animal testing mythology

It is often the case that relatively compassionate people, who readily admit that factory farms (which tightly confine and mutilate animals long before slaughter) are cruel and unnecessary, will, when it comes to the issue of non-human animal testing for medical research, unequivocally state that it is necessary and that they support it. I find this to be problematic because animal-based medical research is fallible, morally inconsistent and non-essential.

First, let me outline the basic argument for animal testing (comprising three parts):

A. Non-human animals are so much like humans that testing chemicals (drugs, vaccines, toxic substances, etc.) and actions (radiation, surgery, etc.) are accurately predictive of the reactions that would be experienced by humans.

B. Non-human animals are so dissimilar to humans that they are completely disposable (can be confined, poisoned, dissected, etc., without them experiencing pain or concern for their own well being in ways similar to humans).

C. Medical science requires biological study of living organisms to achieve medical advancements, without which we would suffer unduly, live shorter lives and ultimately go extinct as a species.

To summarize: Part A – it’s useful; Part B – it’s harmless; Part C – it’s necessary. Animal testing advocates will argue for all of these points, but this is a flawed argument; let me explain.

Parts A and B together in combination present a logical inconsistency. We know that the human being experiences pain and deep concern for its own well being due to biological factors (central nervous system, etc.). Therefore, if another animal species were to have a similar enough biology to experience substance sensitivity, overall health and sickness similar to the human being, then it logically follows that same animal will experience pain and concern for its own well being similar to the human being, in roughly equal measure. If A is true, then B is untrue, but if B is true, then A is untrue – the two are mutually exclusive.

When considered separately, Part A seems reasonable (at first glance). As for Part B, however, given any species cognitively similar to humans (such as the chimpanzee), it can be quickly exposed as a moral belief in non-human animal inferiority rather than significant biological dissimilarity. Such a belief can only be based in mysticism (i.e., a religious doctrine that claims that non-human animals are inferior beings given to humans to subjugate) and/or speciesism (the belief that ones own species is “naturally” superior to all others, in spite of instances where an individual human being may be inferior in many/most ways to an individual of another species).

Also, because of the biological fact that non-human animals experience pain sensitivity (the most basic principal of biology is that individual animals need to survive and pain is their basic tool of continued existence), it is not possible to say that non-human animal testing is truly “harmless,” it is only possible to argue that it is “less harmful” than human testing would be, in which case, the [modified] Part B belief also requires Parts A and/or C to be true; it cannot logically stand on its own. Since Parts A and B cannot logically coexist, let’s focus on C.

Part C is semi-rational. The idea that medical science requires biological study seems reasonable. However, the belief that medical science is absolutely necessary for human survival is certainly not rational. Human beings survived without any significant medical industry for thousands of years and if all medical research were suspended today, they would continue to survive. Like other animals, human beings possess biological capabilities to fight off infections and to adapt as a species over time. Some individuals might die who might have survived due to continuing medical research, but overall, there would be no significant effect on the human species survival. After all, we survived Polio, the Bubonic Plague and many other pandemics.

So, medical advancement is not necessary for the human species and, while animal testing might be useful in terms of predicting human responses, it is not harmless and is likely harmful to a similar degree as it is useful.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

For the sake of thoroughness, however, let’s assume that medical advancement is highly desirable because of the potential benefits to individual human lives and to the overall health of the species. Let’s also, for the sake of argument, assume that modified Part B (it is less harmful) is a valid point^[1]. So, it remains to address Part A (it’s useful), and a modified Part C (it’s highly desirable).

In response to Part A (non-human animals are so much like humans that testing on them is accurately predictive of the reactions that would be experienced by humans):

1. Non-human animal tests are fallible – they can be counter-predictive for humans and it is dangerous for us to rely on them. Here are some examples:

“Thalidomide
Famously, this drug was given to pregnant women in the 1950’s [following the usual round of animal testing] to control nausea, causing more than 10,000 births with limb-reduction defects. (ref: Bailey et al. Biogenic Amines 2005 19(2):97-145.)” ^[2]

“lenac (Fenclofenac)
This NSAID, despite passing animal toxicity tests in 10 animal species (mice, rats, guinea pigs, ferrets, rabbits, cats, dogs, pigs, horses, and monkeys), produced severe liver toxicity in humans. (ref: Gad S. J Am Coll Tox 1990;9:291-302)”

Although some tests may give results that seem useful, the fact that some non-human animal tests yield results non-applicable to humans^[3] means that overall this is not a useful endeavor (we can never know until actually used by large quantities of humans over significant time duration which results were useful and then only in cases of the positive-to-negative scenario, never in the case of negative-to-positive^[4]).

