Nguyen 1

Johnny Nguyen
Greg McClure
Writing 39C
29 May 2016
Wasting Time Testing Animals
With the breakthrough development of insulin as a result of animal testing in 1922,
advocates against animal testing were silenced (Murnaghan, Animal). Several incidents where
lack of product testing caused massive drawbacks includes women suffering injuries to their eyes
and one woman going blind from using an eyelash dye (FDA, FDA History). This ultimately
led to Franklin Roosevelts signing the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in June 25, 1938
which brought cosmetics and medical devices under control (FDA, FDA History) and
essentially opened up a door for extensive animal testing. Despite the potential benefits of animal
testing, pharmaceutical and cosmetics companies face backlash from many animal rights
organizations including People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, PETA, for reasons beyond
subjective ones. Despite the breakthrough discoveries animal testing has contributed to and the
setbacks exposed as a lack thereof, the use of animals as test subjects by pharmaceutical and
cosmetics companies for the development of human drugs and cosmetics is resourcefully
crippling and inefficient. For this reason, the act of animal testing is cruel beyond the inhumane
procedures that animals undergo, and we, as humans, have a moral obligation. This purpose of
this essay is to advocate for a solution to the problems associate with animal testing and
cosmetics. To begin, I will first be supplying background information about the origins of animal
testing in the past century. I will then be addressing the issues that we face with animal testing
and how it effects us. Problems we face if animal testing continues includes the potential to drive

Nguyen 2
some species into extinction (Ortigas). Another issue that can be seen with testing on animals is
the possibility of not utilizing and advancing our other, more humane cosmetics testing
technologies to their full potential (PETA, Testing). The subjective problem with animal
testing for cosmetics is simply that it is unethical and tarnishes the modern human species image
as being compassionate creatures especially since many experiments practiced on animals are
described as archaic and may produce more suffering than what is necessary (PETA,
Alternatives). Lastly, I will be introducing the Humane Cosmetics Act, introduced in 2015,
prohibits testing cosmetics on animals (Humane Cosmetics). Passing this bill is a precursor to
not only eliminating animal experimentation for the development of cosmetics, but also for the
development of drugs, and doing so could fix problems contributed to by animal testing.
The breakthrough discovery of insulin began with a Canadian surgeon proposing his
theory to his mentor. Frederick Banting, who had a bachelors in medicine, theorized that the
pancreas is responsible for diabetes and took this idea to diabetes researcher, John Macleod
(The Discovery). To aid Frederick in his research, Macleod supplied the former with a lab,
equipment, ten dogs, and an assistant, medical student Charles Best (The Discovery). The pair
extracted a substance from the pancreases, which would later be known as insulin, of dogs and
eventually of cows and injected the substance into dogs that have developed diabetes (The
Discovery). It was observed that these dogs symptoms of diabetes were mitigated and the
substance was later tested on a boy named Leonard Thompson (The Discovery). Thompson
was on the brink of life and death due to diabetes (The Discovery). After the 14-year old boy
received insulin, he rapidly regained his strength and appetite (The Discovery). The
discovery of insulin dramatically turned a boys life around. And since Fredericks experiment
extensively uses animals, it gives massive weight towards the practice of testing on animals.

Nguyen 3
In addition to the positive reinforcement for animal testing from the discovery of insulin,
there is also the negative punishment that resulted from the lack of testing. In the past several
decades leading up to Franklin Roosevelts signing of the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act,
several products, all of which were not tested before being put on the market, consumers faced
adverse, sometimes relatively extreme, side effects. Many people died as a result of lack of
testing done on products. Of these products include Radithor, Elixir Sulfanilamide, and LashLure (FDA, FDA History). Radithor contained radium, a radioactive element, which led to the
slow and painful death for anyone who used this what was believed to be a tonic (FDA,
FDA History). Elixir Sulfanilamide was sulfanilamide, an antibacterial, dissolved in a solvent
known diethylene glycol (FDA, FDA History). The marketers intended for this elixir to be a
wonder drug, but it did the exact opposite. The added solvent was an analogue of antifreeze and
is the culprit of over 100 deaths, many of which were children (FDA, FDA History). LashLure was an eyelash dye that caused many women to suffer injuries to their eyes and one
woman to suffer permanent blindness (FDA, FDA History). These issues associated with the
lack of testing and the breakthrough discoveries that involved animal testing gave momentum to
the practice and eventually encouraged Franklin Roosevelt to sign the Food, Drug, and
Cosmetics Act (FDA, FDA History). This act essentially made animal testing a requirement
under federal law as testing on live humans would prove to be problematic for pharmaceutical
and cosmetics companies. However, with new research, statistics, and technologies, it is not clear
whether testing on animals is a suitable means to gauge the dangers of household products.
Humans infected with a particular have been shown to exhibit symptoms that are
inconsistent with symptoms, or lack thereof, in animals that are also infected with that same
disease. In the recent 2014 Ebola epidemic, out of 15227 confirmed cases of Ebola infections

