resulting in the abandonment of otherwise effective treatments on the basis of faulty animals.  Potential solutions to the unreliability of animal testing are newer advanced technologies, like 3D printing or utilizing lab-grown organs (Akhtar, 2015).

Further, to address these ongoing issues, experts advocate for the introduction of a welfare certificate—a new system where compliance with animal welfare standards is monitored and verified by independent auditors throughout the research process (Akkaya & Gungor, 2022). This certificate would serve as proof of ethical treatment and enhance the credibility of the resulting scientific data. It could include criteria such as humane endpoints, proper researcher training, and enriched living conditions, with compliance verified through regular video documentation and surprise inspections (Akkaya & Gungor, 2022). Prioritizing publication of studies with welfare certification would incentivize researchers to adopt higher welfare standards(Akkaya & Gungor, 2022). Ultimately, establishing a global consensus on the welfare certificate’s content and enforcement is seen as essential to improving the ethics and quality of animal research worldwide.

ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMAL TESTING

Animal rights advocates and scientific communities have long promoted alternatives to animal testing, grounded in the principles of replacement, reduction, and refinement (the 3Rs), introduced in 1959 by Russell and Burch (“Gale In Context” 5). These principles emphasize minimizing the use and suffering of animals in experiments while maximizing scientific output. Government bodies like the NIH’s ICCVAM and advocacy groups such as PETA and AFAAR have supported alternative methods, including awarding researchers for contributions in line with the 3Rs. Despite advancements, many institutions remain slow to adopt these alternatives (“Gale In Context” 5). The controversial Draize test, for instance, continues to be used, despite the approval of more ethical and cost-effective substitutes like those involving flatworms.

Technological innovations—such as in vitro testing, in silico simulations, and organs-on-a-chip—are reshaping the landscape of biomedical research and education. Studies have shown that nonanimal teaching methods can be as effective, if not more, than traditional dissection, prompting many schools to integrate or fully adopt these tools (“Gale In Context,” 2024). In 2022, the FDA Modernization Act 2.0 marked a major policy shift by making animal testing optional for drug approval, enabling the use of alternatives like computer models and human cell cultures. A 2023 Stanford study supports this move, arguing that these alternatives not only reduce animal use but also better predict human outcomes, accelerating drug development and improving overall innovation in the pharmaceutical industry (“Gale In Context,” 2024).

Animal testing and missing voices

When discussing controversial topics such as animal testing, it is imperative to consider various perspectives and acknowledge the diverse range of voices involved in the conversation. Missing voices are the absence or underrepresentation of views, experiences, and opinions. It highlights the need for a more inclusive and diverse representation of voices to ensure a comprehensive and equitable understanding of issues.

Scientists and researchers- scientists and researchers use animal models in their work and even work on developing alternative methods that do not involve animals. The goal is to refine, reduce, and replace the use of animals in research to improve the ethical and scientific aspects of experimentation. Alternative testing method advocates- organizations and individuals promote developing and adopting alternative testing such as computer modeling and in vitro studies. These methods aim to reduce or replace the use of animals in research.

Summary

The field of STS plays a crucial role in examining the complex relationships involved in animal testing. The missing voices provide perspectives contributing to the broader understanding of animal testing and alternative methods. Animal testing is a complicated debate. The various types of experimentation include pharmaceutical testing, genetic research, behavioral studies, etc. As technological advancements continue to shape research methodologies, there is a pressing need for a more inclusive dialogue that integrates the perspectives of various stakeholders, including ethicists, scientists, policymakers, and advocates for animal welfare. Recognizing and addressing the concerns of missing voices, such as those of the animals involved and communities affected, is essential for creating an inclusive approach to scientific inquiry. Moving forward, an ethical and sustainable future in research requires an ongoing commitment to exploring alternative testing methods, promoting transparency, and engaging in open conversations that prioritize the well-being of all stakeholders.

AI Use Disclosure

I Used ChatGPT to help find information about animal testing and organize the chapter appropriately.

ChatGPT. (n.d.). Retrieved 2023, from https://chat.openai.com

Citations

AKHTAR, A. (2015). The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 24(4), 407–419. doi:10.1017/S0963180115000079

Akkaya, E., & Güngör, H. R. (2022). The dark side of the animal experiments. Joint diseases and related surgery, 33(2), 479–483. https://doi.org/10.52312/jdrs.2022.719

ALTEX – Alternatives to Animal Experimentation,26 (1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2009.1.3

Animal Experimentation. (2024). In Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Gale. https://link-gale-com.libproxy.clemson.edu/apps/doc/PC3010999220/OVIC?u=clemsonu_main&sid=galeopenaccess&xid=45c58762

Bottini, A. A., & Hartung, T. (2009). Food for thought … on the economics of animal testing.

Companies That Do Test on Animals. PETA. https://crueltyfree.peta.org/companies-do-test/

Kabene, S., & Baadel, S. (2019). Bioethics: a Look at Animal Testing in Medicine and Cosmetics in the UK.

Journal of Medical Ethics andHistory of Medicine,12 (15).

Kim, H. (2021, November 12).Makeup Testing on Animals: Know the Brands That Do and Don’t. Sentient Media.  C

Knopp, J. (2022). What Is Animal Testing and Which Animals Are Used for Testing?” Thehumaneleague. Thehumaneleague.Org.

Liebsch, M., Grune, B., Seiler, A., Butzke, D., Oelgeschläger, M., Pirow, R., Adler, S., Riebeling, C., & Luch, A. (2011a, May 24). Alternatives to animal testing: Current status and future perspectives – archives of toxicology. SpringerLink. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/00204-011-0718-x 

Davies, G., Gorman, R., & Crudgington, B. (2020). Which patient takes centre stage? Placing patient voices in animal research. In GeoHumanities and Health (pp. 141–155). doi:10.1007/978-3-030-21406-7_9

Laybourne, A. (2023). Animal Testing Facts- Why Should Animal Experimentation Be Stopped?” Wold Animal Foundation. In worldanimalfoundation.org/advocate/animal-testing-facts/#:~:text=areas in Which Animal Testing Occurs 1 Cosmetics.

Kiani, A. K., Pheby, D., Henehan, G., Brown, R., Sieving, P., Sykora, P., … INTERNATIONAL BIOETHICS STUDY GROUP. (2022). Ethical considerations regarding animal experimentation. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene, 63(2 Suppl 3), E255–E266. doi:10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2022.63.2S3.2768

Swaters, D., van Veen, A., van Meurs, W., Turner, J. E., & Ritskes-Hoitinga, M. (2022). A history of regulatory animal testing: What can we learn? Alternatives to Laboratory Animals: ATLA, 50(5), 322–329. doi:10.1177/02611929221118001

Lu, C., Liu, X., Liu, J., Tang, X., Zhu, G., Striepen, B., & Suo, X. (2022). Immunocompetent rabbits infected with Cryptosporidium cuniculus as an animal model for anti-cryptosporidial drug testing. International Journal for Parasitology, 52(4), 205–210. doi:10.1016/j.ijpara.2021.10.006

Nature Publishing Group. (2014). Genome. Nature news. https://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/genome-43/#:~:text=A%20genome%20is%20the%20complete,molecules%20of%20DNA%20called%20chromosomes.