Hernandez 1

Melody Hernandez

Professor McClure

Writing 39C

24 May 2018

Advocacy Project

A survey conducted by the The United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service in 2016 found that there has been a 15% increase in nonhuman

primate use for research, testing, or experimentation in the United States as seen in Figure 1.

Moreover, the USDA, has reported a total of 38,633 nonhuman primates bred and held captive

for future use in research and experimentation purposes (National). It is important to note that

nonhuman primates represented only 9% of animals protected under the Animal Welfare Act and

that were used for researched based purposes (USDA).

Figure 1. Nonhuman Primate Use in the U.S. for Research, Testing, and Teaching. ​National
Anti-Vivisection Society.

Ultimately, the need for animal experimentation for purpose of medical research has

increased throughout the years prompting the importance of protection of animals such as the

rhesus macaques under regulations such as the Animal Welfare Act and its several amendments
 Hernandez 2

serve to protect Animal Welfare. Thus, for the purposes of this paper it is important to note that

throughout the history animal testing for purposes such as medical research there have been two

dominant perspectives on this issue being Animal Rights versus Animal Welfare. Animal Rights

or Animal Liberation calls for the moral rights animals deserve. On contrary, the Animal Welfare

differs because it aims “to minimize the suffering of exploited animals but has not fundamentally

challenged the view that animals are essential resources” (​Animal​ 251). Although, this view is

concerned for the welfare of the animal it ultimately consists of decisions that benefit the human

race as seen in animal experimentation for medical research.

With the help of social pressure resulting from the early Animal Rights Movement, The

Animal Welfare Act was first passed by Congress in 1966 due to the growing concern for the

protection of family pets from thefts. Furthermore, it was not until 1985 that the Animal Welfare

Act incorporated the Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act along with principles of

humane experimentation technique proposed by William Russell and Rex Burch in order to

cause as little distress or pain to the animal, and to replace animal subjects with the use of

alternative methods (Russell & Burch 4). ​Ultimately, this amendment increased the standards of

humane care for animals held in labs such as providing nonhuman primates with an adequate

physical environment that would promote their psychological health (“Public Law 99-198”).

Additionally, it is evident that the Three R’s played a considerable role in this amendment since

it calls for the prevention of the duplication of experiments, reduction or replacement of animal

subjects, and methods that decrease pain and distress (“Public Law 99-198”).Therefore, this act

required researchers to establish I​nstitutional Animal Care and Use Committees that would be

responsible for implementing the Three Rs. To elaborate, the role of these committees are to
 Hernandez 3

review and research specific programs in regards to upholding animal welfare and to inspect

these facilities every six months (Ibrahim 207) . However, as seen with the Silver Springs

Monkey Case and University of Wisconsin’s unethical testing, the Improved Standards for

Laboratory Animals Act failed to protect species such as rhesus macaques from unethical

experimentation on several occasions within the past decade. With that being said, the use of

animal experimentation for medical research purposes imposes unnecessary harm and suffering

as the result of Andrew C. von Eschenbach, a commissioner of the Food and Drug

Administration stated, “Today, nine out of 10 compounds developed in the labs fail in human

studies. They fail, in large part because they behave differently in people than they did in animal

or laboratory tests” (Armstrong 314). Furthermore, Susan J. Armstrong, Professor of Emerita and

Environmental Ethics specialist at Humboldt State University argues, “With its 92 percent

clinical failure rate , preclinical animal testing is an extraordinarily unreliable method of

establishing the safety and effectiveness of pharmaceutical compounds in humans” (Armstrong).

Although animal experimentation advocates have argued for the benefits of animal

experimentation for medical research the value of human-tissue in vitro, stem-cell research, and

in silico testing have proven to be suitable alternatives to animal experimentation. Ultimately,

scientific research has found that animal models are not always efficient in medical research and

that alternative methods of testing are useful for conducting the same experiments without

harming animals. Thus, this prompts the idea that animal experimentation must be abolished as it

is the only way to prevent further suffering as a result of its inefficiency and the Animal Welfare

Act inability to protect the welfare of laboratory animals.

 Hernandez 4

Animal experimentation is morally wrong on the basis of utilitarianism, speciesism, and

suffering. Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, built the foundation on

the morality of the human race’s actions towards animals by stating “self-interest should guide

no morality” (​Practical ​69). Thus, as humans we should stray away from our usual actions that

are rooted in self-interest and orient our actions towards those that would hold other’s interests in

consideration as much as their own. This prompts the idea of the “speciest” which “allows the

interests of his own speciesism to override the greatest interests of his own species to override

the greater interests of members of other species” (​Animal ​9). Although, many critics have posed

counterarguments to this view on the basis that animals do not hold the same capacities such as

intelligence as human beings it is morally wrong that as humans we justify our actions based on

the belief that our need for innovations surpasses the interests of nonhuman animals. The idea

that humans are dominant over nonhuman animals is congruent with the idea of speciesism

because historically the human race has been willing to perform cruel and painful experiments

for the purposes of medical innovations. Moreover, Singer asserts, “No matter what the nature of

the being, the principle of equality that its suffering be counted equally with the like of

suffering...of any other being” (​Animal​ 9). It is important to note that because humans and

nonhuman animals share the ability to suffer they should be granted equal moral consideration.

