Product Testing on Animals

There have been many times during my blogs where I have mentioned that there are alternatives to animal testing, however, I have not had a chance to go into depth about these different alternatives. I found a website, The Humane Society of The US, and they go over the different steps for finding an alternative to testing animals.

The Humane Society defines an alternative as any change in animal testing where something replaces a procedure, cuts the number of animals used, and also finding a new procedure where animals will not be hurt. Because there is so many new kinds of technologies, private companies, universities, or government agencies are working to develop something new. The alternative technologies will take away the need of using animals for a cell/tissue test. With these new technologies, results will come quicker and will cost less to complete.

Once an idea is brought up, it must be tested several times. It would also have to be tested by other labs to make sure that it is a suitable way to test a drug. This step here is clearly the most time fulfilling and frustrating step. Everything really has to be done correctly before being used by other labs or agencies. When the alternative test has been 100% completed, then it goes to the government to be reviewed. The Humane Society says “the opinions of government regulators strongly influence the extent to which private companies use available alternatives instead of traditional animal tests.”

AltTox gives a full list of alternative tests that have been validated and successfully used. An example of that would be how labs used to use rabbit skin for testing skin care products. EpiSkin™, EpiDerm™ and SkinEthic all use artificial skin for their tests. This saves the rabbits from the painful testing that they used to be put through. “The 3T3 Neutral Red Uptake Phototoxicity Test” takes place of a test used with guinea pigs and mice. These tests used to be finding out the skin sensitization of these animals and compare it to human skin.  

As I kept looking through this website, I found it very interesting. The Humane Society supports basically any animal. Anything from a monkey to a cow to an elephant, will be helped out by them. They have rescued just about 270,000 animals, and the number is still growing. When they are aware of any source of animal cruelty, the society will step in and make things right.

The Humane Society takes any volunteers who think that they would be able to help. I think that these days, places like The Humane Societies need to become bigger and more successful in order to get animal testing to stop since we know that there are alternatives.

For all of my research I have done for this topic, I have been focusing on the ethics of animal testing and finding out if companies test on animals. I decided that I should narrow in on a specific thing. I was thinking about how I have not yet made a blog about the animals themselves when they are tested. I went through PETA and found an article about chimpanzees. 

PETA explains how these chimps are kept as basically prisoners in these cages, where they are not treated right. These chimps used to be given diseases to figure out how they react to it, so they can treat humans in a way that has been tested. To me, all of this makes sense; figure out a treatment for a disease so it will heal people. The only thing is that animals are harmed in that process. 

PETA discusses how in the 80′s, when HIV and AIDS were a big focus in the medical world, chimps were given directly those diseases to see the reaction since chimps are very closely related to humans. After testing this on these animals, they figured out that chimps cannot contract those viruses. Scientists put these poor animals through very hard testing sessions and horrible living just to find out that the chimps would not be able to help with this test. 

Once the scientists realized that chimps are not phased by HIV and AIDS, the NIH (The National Institute of Health), declared that chimps should not be bred anymore by labs just for the use of testing. Years later after that, it was found out that labs were still testing chimpanzees. One specific test that happens is a liver biopsy. These chimps are hit with a tranquilizer dart. Things like this affect monkeys traumatically, and later on in their lives they become depressed. 

Another example I found from PETA is that a labratory called BIOQUAL, and they conducted experiments based on hepatitis C. In order to do these tests, the small chips would be placed somewhere where they would be swarmed by mosquitos and end up getting malaria. I cannot imagine what was going through those scientists minds to believe that what they were doing was at all ethical.

At the beginning of this test, the baby monkeys are taken away from their mothers- this causes them lots of stress which can be painful for them. Months of biopsies happen too for further research for the scientists. PETA had been looking into BIOQUAL for a long time now, and they were noticing how their testing is nothing close to ethical. PETA was able to purchase stock from BIOQUAL to “urge it to phase out the use of chimpanzees.” PETA then asked NIH to cut funding for these unethical tests. About a half of a year passed after PETA bought stock, when BIOQUAL stopped the use of chimpanzee testing.

