Martinelli 1

Taylor Martinelli

Professor Barker

English 101

4/15/24

Should Animals be Used for Biomedical and Commercial Research?

Located in Alexandria, Virginia, Lauren and Trevor Kellogg have spent their days settling

in their three year old beagle, Nellie. Her name was derived from the phrase “nervous Nellie”

due to the extreme timid and reclusive behavior displayed by the beagle. The behavior presented

by the dog, however, is most befitting considering the conditions she was rescued from. Nellie,

along with four-thousand other beagles, were rescued over a sixty day period from a research and

breeding facility in Cumberland, Virginia. Within the facility, the dogs were kept in extremely

unsettling conditions. Among a long list of violations, those kept there were underfed, had fallen

ill or were injured, and some had been euthanized (Mccarthy and Diaz).

This is just one of an endless amount of cases of animal testing facilities, or studies, with

gruesome details which have left communities, scientific and regular communities, with feelings

of uneasiness. A growing number of scientists and clinicians are challenging the use of animal

models on medical and scientific grounds (Dvorsky). Many also feel that the use of animals for

research purposes is an unethical practice that should be replaced by other methods of testing. On

the other end of the spectrum, many scientists believe animal testing for research purposes is

ethical and is necessary for advancements in many fields of science. Within the middle of those
 Martinelli 2

two sides sits the argument that animal testing is unethical but unfortunately good for the

scientific community.

Those opposed to animals being used for biological and medical research have presented

science based backing and ethical reasoning to prove their point. As stated by the American

Anti-Vivisection Society, nine out of ten drugs that appear promising in animal studies go on to

fail in human clinical trials. Due to an extensive list of differences between humans and the

different types of animals used for research purposes, it leads to an unreliable study for how the

human body could react. From an ethical standpoint, many express the pain and endless isolation

most research animals are forced to endure. Although there have been steps taken and laws put in

place, such as the Animal Welfare Act, there are still many species that are not protected. The

law excludes birds, rats of the genus Rattus, mice of the genus Mus, and farm animals

(Ferdowsian). Scientists are allowed to expose animals to any level of pain and suffering due to

there being no legal threshold within these laws either. Animals, much like us humans, also have

been studied to show that they have basic emotions and often suffer from psychological illnesses,

such as anxiety, distress, and chronic fear (Ferdowsian). However in most cases, researchers

attempt to minimize such side effects and pain, but it is to no avail when they are forced to suffer

within their sterile, isolated cages while being subject to disease, injury, and are even subjected

to euthanasia after the study has concluded. (American Anti-Vivisection Society).

On the other side of the spectrum, many believe that animal research is necessary for

advancements in science and gives valuable data that justifies large scale testing. With the

modern age, the media has led the population to believe that breakthroughs are often huge leaps

in the medical field, when in reality it is often made by small steps by large teams of scientists

(Corey). Even with promising results, many new vaccines are unpredictable within an animal.
 Martinelli 3

Due to his problem, many believe there are no substitutes for testing the dangers of new drugs on

animals. Research on new diseases and how they react with the human body cannot be replaced

by simulations on computer programs, or even within test tube studies (Poste). Results through

animal testing also justify whether a new drug or vaccine is safe enough to perform clinical

trials. The studies can cost upwards of tens of millions of dollars to perform (Corey). With

computer studies, scientists note there are several limitations with the data. When using

computers, they are only able to provide insight on models that have shown a previous occurring

outcome or phenomena (Americans for Medical Progress). Not only do we see progression in

medical fields for humans, but research done on animals also provides leaps in veterinary

medicine as well. Aside from prescription drugs and vaccines, society can also thank animal

research for the leaps provided in surgeries. One such surgery, known as heart surgery, can be

performed safely and consistently thanks to twenty years of research done by scientists like John

Gibbon, who works for Jefferson Medical College located in Philadelphia (Botting and

Morrison).

Despite having two polar ends of the argument, there exists a third standpoint within the

middle. Many people see the process of animal testing as a necessary evil that is surrounded by a

lot of common misconceptions. Within the Nuremberg Code, it is stated that testing on animals

before testing on people is a protected right (Smith). Other scientists claim that without the

research conducted on animals, advancements in the field would be hindered. One such example

of this “grim good” is a recent study where mice were infected with prion disease. They were

then subjected to different experiments that found a drug compound stopped the disease in its

tracks (Smith). The compound used allowed for the mice to show signs of normal behaviors, as

well as preventing memory loss. Testing on animals has also shown what new drugs do not work,
 Martinelli 4

which have prevented experiments on human subjects. An example of such a preventative can be

seen in a study for a treatment for HIV. With laws and regulations in place, it was required to

have the compound tested on large animals first, in this instance dogs that had bed specially for

testing. Others have begun to argue that animal research is becoming more humane with new

technological advances. With devices such as sensors, scientists are able to provide a more

homely environment to animals, one such example being marmosets, by allowing them to stay

with their families and move freely. This ultimately allowed for a less stressful process on the

marmosets, giving scientists results that are clearer and more cleaner due to the relaxed nature

and keep normal heart rates (Stokstad). These devices have also progressed and have been

shrunk in size. These advancements have also allowed for scientists to place them into mice to

monitor a much larger list of data, including, but not limited to, temperature, blood pressure, and

heart rate (Stokstad).