2. The physiological responses of one human being are not, in fact, predictive of the physiological responses of a different human being. Minor differences in human genetics and overall health can produce very different effects (for example, penicillin is a great lifesaver of some humans, but produces severe swelling and irritation in others [like me]).

In other words, human testing (even in aggregate) is not 100% predictive of any individual human response because of significant individual differences within the species. Given that there is an even greater difference between human beings and non-human beings, the accuracy of such testing is highly suspect (as born out in the examples of my previous point) .

In response to modified Part C (non-human animal testing/medical research is “highly desirable”):

3. Given the choice between human testing and non-human testing, moral considerations aside, the human testing would be preferable as it would be could be assumed to be accurately predictive (although not 100%, as previously mentioned). Due to modern ethical considerations, however, humans are exempt from [initial] testing. So we are left only with non-human testing to consider. Many would assume that this means de facto non-human animal testing, but such is not the case. Science is nothing if not inventive and is always finding alternative methods^[5]. Currently, there are two main alternatives:

*In Vitro cell culture testing
*In Silicon computer simulation

As these methods are developed further, we should be able to get more accurate results from these than from regular In Vivo animal testing (and may already be doing so). Additionally, a new testing method, Microdosing, is being explored, which involves applying doses much smaller than believed to be effective to human volunteers.

4. Many advocates of non-human animal testing, when pressed into debate, will quickly and adamantly offer the argument that human lives are “saved” due to such testing, as if that proves their argument. Although it is wonderful that medical science has been able to save some lives, it is arbitrary to claim that non-human animal testing has definitively “saved” any human lives in that this claim excludes any possibility that other methods might have achieved similar results^[6]. Also, as explained earlier, animal testing is fallible and, if it has resulted in some information relevant to human usage, that’s largely due to luck as reliance upon it has certainly contributed to human deaths as well.

Additionally, this “saved” argument does not take into account the many animal tests intended for medical advancement in the realm of non-life-threatening and lifestyle-related ailments, nor does it account for the medical industry’s profit-motive whereby there is incentive to sell products that don’t help significantly.

Along similar lines, it is worth noting that drug companies frequently “invent” new medicines that are really just chemical extracts from age-old herbal remedies (the most common example is aspirin, which was based on willow bark, a remedy dating back thousands of years^[7]). Of course, in modern times, these “new” medicines go through vigorous animal testing, but the plant remedies had already been in use for many years, so we’re really not “saving” any lives by these kinds of “inventions”, just refining the old medicine (and, like with aspirin, these refinements could and would continue without non-human animal testing).

5. A cursory study of the history of medicine^[8] reveals that it is intertwined with fraudulent claims by “doctors” offering “miracle cures” (thus the famous “snake oil” stories). It was the very preponderance of such fraud that led to pressure for testing. The reason that non-human animal testing was chosen was that it was ethically acceptable (as mainstream culture did not consider non-human animals to have any rights), cheap and available (certainly cheaper and more available than human volunteers were). It was not chosen based on efficacy nor was it rigorously compared with other methods of research – it’s only that some sort of testing was desired and it was convenient.