Thus, as we continue to face this debate on the morality of animal experimentation we should

consider the utilitarian view which is defined as “a cost-benefit analysis in order to create the

most favorable situation for as many subjects as possible” (Marie 90). Ultimately, through this

principle we can determine morality on the basis of what actions benefit the greater good as a

whole. Thus, through this approach to morality we ponder the extent to which our practice of
 Hernandez 5

animal experimentation takes into account the interests of animals considering that through an

animal rights stance the humans needing the medical innovations can be considered a minority

group due to the poor rates of success in animal models which cannot prevent inevitable deaths.

Prompting us to question why we are willing to end several nonhuman animal lives for

experiments that have not produced feasible results and that can be replaced with alternative

testing methods.

Figure 2. Alternative testing methods for animal experimentation in different areas of

medical research provided by ​Science Direct​.

Animal experimentation should be abolished in the United States and replaced with

alternative testing methods that are humane, effective, cheaper, and relevant to humans in

regards to its applicability. As seen in Figure 2, fields such as Chemistry, Physics, and Computer

Science can utilize alternative to animal experimentation for the purposes of medical

innovations. However, like any industry the medical research industry is driven by the

maximization of profits which is prompted by the United States government’s budget of an

average of $140 billion each year for scientific research (Doss 158). This leads researchers to

conduct experiments by any means in order to obtain grant money despite the negative

consequences nonhuman animals experience. It is also important to note that the loopholes in the
 Hernandez 6

Animal Welfare Act allow for flexibility in researchers conduction of experiments and treatment

of animals. Ultimately, despite the fact that several of these experiments are not producing viable

results they are continued due to the possibility of institutions receiving incentives in forms of

grants (Doss 158-161). Therefore, it is evident that despite the fact that we are capable of

utilizing effective alternative research methods greed drives the exploitation of innocent animals.

Our modern science revolution has allowed us to develop technology prompting the

production of effective tools such as in vitro testing, computer (in silico) modeling, 3D cell

culture models which can used for the prediction of effectiveness of medicine and toxicity while

eliminating the need for animal experimentation.

In Vitro Testing

The Wyss Institute at Harvard University has revolutionized “organs on chips”

containing human cells which model the structure and function of the organ systems of humans

eliminating the need for animal models in disease research, toxicity testing, and drug responses

(PETA). Furthermore, these “organs on chips” are useful because they have the “ability to host

and combine the different cell and tissue types making up organs…[and] mimic human-specific

disease states, as well as identify new therapeutic targets in vitro” (Wyss). Thus, this technology

allows for a more accurate representation of disease and effects on the human body. Moreover,

to get a better understanding of how the organ systems in the human body are interconnected

researchers have developed a way to link the chips in order to get a holistic understanding of the

experimental process itself (Wyss). Moreover, this industry is projected to grow as researchers at

Harvard University are in the process of further innovating the technology to develop human

stem cells that are capable of differentiating on chips (Wyss). Thus, this mode of
 Hernandez 7

experimentation is more humane, effective, applicable to human disease, and eliminates the need

for animal models.

 
 Hernandez 8

Works Cited

“Alternatives to Animal Testing.” ​PETA​,

www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-animal-testing/.

Armstrong, Susan J. “The Animal Ethics Reader.” ​Google Books​,

books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qiQlDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=ethical%2Bp

roblems%2Bwith%2Banimal%2Bexperimentation&ots=z22oldUwMi&sig=bqIlhA-Or1GLyzIQ

PCHKid_dmhQ#v=onepage&q=ethical%20problems%20with%20animal%20experimentation&

f=false.

Doss, Anthony M. “The Profit and Loss Report on Animal Rights: How Profit

Maximization Has Driven the Stagnation of the Legal Identification of Animals as Property.”

HeinOnline​, UMass Law Review, 2018,

heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals%2Fsonengrs13&id=139.

“Human Organs-on-Chips.” ​Wyss Institute​, 18 May 2018,

wyss.harvard.edu/technology/human-organs-on-chips/.

Ibrahim, Darian M. “Reduce, Refine, Replace: The Failure of the Three R's and the Future

of Animal Experimentation.” ​University of Chicago Legal Forum​, 2006,

chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1391&context=uclf.

Marie, M. ​Animal Bioethics: Principles and Teaching Methods​. Wageningen Academic

Publishers, 2005.

“Nonhuman Primates in Research.” ​National Anti-Vivisection Society​,

www.navs.org/what-we-do/keep-you-informed/science-corner/animals-used-in-research/nonhum

an-primates-in-research/#.Wv5cKi-ZNsM​.
 Hernandez 9

“Public Law 99-198, Food Security Act of 1985, Subtitle F - Animal Welfare.” ​United

States Department of Agriculture​,

www.nal.usda.gov/awic/public-law-99-198-food-security-act-1985-subtitle-f-animal-

welfare​.

Rai, Jagdish. “Reduction of Animal Sacrifice in Biomedical Science & Research through

Alternative Design of Animal Experiments.” ​Science Direct​, Elsevier, 12 Mar. 2018,

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319016418300690​.

Russell WMS, Burch RL. ​The Principles of Humane Experimental Techniqu​e. London:

Methuen; 1959.

www.nal.usda.gov/awic/public-law-99-198-food-security-act-1985-subtitle-f-animal-welf

are​.

Singer, Peter. ​In Defense of Animals​. Wiley, 2013​.