It really blows my mind that in today’s society, animal testing still occurs. In my opinion, it is not fair for these animals to be put through the pain that they are put through. 

After thinking about my big  topic question about animal testing, it got me thinking: who could I actually talk to, in regards to if animal testing is ethical or not? I did some further research looking for labs around my area that may be able to help me answer this question. I reached out to MB Research Laboratories  to see if I would be able to speak with someone who is familiar with the topic.

I was able to get in touch with one of the employees that work in the labs. But before I conducted my interview, I did some more background research on this company. Throughout each website I visited, they all mention the phrases “in vitro,” meaning tests completed in a test tube, and also “in vivo,” which means a test performed on a living organism. I thought it was interesting that online, it does not clearly mention if this lab uses animals for their research (in vivo). This is something that I really wanted to find out from the person I talked to. 

Emailing back and forth was the way I was able to get in contact with this person. No name is supposed to be disclosed for privacy reasonings for the company. The person I got in contact with also did not give me a direct answer about whether or not their company uses animals for testing new products. I found this very interesting because the person I talked to kind of went around my question.

I figured that I was not going to get an answer to that question, so I asked if anything new was happening to the lab. In fact, as of March 7, 2019, MB Research Labs and SenzaGen signed a contract together. SenzaGen practices an animal-free testing environment in their labs. As this was being explained to me, I was understanding this as that the company may have used some sort of animal testing, and now they are trying to move away from that and follow SenzaGen.

Completing this interview opened up my eyes a bit more. Some of the these labs really do keep secrets about what happens behind their doors. I will keep searching to see if I can find a company that will actually show what they do in the labs. 

After lots of research, I found an article called “Animal Testing is Still then Best way to Find New Treatment for Patients.” It was written in 2017, and it is volume 39 of the European Journal of Internal Medicine. In this article, the authors, Silvio Garattini and Giuliano Grignaschi, discuss the main points about why animal testing should still be used rather than finding alternative ways to animal testing. I chose this article because it is a different perspective than what I normally have with saying how animal testing is bad. 

The article starts off by explaining what experimental research is and how animals are used in some cases for drug research. One of the biggest reasons brought up was that animals have very similar organ structure and functions compared to human organs. Reading this article made me realize that there are still good reasons for animal testing and research. The audience for this article is, I think, people that are studying the topic of animal testing, or any college students or older that are just interested in the topic itself and want more information. 

The article within the main one I was reading was called “Translation of Research Evidence From Animals to Humans.” This article, by Daniel Hackman and Donald Redelmeier, goes into detail about individual studies that has happened about animal testing. This article captures the idea of exactly what happens when animal testing occurs. The authors use statistics to prove that it is better for drugs to be tested on animals first rather than them being just tested one people right away. 

I found this article by searching through the first article’s sources that the authors used. After that, I was able to find the article through a database from the Rohrbach Library. These two articles relate to each other because they both dscuss how drugs are tested on animals first before selling them.  These articles compare to my research question because it shows that there is a reason why it is ethical to test drugs on animals. These articles really opened up my point of view that I previously had. 

The book I chose for this review is called Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Assessing the Necessity. The editors for this anthology are Bruce Altevogt, Diana Pankevich, Marilee Shelton-Davenport, and Jeffrey Kahn. From reading parts of this book, I understand some of the different reasons why chimps and other monkeys are used for testing new products. A summary of the entire book would be extremely long, so I have read different parts that I think are most important.

The NIH (National Institute of Health) brought in the Chimpanzee Research Committee to have them study the use of chimps in different types of research that they do. Since the NIH uses chimps for some studies, the committee was supposed to review how they are used. The committee also viewed how the NIH has been funded over the years. 

The committee was asked questions by the NIH. For example, they asked if chimps are necessary for different discoveries in biomedical research. Some of the information from the committee resulted in them coming up with principles. Basically, these principles are making sure that knowledge is gained from using chimps, and also chimps should be the last option for testing. That means that there is no other way to test any products except using chimps. 

