In this blog post, we’ll examine the necessity and limitations of animal testing in the new drug development process, as well as animal rights and the potential for alternative technologies.
Since the beginning of the 21st century, new drug development has established itself as a core sector of the biotech industry. This is because a single successful new drug not only generates immense economic value but also contributes significantly to improving the survival rates and quality of life for patients suffering from intractable and rare diseases. However, new drug development requires enormous research and development costs and a considerable amount of time. Generally, it takes more than 10 years from the discovery of a candidate compound to obtaining approval and bringing the drug to market; recently, the average time has been reported to be around 10 to 15 years. During this process, strict preclinical and clinical trial procedures must be followed to verify safety and efficacy.
In the drug development process, preclinical trials using animals are conducted prior to clinical trials involving humans. Subsequent clinical trials generally proceed in two phases: early-stage trials involving healthy volunteers and late-stage trials involving patients, with safety and efficacy verified in a stepwise manner. While clinical trials involving humans require significant time, cost, and complex management, animal testing offers certain advantages for research efficiency, as the experimental environment can be controlled relatively easily and animals have short reproductive cycles and generation intervals. For these reasons, animal testing has long been utilized as a crucial step in the new drug development process.
“Planet of the Apes” has been adapted into films multiple times; the 2011 release, “Rise of the Planet of the Apes,” centers on the story of a scientist attempting to develop a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. In the film, scientist Will Rodman develops a new drug to restore damaged human brain function in order to treat his father, who suffers from Alzheimer’s, and conducts experiments on apes—the animals closest to humans.
At the beginning of the film, the research team captures wild apes for experimentation and administers the new drug to them. The apes, subjected to experiments in inhumane conditions, gradually become more intelligent but are ultimately shot; only Caesar, a baby ape who survives the process, is raised at the research facility. As time passes, Caesar not only learns simple sign language but also develops exceptional object recognition skills and high intelligence. Later, while protecting his scientist father, he causes an accident and is sent to an animal shelter; after enduring abuse there, he leads the other apes in an escape to freedom.
The film depicts the developed drug as having remarkable effects on apes but also as the cause of a deadly virus spreading among humans. Ultimately, humanity faces a severe crisis due to the pandemic.
Watching this film prompted me to reflect on several things. Could animals truly evolve into beings with human-level communication abilities—as depicted in the movie—if experimental drugs were administered to them? Of course, this is cinematic imagination, but I wonder if the director intended to use this to warn against humanity’s reckless animal testing and destruction of nature.
I also felt that the film conveyed a message that, rather than confining animals to laboratories or zoos due to human greed, we should allow them to live in the natural environments where they originally belonged. To date, humanity has conducted various animal experiments to identify the causes of diseases, develop treatments, and create pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. However, we need to carefully reconsider whether these processes are truly necessary.
Are animal experiments really necessary? Is it justifiable to sacrifice animals for the sake of a more prosperous life? With today’s advanced science and technology, aren’t there new alternatives that can replace the use of animals?
Animal testing refers to research conducted on animals instead of humans to verify the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and other products. Many people believe that animal testing is unavoidable. This is because they view the use of animals for validation as a necessary step before conducting experiments directly on humans in order to protect human lives. In particular, pharmaceuticals and certain chemicals that may cause side effects undergo safety evaluation through animal testing before being applied to humans.
Furthermore, many researchers emphasize the importance of adhering to the “3R principles.” These are the principles of Reduction—minimizing the number of laboratory animals—Replacement—substituting animals with alternative methods whenever possible—and Refinement—improving experiments to minimize animal suffering. Recently, the “4R” concept, which adds Responsibility to these principles, has also been discussed.
However, I personally oppose animal testing. What if, one day, animals were to acquire intelligence equal to that of humans, as depicted in movies? It is terrifying to imagine a world where, just as humans have used animals as test subjects, humans themselves become the test subjects or slaves of animals. Currently, animals are suffering simply because humans are the stronger species. Considering this reality alone, it is difficult to readily agree to animal testing. There are also several other reasons why I oppose animal testing.
Historically, animal testing has played a crucial role in medical advancement. The development of insulin, tuberculosis research, and advances in cardiac surgery techniques are cited as prime examples. However, just because a new drug is effective in animals—as depicted in movies—does not mean the same results will be observed in humans.
In their book ‘Animal Testing: Greed and Arrogance’, American anesthesiologist Ray Grick and veterinarian Jean Swingle Grick argued that there is no guarantee that the results of animal testing can be directly applied to humans. In fact, because animals and humans have genetic and physiological differences, even if efficacy and safety are confirmed in animal testing, the results in humans may be entirely different.
These limitations are well known in today’s new drug development process. Among candidate compounds that show promising results in animal testing, the rate at which they successfully progress to actual clinical trials is very low; many candidate compounds are discontinued during human clinical trials due to a lack of efficacy or unexpected side effects. Furthermore, experimental results can vary depending on the species of animal, their physiological characteristics, and their rearing environment.
For example, a specific substance may be carcinogenic in humans but not in certain animals, or conversely, it may exhibit toxicity only in animals. There is also the possibility that results may vary depending on experimental conditions or dosage during the research process. Considering these reasons, it is necessary to examine both the necessity and the limitations of animal testing.
Does the fact that humans possess emotions, imagination, and the ability to reason mean we can treat animals however we please? I believe that humans’ tendency to treat animals carelessly stems from human ignorance and arrogance. Just as humans have human rights, I believe that animals also have animal rights.
Animals must be guaranteed freedom from hunger, freedom from physical discomfort, freedom from disease and pain, freedom from fear and stress, and freedom to express their natural behaviors. These concepts align with the internationally recognized “Five Freedoms of Animal Welfare.”
South Korea’s “Animal Protection Act” also stipulates that suffering must be minimized when conducting animal experiments, and various standards regarding the operation of animal experimentation ethics committees and the welfare of laboratory animals are currently in place. If animals are beings with ethical rights, humans have a duty to respect those rights. In that regard, I believe that animal experimentation is an act that significantly restricts the basic rights of animals.
Realistically, is there no alternative to animal testing? Recently, thanks to advances in science and technology, various alternative testing methods are being rapidly developed. Representative examples include predictive models utilizing artificial intelligence (AI), computer simulations, organoids, organ-on-a-chip technologies, and cell-based assays. These technologies offer the advantage of reducing the need for animal testing while better reflecting human physiological characteristics.
In fact, regulatory agencies and research institutions around the world are expanding the use of these alternative testing methods, and they are already being put into practical use in some areas of toxicity assessment and new drug development. However, since it is difficult to completely replace all animal testing with current technology alone, animal testing and alternative methods are being used in tandem in many fields.
No matter how important new drug development may be, animal rights and bioethics must be considered alongside it. I do not want to find myself in a situation where I regret my actions too late, like the protagonist in the movie. Furthermore, I believe that as science and technology continue to advance, alternative testing methods will become even more accurate and efficient than they are today. Ultimately, we will be able to gradually reduce the need for animal testing.
Watching Caesar and the other apes return to nature and live freely at the end of the movie reminds me once again that animals, too, are happiest in the environment where they were meant to live. Animals deserve respect simply because they are living beings. They are not fundamentally different from humans in that they, too, experience pain, joy, and sorrow as they go about their lives. Since animal testing is conducted without the animals’ consent, it is difficult to avoid ethical controversy. As humans, who possess the highest intellectual capacity, we should take responsibility for protecting animals and seek ways to coexist with them rather than depriving them of their freedom.
