No Animal Rights. Many Animal Wrongs.

No Animal Rights. Many Animal Wrongs.

By: Sarah Miller

                    Photo by Josh Henderson

They called him Rodney. Rodney was a stray Shepard mix with a thin body and large head. He was sent from the dog pound to a veterinary school, where he would be experimented on to benefit the students’ knowledge. The students would walk with Rodney around campus and he was always happy to see them. They started with a simple procedure, by neutering him. Then the students did an amateur abdominal exploratory that reopened two weeks after the procedure. They sewed him back up and Rodney still managed to wag his tail when he saw them. The next week, the students put him under anesthesia and broke his leg— repairing it with a steel pin. Rodney could no longer take his walks and the shine from his brown eyes was gone. Rodney’s days were numbered and he was put to sleep. Rodney was never given a choice, but these researchers were. The Nature article, “Animal rights and wrongs”, attempts to illustrate the harmful actions of animal-rights activists and their effect on scientific researchers. The article claims that “researchers have suffered fire bombings, physical attacks, destruction of personal property and campaigns of harassment. But the statistics do not necessarily reflect the current prevalence of violent activist behavior — rather, they reveal how such activity instills a lingering fear that is difficult to forget”. The author appeals to the readers’ fear, but fails to mention the counter-argument that presents a long-standing history of animal abuse, neglect, cruelty, etc. for the sake of science. The other side of the argument should be considered, especially when animal testing has been proven to have unreliable results, faulty regulations, unethical treatment to animals, and alternate testing methods are available. While animal experimentation is still commonly used in the scientific community, the detrimental results of harming innocent animals still exceeds the few advances in knowledge that animal testing has found.

The article, “Animal rights and wrongs”, claims that the researchers who are involved in animal experimentation are being pestered, physically threatened, and are living in fear due to the acts of animal activists. The author includes a survey that shows that this threat has forced many scientists to change their research's direction or has drove them to not revealing their research to the public, whatsoever. The article claims that “Non-disclosure, even in the scientific literature, is common.” Even if they are exposing their research, many scientists are becoming more careful with what they share about their experiments. The article includes information about new laws that remind animal activists about the seriousness that their acts of vandalism towards scientists. These laws were made for the animal activists that “bully” scientists who use animal research. The author’s strategy was to win over the readers by appealing to their pathos, using statements like “such activity instills a lingering fear that is difficult to forget”. However, the argument committed one of the main logical fallacies: presenting a one-sided argument. Not presenting both sides of an argument and trying to persuade readers, primarily through their emotions, makes this article extremely biased.

Animal experimentation is often used in trying to aid research that benefits humans but it is mostly unreliable. Many people believe that animal research is necessary to help boost medical progress. However, this is not the case. According to PETA, the harsh reality is that most animal experiments do not contribute to improving human health and the role of animal experimentation in helping gain medical knowledge is uncertain. Frankie Trull, president of the non-profit Foundation of Biomedical Research, simply stated that animals are the surrogates for humans. This aspect shows that scientists consider animals merely as backup for humans. Researchers, according to an article published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, stated that “patients and physicians should remain cautious about extrapolating the finding of prominent animal research to the care of human disease… poor replication of even high-quality animal studies should be expected by those who conduct clinical research”. These inaccuracies come from the simple fact that an animal’s body systems are different from humans body systems. Many tested medicines, that society assumes are safe, are recalled due to the fact that they worked on an animal and not on humans. This harmful effect also happens vice versa. Aspirin, according to Buzzle.com, has proven to be toxic for mice. However, humans use it daily for fever, pain, inflammation, etc. PETA claimed that “Ninety-two percent of drugs—those that have been tested on animals and in vitro—do not make it through Phase 1 of human clinical trials (the initial studies that determine reaction, effectiveness, and side effects of doses of a potential drug)”. This percentage concludes that most animals in research die only after Phase 1, which is alarming.