The committee also went in to detail about how and why monkeys are chosen to be the test subjects. This reason is because chimps are the closest related animal to humans compared to anything else biologically. Using chimps makes the most sense because it is a way to avoid using humans as test subjects, but it also gives companies that test their products an accurate idea on how it will affect their customers.

In my opinion, this book is very well written. It goes into much detail, and it does not leave any loose ends. Everything is well explained and to someone who wants to learn more about this topic, this book would be an excellent choice. Something else I enjoyed reading in this book is the amount of statistics that were used. I think that statistics are very helpful because if helps someone put a picture in their head, and since this book has piles of information, people will be able to actually imagine what is happening.

Since this is an anthology, there are many different parts written by different people. Each chapter or section deals with how chimpanzees are used in testing. Most of the chapters have corresponding themes when it comes to talking about why animals like chimps are necessary to complete. These different authors basically all have the same ideas and thoughts.

After all of my research I have done about animal testing, I have realized that my viewpoint is about the ethics of this topic. I care about the well-being of the animals that are being tested on, but not why they are tested on. Reading parts of this book have helped me understand the scientific viewpoint that I did not clearly see before. Now I realize that sometimes these companies have to use animal testing because there is no other option. 

After lots of searching through the New York Times opinion articles, I was able to discover two different articles that discuss the relevancy to the use of lab animals and animals that are tested on.

In Richard J. Wurtman’s article, “Why No Testing of Additives” (1987), explains how animal nesting needs to be stopped. Wurtman goes into detail about how the FDA is not putting in enough effort to stop animal testing. He believes that Congress needs to be the one advise the FDA to stop this kind of testing. Since Congress is in a higher position than the FDA, they should be able to push the FDA to put a new law in place about animal testing. The FDA is the one to tell companies what needs to be done with the experimenting of new products. 

Wurtman discusses some of the laws that were put in place the time this article was published. He also includes different statistics that come directly from the FDA. The target audience is for the high school age and up from that. The author is ensuring that most people will be able to understand the whole topic of animal testing. 

After thoroughly reading this article, I believe that Wurtman has a good understanding of this topic, and his own opinion is formed from himself and not from anyone else. I do not think there is nay bias included in this article. Wurtman uses his correct citations, and does not fail to add in any extra information. However, there may be some name-calling in his article. He clearly does not approve of the FDA, and he is making sure he gets his point across about what the FDA is doing wrong. 

In the other article, “Lab Animal Use” (1983), Lynn Morrison and Gerald S. Levey also claim that the use of lab animals is wrong, and that there should be a solution to stop it. The authors use many examples of illnesses that have treatments that were first tested on animals before use on humans. They explain why animal testing happens on animals instead of humans, “organs such as the heart and brain cannot be simulated.” They also point out how the public is not really seeing what happens in a lab and seeing the mistreatment of animals. 

These authors looked into different examples of what is tested on animals first. Like the first article, I think the target audience is for younger adults because that is the main age where things can be changed. These young people have a voice where they can change things. 

As I was reading through this article, I noticed that the information that was put throughout the article was not cited. I am not sure where the authors got the information from, or if they were just writing about what they thought rather than factual information. 

In the documentary “The Ethics of Biotechnology,” scientists are explaining what is ethical and what is not when they are testing products. The basis of the documentary was figuring out how products are tested. Scientists in the film explain how “animal testing is necessary,” and also the only way for a company to gain trust to the public is by not keeping any secrets about testing their products. 

The big question asked while watching this documentary is if animal testing is ethical or not. There were many scientists who had different opinions about this topic, but overall they all came back to the conclusion that animal testing is the most successful way to test a product. A few professionals brought up separate ideas about alternative ways to testing on animals and it was using stem cells instead.

In this documentary, they discussed the ethical and nonethical parts about the first sheep that was cloned- Dolly. They explained how it was possible to clone something, but most importantly, the scientists described the ethical process of how it happened, and why we do not clone all the time. Dolly lived for 6 years, which is about half the normal life span of a sheep. This is not exactly testing products on animals, but it still falls under the category of the biotechnology of animals.

