The Advantages of Animal Testing in Developing New Products

Animal testing seems cruel and unnecessary in a technologically advanced society. Why do scientists still use it? As the alternatives are considered, this topic gets more complex than it seems at first glance. Strides are being made to use animal testing methods less, when accuracy will not be compromised. Key is that accuracy is found more with animal testing, in many cases.

Past Benefits

• Historically, the use of animal testing has been linked to undeniable benefits for humans. According to Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (JHSPH), animal testing was involved in developing inoculations against polio, diphtheria, mumps, measles, rubella, pertussis, and hepatitis. Without animal testing, we may still be without insulin for diabetes patients, or have no answer to the need for organ transplants, hip replacements, cardiac pacemakers, or coronary bypass surgery. Advances that have been made in fighting AIDS and Alzheimers may not have been made. Its advantageous results, that all still benefit from, support use of animal testing.

Accuracy

• The human body is a complex set of systems. At JHSPH, many scientists feel that too little is known about how all those systems interact and affect each other. Computer models or simulations do not demonstrate human reactions similarly enough to give accurate information about the safe use of products or procedures. The advantage that animals offer is that they more closely resemble those complex systems than a model's do. Scientists choose animals that resemble human DNA or cellular structures to result in that needed accuracy. Acute toxicity or chronic toxicity tests are often methods under fire. The former test analyzes damage if a product is splashed onto the skin or into the eyes, or swallowed. The latter test looks for long-term effects from use or exposure, finding cancer-causing agents, birth-defect sources, and developmental abnormality dangers.

More Advantages

• Rabbits were often used in acute toxicity tests.

  One more advantage of animal testing is that most animals' life cycles are shorter than humans' in most cases. For this reason, scientists can learn what long-term, generational impact a product or procedure may cause. This is how products that cause birth-defects are identified, for example. Also a considerable advantage is that scientists can control variables more easily in animals than in people, leading to more reliable results. This would include the kind or amount of food, the temperature, amount of exercise, and so on. Again, since animals often age faster, scientists do not need to control these variables for as long as they would have to with people.

Current Alternatives

• Current alternatives do exist, but they are not a silver bullet. Computer models or simulations are limited in how well they represent the human body. Another alternative is to use in vitro testing, which means the use of live tissue in test tubes. Some still protest that this is torturing living organisms. Tests can be done on human volunteers, so that knowledge gained is specific to humans, and those involved were aware and willing. According to "Since You Asked-Alternatives to Animal Testing," governing organizations like the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees work to "refine, reduce and replace" animal testing. This means they attempt to develop testing that creates less or no pain to the animal than in previous test methods. They also support testing that reduces the number of animals involved while not skewing test results, and testing that substitutes "nonanimal" subjects, or less developed animal species. The committee must approve each test. The Draize test, which dripped elements into rabbits' eyes as a way to test for acute toxicity, for example, is now used far less.

Alternatives Misleading

• JHSPH warns that some companies advertise that their products are "cruelty free," but careful analysis is called for here. Often these products were made using ingredients purchased from a source that had already done animal testing on them. So while the selling company has not done these tests, the product did not get developed without animal testing. This is often the case in cosmetic products.