Nguyen 4
11310 people died worldwide from the viral disease (CDC). During this outbreak, two dogs were
found to be infected with Ebola, likely contracted from their owners who were nurses that treated
patients with the zoonotic disease (Feltman). However, the dogs were found to be asymptomatic
(Feltman). This is consistent with a study conducted by CDC researchers where dogs were
shown to be able to be infected with Ebola, but appear to be asymptomatic (Allela). A disease
that is able to kill over 10000 people in a short span of time has virtually no effect on dogs.
According to these observations and data, it is evident that the human immunobiology is vastly
different from that of animals. Inconsistent symptoms between humans and animals is extremely
problematic when concerning animal labs. These dramatically different reactions to the same
disease suggest that humans and animals are likely to react differently to the same drugs or
compounds. According to Figure 1, the percent of compounds that make it past the animal testing
phase and all the way to the market is 3%. This percentage is calculated by multiplying the rates
at which compounds pass from one phase to the next. Given that this is the case, drugs can pass
animal trials, move onto clinical human trials, and fail human trials because adverse symptoms
might show up in the clinical but not
the animal trials. In essence, drugs that
fail end up being put aside (FDA,
U.S.) and in the long-term, waste
time and money. Despite the probable fact that animals dont suffer from tests that pass animal
tests and move onto clinical trials, time and money are wasted because animal labs were able to
develop a compound that doesnt harm animals but potentially harm humans, who the drugs
really matter to. Given that drugs dont even make it past the animal trials, said drugs probably

Nguyen 5
cause some form of harm to the animals. For this reason, we cause unnecessary suffering on
animals with these drugs.
Animal testing can be a large precursor to endangering some animal species. This was the
case with testing on chimpanzees before the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service classified the
primates as an endangered species on September 14, 2015 (Humane Society). Chimpanzees are
particularly popular
with animal labs
because they share 98
percent of their DNA
with humans and are
our closest relatives
(Ortigas). The primates
popularity with cosmetics
companies has been harmful to their population in the past. Chimpanzees are, of course, wild
animals, so they must have been captured from the wild at some point and this reduces the wild
population of chimpanzees, contributing to the primates extinction. According to Figure 2, we
can see that the estimated population of chimpanzees plummeted within the last century. Despite
these alarming rates, prohibiting chimpanzees from being experimented on didnt occur until
2015 (Humane Society), reflecting the recklessness of animal labs.
Some may argue that once animal labs have enough test subjects, they could start
breeding the subjects to keep their population in the labs up, but this situation is not ideal for the
purposes of animal laboratories. In a limited population of animals, inbreeding would inevitably
occur between test subjects even with artificial selection, controlling which animals breed and

Nguyen 6
which dont, causing defects in newer generations and potentially losing test subjects
prematurely as a result of said defects (Lorimer). Therefore, animal labs would have to
constantly be introducing new genes into their population of test subjects to prevent succeeding
generations from dying off. In addition, there are regulations on animals that are tested on being
released back into the wild, so once animals are used, sometimes to their capacity, they are killed
one way or another (Murnaghan, What Happens) Because of these factors, species of animals
that are tested on will likely have some risk of becoming endangered and possibly extinct.
Despite our access to alternatives to animal testing, U.S. animal labs continue the practice
of animal testing instead of the alternatives which stunts our development in creating more
effective cosmetics and drug tests. The only species that is more related to humans than
chimpanzees is humans themselves (Ortigas), so testing cosmetics on humans would provide the
most accurate results. However, the idea of testing cosmetics on live humans is already seen as a
trivial one since labs could potentially kill or disable humans testing a new drug or cosmetic.
One way of countering this issue is microdosing, a method where humans are given a very small
amount of the product that will unlikely pose a threat (Watts). This still raises the issue of putting
humans in danger, especially if the first microdose of the new product, although miniscule, is
an incredibly potent poison. But because of researchers desire to move away from animal
testing, the fact that human testing could have extremely adverse effects, and the astronomical
bill for testing a single compound, researchers have been looking to develop human tests that are
virtually risk-free tests. Of these researchers includes the engineers from Wyss Institute who
have started the Organs-on-Chips company (Tolikas). The device the company has developed is
a polymer microchip lined with human cells (Tolikas). Each chip can be specialized and can be
designed to mimic different organs (Tolikas). Furthermore, the institute plans to create a set of

