This blog post examines how animal testing contributes to human survival and progress while exploring the ethical issues it raises, pondering whether a path exists to satisfy both values simultaneously.
Historically, humans have recognized the value of animals based on how much they contribute to human interests. This instrumental perspective is deeply rooted in human tradition and habit, leading to the perception of animals as entities existing solely to fulfill human desires—whether as food, providers of comfort and pleasure, sources of clothing and household goods, or even to fight for us. This view has persisted from ancient times to the present without significant doubt or criticism. However, as the realization gradually grew that animals are not merely entities possessing instrumental value for humans, people began to criticize this immoral perception of animals. They came to understand that animals are not soulless, mindless, emotionless, characterless moving tools, but sentient beings rich in feelings. This led to a focus on the immoral treatment of animals that humans had long taken for granted. Among these, animal vivisection is particularly recognized as a completely immoral act that neither advances vital human needs nor possesses any justification.
Vital human needs refer to elements essential for survival, which in modern times also include maintaining health and longevity. While animal vivisection continues to satisfy these needs, it poses serious problems from the perspective of life ethics and morality. This article categorizes ongoing animal testing into product testing, medical research, and military experimentation. It examines the unjust suffering animals endure during these processes and the inefficiency of such experiments, while discussing practical alternatives to replace them.
First, let us examine product testing. Toxicity tests conducted to determine whether newly developed products are harmful to humans contribute nothing to human welfare and are therefore morally objectionable and unnecessary. Representative examples of toxicity tests include the Draize test and the LD-50 test. In the Draize test, rabbits or dogs are restrained, and test substances like ink, bleach, or detergents are injected into their eyelids. Researchers then observe how much pus forms and how infection progresses. This experiment is repeated multiple times over up to three weeks, causing the animals extreme suffering before they are ultimately euthanized. The LD-50 test measures the lethal dose of a specific substance that kills half of the test animals. During the experiment, a tube is inserted into the test animal’s throat to administer the test product, and the experiment continues until half of the subjects die. While the necessity of such toxicity testing is difficult to dispute, animals are subjected to extreme abuse and deprived of their right to life during these experiments. This is a cruel act stemming from human selfishness, and sacrificing animals can never be justified. Newly developed products are often not essential for human survival, so improving existing products to enhance quality of life is necessary rather than conducting toxicity tests. Therefore, commercial product testing is unrelated to urgent human concerns and is driven solely by corporations’ economic interests to profit from new products.
In the case of medical experiments, while developing new drugs may seem essential for improving human quality of life, the method of testing and marketing drugs intended for humans on animals is inefficient and dangerous. Due to anatomical, genetic, and histological differences between animals and humans, applying animal test results directly to humans is difficult and can pose serious risks. For example, the antiemetic drug thalidomide, developed to alleviate morning sickness in pregnant women, showed no problems when tested on animals like dogs, cats, and monkeys. However, it caused severe birth defects in human fetuses, resulting in significant harm. Numerous such cases exist where animal testing results have adversely affected humans, demonstrating that animal testing can actually threaten human health. While some have benefited from drugs introduced through animal testing, a significant number of lives have also been lost as a result. Overconfidence in animal test results threatens human health, and continuing experiments recklessly without acknowledging that biological differences can lead to varying outcomes is unethical.
Animal testing in the military is also not unrelated to urgent human concerns. For example, to understand the effects on pilots performing missions in radiation-exposed environments, monkeys are subjected to experiments involving radiation and electric shocks. Additionally, at Fort Detrick and the UK’s Porton Down Defence Research Laboratory, experiments are conducted on Beagles and other animals, administering substances like TNT and glutaminease to observe symptoms such as dehydration, anemia, and convulsions. These military experiments are unrelated to urgent human concerns and amount to nothing more than animal cruelty.
As a result, many laboratory animals die without even being properly utilized in experiments. After experiments conclude, remaining animals are slaughtered because they cannot be released back into the ecosystem, perpetuating unnecessary sacrifices for biological testing. Is there no alternative? Practical alternatives include cell tissue culture, physicochemical methods, and computer simulations. Culturing human cell tissue for experimentation can yield results more directly applicable to humans than animal testing. Physicochemical analysis or computer simulations can also substitute for experiments. Actively utilizing these diverse alternatives could significantly reduce the necessity for animal testing.
In conclusion, most animal testing is irrelevant to humanity’s urgent concerns and does not contribute to human life, health, or happiness. Animals are being sacrificed as tools for human greed and economic gain, which is an immoral and unreasonable act. Therefore, even if it takes time, we must establish alternatives to uphold ethics and morality. Humanity’s future will sustainably develop in a world where all living beings coexist.
