This blog post examines whether animal testing is truly the best choice for humans, or if it’s time to explore ethical and scientific alternatives.
Animal testing occurs across various fields, including new drug development, dissection experiments, and cosmetic testing. In South Korea alone, approximately 1.5 million animals are used annually for health and medical-related experiments. When other sectors, such as cosmetics, are included, this number reaches 3 million. Globally, the scale is staggering, reaching 500 million animals. Should so many animals truly be sacrificed for humans? I believe animal testing is not the best preliminary step for humans and should be abolished and replaced with other methods. Such animal testing can be divided into testing drugs on animals and directly dissecting animals.
First, let’s consider animal drug testing. Looking at actual cases where animal testing occurs, one might wonder how much humans can truly gain by sacrificing these unfortunate lives. Generally, we think of animal drug testing as beneficial experiments for humans—testing drugs on animals before prescribing them directly to humans to confirm side effects or efficacy. Therefore, many people argue that since we cannot experiment directly on humans, animal testing using less developed animals is essential, and that through their sacrifice, humans live more prosperous lives.
However, this is not true. According to Huntingdon, the UK’s largest animal testing company, rabbits, dogs, monkeys, and other animals used in experiments have skin tissue and metabolism that are mostly different from humans. Therefore, the probability that animal drug test results can be applied to humans is a mere 5 to 20%. Furthermore, the World Health Organization (WHO) reports that out of over 30,000 new drugs developed through animal testing, only 200 have been proven effective in humans—a mere 1%. Because the phenomena observed in animal testing differ from those in humans, new drugs or medications deemed effective in animal tests often cause adverse effects in humans. In the United States alone, this results in approximately 100,000 deaths annually.
So why do people continue with inefficient animal drug testing? The reason is that animal testing requires less capital than other alternative methods. Indeed, alternatives to animal testing include experiments using dead animals, experiments using artificial skin, and experiments using computer simulations. However, these alternatives are less accurate than actual living organism testing, and increasing their accuracy requires significant capital. This is why relatively inexpensive animal testing persists. Yet, I believe it is wrong to use a precious life for experimentation simply because it costs a little less. To solve this problem, we must reduce the cost of alternative testing through advanced technology and encourage its use instead of animal testing.
Another way to reduce animal testing is through changing consumer awareness. Consumers see the absurdity of animal testing, feel pity for the animals, and are horrified by human cruelty, yet actual change remains minimal. However, if consumers reduce their purchase of products from companies that conduct animal testing and instead choose products from companies that use natural ingredients without animal testing, unnecessary animal testing will decrease. Furthermore, such consumers could potentially drive the creation of laws banning animal testing. Indeed, in the EU, efforts by animal protection groups led to a ban on importing cosmetics tested on animals, contributing to a gradual reduction in these unethical experiments. While South Korea has not yet reached this level, the global movement against animal testing appears to be spreading.
Next, let’s consider animal dissection experiments. Unlike animal testing for drug experiments, animal dissection refers to dissecting animals or intentionally performing surgery on them for medical purposes. In reality, such experiments are frequently conducted in medical laboratories. Examples include repeatedly injecting a four-month-old beagle hundreds of times with needles, or intentionally performing surgery without proper anesthesia to understand internal organ structures, followed by euthanasia. Even more shocking is the practice of euthanizing animals after experiments conclude, primarily to avoid the cost of caring for the remaining animals.
Those advocating animal dissection argue that sacrificing a few animals now can save many more animal and human lives later. However, this is an extremely simplistic view. Can the value of life truly be weighed so easily by quantity? While it may indeed save more lives in the future, is it truly justifiable to kill animals subjected to unwanted experiments to save others? Unlike inaccurate animal experiments, animal dissection provides direct experience, leaving few alternatives. Currently, methods like human dissection exist, where the carcasses of dead animals are frozen and stored for use. As technology advances, precise computer simulation programs capable of replicating the effects of actual surgery may eventually replace animal dissection.
I believe humans cannot justify ruthlessly experimenting on animals simply because we are more developed than other species. This is akin to hoping we wouldn’t be abducted and experimented on by more evolved extraterrestrials. Therefore, we must actively oppose animal testing and amend laws to prevent it. Furthermore, we should continue opposing efforts until animal testing is completely eliminated by developing alternative technologies like simulations.