Nguyen 7
these chips to mimic the human whole-body physiology which could more accurately assess
the safety of cosmetics than just testing products on cells in a petri dish (Tolikas). With this new
technology, we have the potential to eliminate animal testing and the suffering in exchange for a
method that will more quickly make breakthroughs in the development of life-saving cures
without sacrificing any other lives.
Animal testing alone is unethical, but its practice for the development of cosmetics is
more cruel. Cosmetics are not essential to our lives. They are occasionally labeled as a luxury
(Elizabeth). Animal testing as it pertains to testing drugs is arguable since many drugs developed
through animal testing have directly saved many lives like insulin (Murnaghan, Animal). The
Humane Cosmetics Act defines cosmetics as articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled,
or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body or any part thereof for
cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance, and (2) articles
intended for use as a component of any such articles; except that such term shall not include soap
(Humane Cosmetics). By this definition, the purpose of cosmetics is essentially only to improve
appearance and does not include to directly improve health. However, cosmetics improve the
quality of life for many men and women (Elizabeth) and deserve rights to pursue a better life, but
not at the expense of others lives, including those of animals. By advocating for the
development of cosmetic testing on animals, humans are guilty of an extreme form of speciesism
coined as pure speciesism, the idea that the most trivial human wish is more important than the
vital needs of other species (BBC, The Ethics). This type of advocacy is cruel in that it
reflects how selfish consumers are, being willing to let rabbits go blind by means of the Draize
test (Engebretson) just so that they could get a waterproof mascara or a smudge proof lipstick.
This type of greed tarnishes our human image as a compassionate and moral species.

Nguyen 8
One of the solutions that has already been proposed to combat animal testing on
cosmetics is the H.R.2858 bill, otherwise known as the Humane Cosmetics Act, introduced by
House of Representatives member, Martha McSally (Humane Cosmetics). The act is intended to
phase out animal testing and the sale of cosmetics tested on animals and aims to do so by
deeming it unlawful to conduct or contract for cosmetic animal testing (Humane
Cosmetics). Not only does this act prohibit testing in the U.S., but it prohibits outsourcing. Some
may argue that this approach towards eradicating animal testing in cosmetics is extreme and
might disrupt experimentation. However, Section 5 states that the prohibition on animal testing
and sale of products as a result of animal testing is not effective until one year after the
enactment of the bill (Humane Cosmetics). This gives cosmetics companies a grace period to
phase out animal testing gradually. In addition, these cosmetics companies have other alternative
ways to test their products including Organs-On-Chips (Tolikas), so the companies arent going
to be left in the dark. The feasibility of this bill being successful in the long run is high.
According to PETA, there are over 2000 cruelty-free databases (PETA, Search), suggesting
that other companies should have little to no problem phasing out animal testing. Also, the
European Union, as well as several countries, has already been successful in banning the use of
animals for cosmetics testing as well as outsourcing (BBC, EU Bans). The U.S. should in any
way be doubtful of the Humane Cosmetics Act as many cosmetics companies have already
worked around this bill without violating the bills amendments and since the European Union
has already been able to pass a law that is nearly identical to the act.
The procedures for animal testing are undoubtedly inhumane. A normal human being
would not want to be subjected to tests that will harm or potentially kill him or her. For these
reasons, animal testing can be easily deemed as cruel. Other factors magnify the cruelty of these

Nguyen 9
procedures. The arguments against animal testing in cosmetics can also add weight to prohibiting
all animal testing, including those that include testing drugs on animals. However, there is less
momentum on drugs with the same arguments made against animal testing on cosmetics since
the development of drugs facilitated by animal testing has proven to be life-changing as we saw
with the discovery of insulin. It is very possible that animal testing on cosmetics can become an
outdated practice within the near future. The question now is whether or not we can phase out
animal testing on drugs and how long that will take.

Works Cited
Allela, Los, Olivier Bourry, Rgis Pouillot, Andr Dlicat, Philippe Yaba, Brice
Kumulungui, Pierre Rouquet, Jean-Paul Gonzalez, and Eric M. Leroy.
"Ebola Virus Antibody Prevalence in Dogs and Human Risk." Emerg.
Infect. Dis. Emerging Infectious Diseases 11.3 (2005): 385-90. Mar. 2005.
Web. 16 May 2016.
APS. "Where Do Scientists Get Their Animals?" American Physiological
Society. American Physiological Society, n.d. Web. 09 May 2016.
BBC. "EU Bans Sale of All Animal-tested Cosmetics." BBC News. N.p., 11
Mar. 2013. Web. 29 May 2016.
BBC. "The Ethics of Speciesism." BBC. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 May 2016.
CDC. "2014 Ebola Outbreak in West Africa - Case Counts." Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and