In conclusion, the debate on whether animal research is ethical or not is still actively

argued. The scientists opposed to animals for research continue their arguments of the conditions

and pain the animals are subjected to. Time and time again, numerous recorded instances of

animals being exposed to countless atrocities for the name of science. Those in favor of the

continuation argue that the benefits of the studies greatly outweigh the negatives. As stated by

Tamara Thompson, research is the foundation of all medical sciences, and lab animals have

become the base of that research. Within those two arguments lie a middle ground that claims

that animal research is a necessary evil for the human race. They claim that without such studies,

we wouldnt not have been able to create new vaccines or drugs, or even develop lifesaving

medical and surgical techniques (Smith). Despite all these arguments, and advocating for

reducing the number of animal tests, The Telegraph Online states that the number of studies
 Martinelli 5

using animals have risen from two-point-five to over three million a year. With such practices on

the rise, scientsits and people have begun calling for reform on the use of animals in research.
 Martinelli 6

Works Cited

American Anti-Vivisection Society. "Animal Research Is Unethical and Scientifically

Unnecessary." Animal Experimentation, edited by Susan C. Hunnicutt,

Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010002249/OVIC?u=horrygtc&sid=bookmark-OVIC

&xid=d28f5074. Accessed 21 Apr. 2024. Originally published as "Problems with

Animal Research,", 2011

"Animal research needs urgent reform; Yes, animal tests have led to medical

breakthroughs, but the ballooning numbers are a moral outrage." Telegraph

Online, 26 Sept. 2023, p. NA. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/A766693519/OVIC?u=horrygtc&sid=bookmark-OVIC&

xid=84c9a925. Accessed 21 Apr. 2024

Botting, Jack H., and Adrian R. Morrison. "Animal Research Is Vital to Medicine."

Animal Experimentation, edited by Helen Cothran, Greenhaven Press, 2002.

Opposing Viewpoints. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010218215/OVIC?u=horrygtc&sid=bookmark-OVIC

&xid=6ca78d6a. Accessed 21 Apr. 2024. Originally published in Scientific

American, 1 Feb. 1997.

Corey, Lawrence. "Animal Testing Is Essential for Medical Research." Animal

Experimentation, edited by Cindy Mur, Greenhaven Press, 2004. At Issue. Gale

In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010002220/OVIC?u=horrygtc&sid=bookmark-OVIC

&xid=f3f76ece. Accessed 8 Apr. 2024. Originally published as "Animals and

Research, Part 3: Alternatives in Medical Breakthroughs," Seattle

Post-Intelligencer, 2000.

Ferdowsian, Hope. "Replacements Must Be Found for Animals in Scientific

Research." Scientific Research, edited by Sylvia Engdahl, Greenhaven

Press, 2015. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010948225/OVIC?u=horrygtc&sid=bookmark-

OVIC&xid=67019b0b. Accessed 21 Apr. 2024. Originally published as

"Animal Research: Why We Need Alternatives," Chronicle.com, 7 Nov.

2010.

Mccarthy, Lauren, and Johnny Diaz. "4,000 Rescued Beagles, Bred for Research, Found

Homes and Best Friends." New York Times [Digital Edition], 4 Aug. 2023, p. NA.

Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/A759571496/OVIC?u=horrygtc&sid=bookmark-OVIC&

xid=eb6d6b62. Accessed 15 Apr. 2024

Smith, Wesley J. "The Grim Good of Animal Research." Scientific Research, edited by

Sylvia Engdahl, Greenhaven Press, 2015. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale In Context:

Opposing Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010948220/OVIC?u=horrygtc&sid=bookmark-OVIC

&xid=bb10c2de. Accessed 8 Apr. 2024. Originally published in

www.firstthings.com, 18 Oct. 2013.

Stokstad, Erik. "Animal Testing Is Becoming More Humane." Animal Experimentation,

edited by Cindy Mur, Greenhaven Press, 2004. At Issue. Gale In Context:

Opposing Viewpoints,
 Martinelli 8

link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010002223/OVIC?u=horrygtc&sid=bookmark-OVIC

&xid=e13259e2. Accessed 21 Apr. 2024. Originally published as "Humane

Science Finds Sharper and Kinder Tools," Science, vol. 286, 5 Nov. 1999, pp.

1-068.

"Using Animals for Medical Testing Is Both Ethical and Essential." The Ethics of Medical

Testing, edited by Tamara Thompson, Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Gale In

Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010777211/OVIC?u=horrygtc&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=

b713fec8. Accessed 21 Apr. 2024. Originally published in Fact v. Myth About the

Essential Need for Animals in Medical Research, Foundation for Biomedical

Research, 2008.