Testing of animals is based on misguided preconceptions of human superiority
Recently it has come to light that Birmingham University used 54,000 animals for scientific research in 2016, an increase of 7,000 animals from the previous year. The animals were used for a variety of pain inducing experiments. For example, mice were injected with toxins to replicate chronic liver injury while tetanus toxins were injected directly into rats’ brains.
The figures sparked outrage from many, including the Animal Justice League who staged a ‘Light Brigade’ protest with the words “54,728 animals killed by UOB” illuminated over the city canal bridge. Yet the testing at Birmingham is just a microcosm of the cruelty that animals are subjected to across the world.
9 out of 10 experimental drugs fail in clinical studies because we cannot predict how they will react with humans from animals.
The RSPCA reports that in 2016 4 million animals were used in the UK for testing and over 100 million globally. The suffering is widespread. Golden retrievers in Texas are bred to develop muscular dystrophy, crippling them so that most die before the age of 2. At the University of Wisconsin- Madison, cats skulls are drilled into to implant electrodes into their brains. 3,000 primates are tested on in the UK every year causing unprecedented psychological suffering to the subjects.
You ask: “But surely all of this is justified with the medical advances that animal testing brings?”
Not only is testing on animals unethical, it is disastrously ineffective. Fundamental biological differences between humans and animals mean that while the tests on animals might prove one thing, it is rarely replicated with humans. Former secretary for the US Department of Health and Human Services, Mike Leavitt, states that 9 out of 10 experimental drugs fail in clinical studies because we cannot predict how they will react with humans from animals. How can we continue to justify these practices?
Penicillin kills guinea pigs yet is inactive in rabbits. Aspirin kills cats and causes birth defects in rats, mice and dogs. Morphine works as a depressant in humans yet stimulates goats, cats and horses. Cancer has been cured in mice for decades through a method that clearly does not also work for humans, yet the failed tests persist while people globally wait for a cure.
The failures of animal testing are thrown into even sharper relief by the fact that alternative ways of testing now exist.
Dr André Menache, the Animal Justice Project’s science adviser, drew attention to the ineffective nature of animal testing when he condemned the experimentation at the UOB, describing the experiments as “a waste of public money and animal lives” that are “tantamount to scientific fraud” given what is known about the differences between mice and men.
The failures of animal testing are thrown into even sharper relief by the fact that alternative ways of testing now exist. Using isolated cells and tissues, computers to model biological processes or simple organisms such as bacteria have all proven to be successful alternatives to animal testing that also come without causing mass suffering.
Currently in the UK a law – Section 24 of the Animals Act 1986 – allows vivisectors to conduct cruel procedures without any public scrutiny. So, most people do not know about the extent of the cruelty which is a key factor in the reason animal testing persists.
With veganism on the rise by 360% in the last decade it appears there is hope that minds are changing
However, I think that the crux of the problem with animal testing and the reason it continues boils down to a simple fact: most people fundamentally believe humans are superior to animals.
Often, as I explain to people why I don’t eat meat or wear fur or buy cosmetics first tested on animals, I’m hit with ‘the look’. The look that states that vegans, environmentalists and activists are ‘the other’ for believing that animals have fundamental rights just as we do. It’s a look that unfortunately has been built from a lifetime of believing that animals are less sentient, less intelligent and less emotional.
With veganism on the rise by 360% in the last decade it appears there is hope that minds are changing towards out relationship with other living beings and that this changing mindset will also bring an end to animal testing as people begin to realise that animals are not here for us, but here with us.
Comments (1)
Another fact-free tour-de-force from someone who gets their information from biased sources. The FDA did not say animal experiments were ineffective, they said *laboratory* and animal studies had a high failure rate i.e. all ways of doing research, animal or not. This is NOT because something ‘worked’ on an animal then failed in a human, it’s how many of possible candidate compounds eventually turn into a drug on the pharmacy or veterinary shelves, as in ‘here are 100 natural remedies, I wonder which one actually lowers blood pressure’.
The *actual* FDA statement with context is here http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/files/2914/1207/5323/nine-out-of-ten-statistics-are-taken-out-of-context.pdf. Direct link here https://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/CriticalPathInitiative/CriticalPathOpportunitiesReports/ucm077262.htm
Of course, most veterinary medicines are scaled down doses of human medicines, saving Gorillas from Ebola and cats from leukemia, but don’t let that get in the way of your finger-wagging that we should just let them perish.
It was equally foolhardy for you to venture into law. Far from secretively hiding experiments, the law requires that they’re all published in plain English on the Home Office website https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/non-technical-summaries-granted-in-2016
My, my what are they doing there! It’s all a big secret isn’t it? What that 1986 law also says is you cannot use an animal if there’s an alternative. Look- it says it here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/14/section/5. You also have to publish suffering and guess what? It isn’t much! https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/statistics-of-scientific-procedures-on-living-animals-great-britain-2016
Finally, most animal research is *not* drug development but basic research, like the sort that lets you avoid cancer rather than be treated for it, and is mainly funded by universities, medical charities, veterinary schools etc. When animals are, rarely, used for drug testing, they are incredibly predictive of human reactions and even using data provided by anti-vivisectionists we get close to 100% http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/files/7214/8458/1508/Bailey_analysis.pdf Why the hell else do you think every government in the world uses animal data when it’s the most expensive way of doing anything? If only they were as smart as you, right?
Also, we have things like human and animal cancer treatments based on other species’ antibodies so same-species volunteers are no use at all.
Let’s summarise: Animals are used only when there’s no alternative, in mainly low-suffering experiments to excellent effect for the benefit of humans and other animals alike. It is mainly about investigating how disease works because how the hell are you supposed to stop it if you don’t know how it works? Of course other methods are used, usually alongside animal experiments, human data etc but cannot paint the whole picture.
Let’s be clear what you stand for – fantasy alternatives that necessarily don’t exist and/or standing idly by while nature wreaks its worst on all animals including humans. The word ‘ethical’ doesn’t describe your position ‘Nihilistic’, probably. ‘Poorly-educated’, yes on this subject. ‘Gullible’, definitely.
You’ve lapped up the fantasy narrative willingly, despite all that contrary evidence available online, but it’s a narrative that only works because of your scientific and political illiteracy – otherwise you’d have called BS on it as I do above.