Nguyen 10
Prevention, 14 Apr. 2016. Web. 16 May 2016.
Engebretson, Monica. "Seventy Years Is Enough: It's Time to Put the Draize
Test Out of Its Misery." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com,
16 Jan. 2014. Web. 29 May 2016.
Elizabeth, De. "Why Society Needs To Stop Telling Women They Don't 'Need'
Makeup." Elite Daily Why Society Needs To Stop Telling Women They
Dont Need Makeup Comments. N.p., 20 May 2015. Web. 29 May 2016.
FDA. "FDA History - Part II." FDA History - Part II. N.p., 24 Sept. 2012. Web.
09 May 2016.
FDA. "U.S. Food and Drug Administration." The Beginnings: Laboratory and
Animal Studies. N.p., 27 Apr. 2015. Web. 16 May 2016.
Feltman, Rachel. "Why Was One Ebola Dog Saved While the Other Was
Euthanized?" Washington Post. The Washington Post, 14 Oct. 2014.
Web. 16 May 2016.
Humane Cosmetics Act, H.R. 2858, 114th Cong. (2015). Print.
Humane Society. "At Long Last, Testing on Chimps to End in the United
States and the World A Humane Nation." A Humane Nation. N.p., 04
Sept. 2015. Web. 09 May 2016.
Lorimer, Heather E. "What Are the General Effects of Inbreeding." What Are
the General Effects of Inbreeding. Youngstown State University, n.d.
Web. 09 May 2016.
Melina, Remy. "Why Do Medical Researchers Use Mice?" LiveScience.
TechMedia Network, 16 Nov. 2010. Web. 09 May 2016.

Nguyen 11
Murnaghan, Ian. "Animal Testing Timeline." Animal Testing Timeline. N.p., 11
Apr. 2016. Web. 09 May 2016.
Murnaghan, Ian. "What Happens to Animals After Testing?" What Happens to
Animals After Testing? N.p., 16 Apr. 2016. Web. 09 May 2016.
Ortigas, Janet Grace. "Endangered Species Used in Medical Experiment."
Guardian Liberty Voice. N.p., 14 June 2013. Web. 09 May 2016.
PETA. "Alternatives to Animal Testing." PETA. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 May 2016.
PETA. "Testing Cosmetics and Household Products on Animals." PETA. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 09 May 2016.
PETA. "Search for Cruelty-Free Cosmetics: Makeup, Personal-Care Products,
& More." PETA. N.p., 09 June 2010. Web. 29 May 2016.
The Discovery of Insulin". Nobelprize.org. Nobel Media AB 2014. Web. 29 May 2016.
<http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/insulin/discovery-insulin.html>
Tolikas, Mary. "Wyss Institute's Technology Translation Engine Launches
'Organs-on-Chips' Company." : Wyss Institute at Harvard. N.p., 28
July 2014. Web. 10 May 2016.
Watts, Geoff. "Alternatives to Animal Experimentation." BMJ : British Medical
Journal. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd., 27 Jan. 2007. Web. 10 May 2016.

Nguyen 12

Annotated Bibliography

Lorimer, Heather E. "What Are the General Effects of Inbreeding." What Are the General Effects
of Inbreeding. Youngstown State University, n.d. Web. 09 May 2016.
This article by associate professor of biology talks about the dangers of
inbreeding that could lead to an increased chance of the inbred organism dying, otherwise
known as inbreeding depression. This information could be used to further support the
idea that animal testing could drive animal species into endangerment.
Ortigas, Janet Grace. "Endangered Species Used in Medical Experiment." Guardian Liberty
Voice. N.p., 14 June 2013. Web. 09 May 2016.
This article is written by Liberty Voice editor Janet Grace Ortigas. In this article,
Ortigas advocates for the protection of captive chimpanzees. Ortigas cites certain
statistics to support her claim that chimpanzees are facing endangerment and could soon
be extinct in the near future as a result of animal testing. This source will help support
that animal testing could pose a threat to the the populations of animals that are tested on.
Tolikas, Mary. "Wyss Institute's Technology Translation Engine Launches 'Organs-on-Chips'
Company." : Wyss Institute at Harvard. N.p., 28 July 2014. Web. 10 May 2016.
Mary Tolikas is Director of Operations at Wyss Institute at Harvard University
and has a PhD from MIT and a degree in bioengineering. In her article, she talks about
Organs-on-Chips, a new technology developed by her institute that could potentially
replace animal testing has a more reliable and ethical method. This article provides

Nguyen 13
information information about the technology that can be used to advocate the ban of
animal testing.