Animal testing is being overlooked and significantly inadequate regulatory measures are in place. The regulations that are in effect do not protect animals from suffering and distress. According to PETA, the United States considers “commonly used species in laboratory experiments (mice, rats, birds, reptiles, and amphibians)” excluded from the protections of the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). This means that many animals do not have to be counted, if they are killed. PETA stated that “as many as 800 U.S. laboratories are not subject to federal laws and inspections because they experiment exclusively on mice, rats, and other animals whose use is unregulated”. Laws are not withheld for animal rights in many of these laboratories. Also, no law requires scientists to use alternate methods if available. This ultimately results in a never-ending cycle of unregulated animal cruelty for the sake of science.

Imagine living in a prison and being tortured for doing absolutely nothing. Animals may not have the capability to fight for their rights, but they feel the same pain that any human would feel if the tables were turned. Most animals are deprived of food, water, and sleep. As humans, we consider these daily necessities. According to PETA, “U.S. law allows animals to be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, drowned, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged”. These things can be done to animals and painkillers are not required. There have been many cases where extreme brutality was involved. Buzzle.com stated that dogs have been locked in gas chambers to test whether a particular insecticide is safe for human beings to inhale. PETA claimed that “Animals are infected with diseases that they would never normally contract, tiny mice grow tumors as large as their own bodies, kittens are purposely blinded, rats are made to suffer seizures, and primates’ skulls are cut open and electrodes are implanted in them”. Sadly, all of these things have happened. Just because animals cannot sign consent forms, does not give researchers the right to experiment on them.

It is easy to condemn scientists that are using animal research without giving them an alternate solution, but there is new technology that is and could gradually replace animal experimentation. Blinkness.com mentioned testing alternatives such as cell culture, computer stimulation, human-based testing, and scanning techniques. Cell culture can be conducted for “chemical absorption by skin, phytotoxicity, skin corrosion, etc.”. Computer stimulation is where researchers use crash test dummies or computer operated mannequins, that are installed with internal sensors, for crash testing. Human-based testing is when scientists use human donated cells, instead of animal cells, to find out information about pyrogenicity, skin irritation, etc. Humans volunteer for the cause. Scanning techniques, like the MRI, are even considered an alternative to animal experimentation. These scans of the human brain give us extensive information. Human autopsy is also used for biomedical research, which has helped to lower animal testing. Scientists that are against animal testing are researching even more methods to create alternative solutions that find information, without hurting animals.

The article, “Animal rights and wrongs”, raises awareness about violence and threats against scientists that are involved with animal experimentation. While this is important to promote non-violence, the article fails to mention cruelty against the animals that are involved in animal testing. I believe that both of these issues are worthy of being addressed. The ethics of animal experimentation definitely deserve a thorough assessment, even if it was not shown in this article. Ultimately, research needs to get rid of animal testing and make a turn towards alternative methods of acquiring knowledge.


"Animal Experiments: Overview." PETA.org. Web. 15 Feb. 2012. <http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-experiments-overview.aspx>.
"Animal Rights and Wrongs." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 23 Feb. 2011. Web. 15 Feb. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7335/full/470435a.html>.
Blue, Laura. "How Much Does Animal Testing Tell Us?" Time. Time, 17 June 2008. Web. 15 Feb. 2012. <http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1815241,00.html>.
Nakate, Shashank. "Alternatives to Animal Testing." Buzzle.com. Buzzle.com, 28 Sept. 2011. Web. 15 Feb. 2012. <http://www.buzzle.com/articles/alternatives-to-animal-testing.html>.
Nakate, Shashank. "Why Should Animal Testing Be Banned." Buzzle.com. Buzzle.com, 20 Sept. 2011. Web. 15 Feb. 2012. <http://www.buzzle.com/articles/why-should-animal-testing-be-banned.html>.
Henricksen, Peter M. "What We Did To Rodney." Web. 24 Feb. 2012. <http://pink73.tripod.com/RODNEY.html>.