Animal Testing: Why we need it

Animal testing. What comes to mind when you hear those words? For many, they view this issue through lenses influenced by PETA videos or images of labs animals. Too often it doesn’t bring to mind many of the medical advances that have only been made possible through animal testing. Ask any person to name one medical advance made possible by animal testing, and you’ll often find they can’t name one. 

Organizations and advocacy groups like PETA that do not agree with animal testing are often publicized because of the shocking videos and photos they post of animal testing in different research institutions. As a result, many people aren’t aware of the benefits that animal testing has brought to humankind or may be misinformed about animal testing. I’m here to change that.

The Animal Welfare Act, established in 1966, is the only national law that regulates the treatment of animals used in research. However birds, fish, rats, and mice are not covered under the act. Thus there is only an estimation on the number of animals used in research as statistics don’t include the animals not covered in the act. That number ranges from 13 million to more than 25 million animals.

But the use of so many animals hasn’t been for nothing. Almost every medical advance has involved animal testing in some way. New cancer drugs have increased the life expectancy of cancer patients by an incredible 10.7% and this is largely thanks to animal testing through our new understanding of the molecular and genetic mechanisms behind tumor biology. Work with animal models has allowed patients with HIV/AIDS to live a more normal life for many years and decreased the death rate. Many more advances have been made possible due to animal testing including vaccines, treatments, and a better understanding of diseases and ailments such as Diabetes, Parkinson’s Disease, Epilepsy, Cystic Fibrosis to name a few. However, almost every possible medical advance has included some form of animal testing whether direct testing or through the use of modeling. 

I can also attest to the importance of animal testing. As a researcher at a University of Minnesota lab for the past year and a half, I’ve used animals, specifically frogs, in my study of the rare genetic disease, Fanconi Anemia. The results of my studies would not have been possible without the use of frogs, and while the discovery of the interactions between a few proteins may not seem huge, it leads us one step closer to understanding the complex molecular mechanisms behind the disease. This is an important example of how animal testing is often a long-term process. Critics of animal testing may highlight the high cost involved in animal testing as well as the large investment in time. However, oftentimes results do not appear until after years of testing, but when they do, they can have an enormous impact on millions of people.

Opponents of animal testing also advocate for alternatives such as microdosing, in vitro methods, computer simulations and models to replace animal testing because of lower costs and for the protection of animals. However that is not a viable option as using alternatives would still require testing in animals to verify the effects of the treatment, cure, vaccine, etc. 

There are also many economic reasons to support animal testing. The biomedical research sector is intertwined with animal testing and in 2011 alone, 430,000 jobs were created leading to more than $62 billion in economic activity from biomedical research. Continued job growth and new economic activity would be at risk if animal testing was restricted or banned altogether. To opponents who argue against the large investment of funds needed in research, advancements due to such research have reduced medical spending in patients with risk for cardiovascular disease by more than $430 million per year. Advancements in medicine continue to save Americans millions of dollars each year due to prevention treatments and drugs that would not be possible without animal testing. And while the short-term effects of a decrease in investment may not be immediately noticeable, in the long-term this will lead to a decrease in advancements in scientific research.

The lenses through which you can view this issue are shaped by our upbringing, interactions with the environment and others, and a myriad of other factors. And these lenses that are uniquely shaped by everything around us come together in a complex web of arguments surrounding animal testing.  So what lenses are you wearing? What do you support?