In conclusion, the argument for non-human animal testing is extremely flawed; its three primary concerns do not add up, nor does any individual concern stand solidly on its own: such testing is not unequivocally useful, nor is it harmless, nor is it necessary. Even when each argument is subsequently modified to be more flexible (i.e., it is somewhat useful, it is less harmful and highly desirable), these arguments are not especially strong. They can only stand with the crutch of pre-existing supporting beliefs (in the efficacy of such testing, the near-infinite inferiority of non-humans and the non-existence of viable alternatives). In good news, the use of non-human animal testing seems to be slowly going down in recent years (due to the rise of more cost-effective alternative methods), so hopefully we’re at the beginning of the end.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Footnotes:

[1] As mentioned previously, the “less harmful” argument is a value judgment, albeit one living in the realm of “common sense” (an often critically unexamined source of cultural beliefs). For any rational person who will admit that a non-human animal has some value, that its suffering is not “harmless,” then the “less harmful” argument for animal testing only holds up for a one-to-one comparison, i.e., a single human being to a single non-human being. If one wishes to extrapolate this argument to a many-to-many comparison, one needs to be appraised of the sheer number of animals experimented upon: estimates say that 50-100,000,000 vertebrate non-human animals are tested upon every year (about 3.5 million documented per year average in UK alone since 1960). Although data is not available on human lives “saved” or improved as direct results of these tests, it seems obvious that the testing-to -successful-results relationship is not one-to-one (as would be expected since experiments necessitate the possibility of failure), but is a many-to-few relationship. Given this, any “less harmful” advocate, in order to avoid making a spurious argument, must first ascribe a relative value to the non-human life. Although it may be a small number, it may not be an extremely small number which essentially equates to zero (otherwise this is really a “harmless” argument which is irrational, given biological realities). Given a relative value (for example, one might decide that one human is worth 10 dogs), it then becomes the ethical responsibility of this belief holder to determine that the numbers add up (i.e., that no more than 9 dogs are being tested for the sake of a single human); if the numbers were to add up, one could proceed with this argument, if not, then one must advocate for the immediate reduction in the number of non-human animals being used for testing. Since the human benefits to animal tests done statistics do not exist, this is in effect a spurious argument. However, it is a necessary precursor belief to pursue Part A and Part C arguments, which is why I said to assume it was true in order to address these other arguments in more detail.

[2] Advocates of non-human animal testing claim that in this example, original animal tests didn’t include pregnant animals (which, in a medicine intended largely for pregnant women demonstrates marked incompetence within the animal testing industry – yet another reason not to pursue it), however, their argument is flawed because even pregnant non-human animal tests did not yield the same effect. Citation: “After thalidomide was withdrawn from the market, tests in pregnant mice, rats, and guinea pigs were negative; finally, one strain of rabbit (the New Zealand white rabbit) was found to be susceptible. Cats, hamsters, rats, and mice were later found to be sensitive only to extremely high doses. (ref: Bailey et al. Biogenic Amines 2005 19(2):97-145.)”

[3] Additional example:““[The LD50 (Lethal Dose 50% toxicity test)] is now an anachronism….I do not think the LD50 test provides much useful information about the health hazards to humans.” —David Rall, Ph.D., former Director, National Toxicology Program“ This citation (as well as those in my point 1 in main text) and more are available with references on the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) website.

[4] Where A = non-human animal testing demonstrates safety and B = human safety, these examples are A = not B, therefore it follows that in some cases B = not A, which is to say that it can be logically inferred that some substances that would be safe for humans, but not for other species are being eliminated by these kinds of tests, but we don’t have specific examples of this because our system prevents these potentially life-saving substances from ever being used on humans.

[5] Science has been inventive in this case, even when the default of non-human animal testing is considered acceptable and is legally required. Imagine the possibilities if intrepid science were not allowed non-human animal testing and was forced to find other methods!

[6] There is no reason to believe that without non-human animal testing that the same results would definitively “not” have been achieved. That is to say, other forms of medical research may have resulted in the same “saving” methods/substances, or they may have resulted in even better or more such methods/substances. Without a clear comparison of medical research history both with and without animal testing, it is impossible to judge the efficacy of the default method to the non-explored methods.

[7] The History of Aspirin can be read on Wikipedia (of course, you’re free to find alternate sources online). It is important to note, however, that at the time this was discovered (mid-19th century) non-human animal testing was not commonly practiced for pharmaceuticals (possibly not at all) and yet the discovery and development of salicylate medicines (based on willow bark) was able to proceed with success.

[8] Duke University has a Timeline of Medicine – see the “Regulation of advertising and drugs” sub-sections where the preponderance of fraud in medicine can be easily inferred.