This blog post examines whether animal testing is truly an essential choice for humans or an unnecessary sacrifice of life.
People get hurt and fall ill as they live their lives. But this is not something people choose to happen. Most people want to live prosperous lives free from disease. A world without disease would be preferable, but if illness inevitably strikes, we strive to treat it. Yet we lack a universal cure for all diseases. While most illnesses can be treated with specific medications or surgeries, it remains uncertain whether existing treatments will be effective against new diseases or viruses. This is why animal testing is currently conducted.
Animal testing refers to experiments or scientific procedures conducted on laboratory animals for scientific purposes such as education, testing, research, and the production of biological agents. The earliest recorded instance of animal testing is said to have been found in Greek literature from the 4th century BC. Later, around the 12th century, the Arab surgeon Avicenna reportedly tested treatments on animals before applying them to humans. Thus, animal testing began with the aim of helping to treat human diseases, and it is true that it had a profound impact on the development of medicine in the 20th century. From this perspective, one might consider animal testing necessary.
However, considering that the most fundamental purpose of animal testing is ‘to safely treat human diseases,’ I believe today’s animal testing has strayed from that purpose. Let’s examine several problems with animal testing. First, it is said that only 1.16% of diseases are shared between humans and animals. Given how rare it is for diseases to be shared, the results of animal testing are difficult to apply to humans. Furthermore, even if animal testing is successful, it cannot guarantee 100% identical results in humans. Few people would want to be the first to try a new drug or surgical method developed from animal testing results. For these reasons, the utility of animal testing is questionable. For example, thalidomide, a drug developed in Germany in the 1960s to prevent morning sickness in pregnant women, showed no adverse effects in nearly all animal testing. It was marketed as a ‘miracle drug with no side effects’ and used in many countries. However, it was later discovered that when pregnant women took this drug, it significantly increased the probability of giving birth to a child with severe birth defects. It was revealed that taking it within 42 days of pregnancy resulted in a 100% probability of giving birth to a child with missing or shortened limbs. Indeed, had it not been judged safe based on animal testing, no one would have taken this drug with confidence. Thus, animal testing results can falsely guarantee safety, making it impossible to rule out the potential for such tragic outcomes. Because of these problems, I believe animal testing should be reconsidered.
Second, a recent issue concerning animal testing involves cosmetic animal testing. To develop new cosmetics, experiments are conducted on various animals such as rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, and mice. To test for allergic reactions, products are directly injected into the animals’ eyes, noses, and mouths, frequently causing many animals to lose their vision or die. Just as humans have fundamental rights, animals also have the right to have their lives respected. Animals, as living beings, deserve respect for their lives, and their rights should not be violated. In Korea, the Animal Protection Act stipulates measures to prevent animal cruelty and protect the safety and lives of animals. However, I believe it is wrong to conduct animal testing for cosmetic purposes, not simply for the purpose of treating diseases. For cosmetics, over 5,000 ingredients have already been proven safe. It seems entirely possible to develop cosmetics using only these materials, yet many countries still permit cosmetic animal testing. This appears to disregard animal rights for individual gain, straying from the fundamental purpose of animal testing. Conversely, consider how absurd it would be to test shampoo for cats on humans. While it is problematic that one life form is sacrificed for another, it is even more unjust when done for personal gain. For these reasons, I believe animal testing should be abolished.
Of course, animal testing has greatly advanced medicine and saved countless human lives. However, behind this, many people have suffered, and far more animals have been sacrificed. It is said that animal testing was necessary in the 20th century because computers could not adequately simulate the interactions of molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, and environments. However, considering today’s technological capabilities, it is questionable whether animal testing remains truly unavoidable. Comparing computers from ten years ago to those of today reveals many examples of what was impossible then becoming possible now. Continuing animal testing due to technological limitations is no longer convincing. Of course, current alternative technologies may be somewhat inaccurate, but this is because the development of these alternatives has been slowed by the continued acceptance of animal testing. If animal testing were banned, the need for alternative technologies would increase, and it’s hard to gauge how far these technologies might advance. Even now, several alternative testing methods already exist. Nevertheless, clinging to animal testing for reasons like budget savings and experimental convenience is wrong. Currently, approximately 600 million animals die each year due to animal testing, equating to 20 animals sacrificed every second. The continuation of animal testing beyond its original purpose is merely a means to satisfy human desires. It is now time to respect not only human rights but also animal rights, to ban animal testing, and to develop technologies to replace it.