I have had previous knowledge of the sheep Dolly, but to fact-check the documentary, I visited Science Daily.  The facts in the website and the documentary are the same, which proves the documentary is credible. 

The picture above is a screenshot from the part of the documentary where it was talking about Dolly the cloned sheep. 

This documentary definitely included pathos when sharing about animal testing. The scientists added in a couple stories of how animals can be abused in this process. By adding this part into the film, it makes the viewers feel bad for the animals that are put through the testing process. Pictures of different animals that have been tested on were included in the film. With that, the viewers will support finding alternatives to unethical testing. 

This film shows the positives and negatives of testing products on animals. It also shared how this practice can be unethical. A question I ask after watching this film is how far along have scientists gotten with finding out alternative testing ways with stem cells. Overall, this documentary opened up a door for me to understand what actually happens during animal testing.

At my meeting with one of the librarians at the Rohrbach Library, I was able to learn lots of information about the different databases and my topic. The librarian I consulted with was Dr. Gomez. A few of the areas she specializes in includes English, library science, and technology & culture. I was interested to pick Dr. Gomez because she had just been in our class discussing ways of research for this bog research project, and I thought she would be perfect to meet with since she is aware of the project. 

In the consultation, we visited many websites from the databases. One of the websites we came across, written by Jeremy R. Garrett, is called “Ethics of Animal Research.” It goes over how animals are used for testing, and if the process is ethical or not. This website is exactly what I was looking for. The author brings up points specifically about animal rights, and that fits in perfectly with my topic of testing products on animals. I will be able to use this website for various blog entries.

Another resource that Dr. Gomez showed me was a website with documentaries. The one that stuck out to me was about the ethics of biotechnology. This documentary is about how companies use animals for biomedical testing. There are plenty of websites from the databases, but maybe watching a video will give me a different perspective on my topic. 

We were discussing key words to use to look up resources for my topic. When I will be doing research in the future, I will be needing to use key words to look up new websites on the databases. These keywords include “ethics,” “animal welfare,” and “morals.” Using words like these, I will be able to find different websites, with the same topic. 

One of the last items we talked about is some of the new alternative ways to do product testing. We found a website from the database by SpringerLink, which discusses sensitive skin, and how there are alternatives to testing products for skin on newer technologies that relate to human skin. 

After viewing each of these websites, it has given me a good idea about specific blogs to do for the future.  

Meeting with Dr. Gomez was very helpful. She was able to give me a clear, in depth understanding of how to use the databases from the Rohrbach Library. For further assignments, I now have the resources I will need. 

How exactly are newly created products tested before they are sold to the public? Do they ever risk it and not test any products? Many companies go through the process of testing their products on animals, instead of having humans being the “guinea pigs” to try out the new products. 

According to the FDA, “product testing is just one of the things a manufacturer might do to ensure the safety of a cosmetic product.” This is the definition that the FDA has written about product testing. With this explanation, it shows that there is more than one way to test products.

Throughout each of these blog posts, I will be sharing how the companies use animals to test their product, and the effect that these tests have on the animals. Most of the time, it is very cruel in the way the products are tested. I will be explaining how some companies do not follow very ethical procedures to test their new products.

This has been a controversial topic for many years now, and people are finally starting to realize that it should come to a stop. There is enough technology to be able to come up with a different solution to testing products, rather then testing straight onto an animal. It is not fair for these animals to go through testing like this when there could be another way. 

There is a clear reason for understanding why companies must test their products, and that is so there are no bad effects that can harm people when using. The easiest way for companies to test their products is to use animals; they are right there with easy access, but also it is much cheaper than using new scientific tools that relate to human skin. 

These days there are multiple new ways to test products, which is something I will talk about in later blogs. However, these alternative ways are expensive and harder to accommodate for many companies to test their products. 

 There are, fortunately, different circumstances in other countries around the world. Countries in Europe have created a law saying how it is now illegal to test products on animals. This is something that is not in place in every country, but it is something that is trying to be changed. I hope that soon it will be a law that is all around the world. 

For each of my blog entries, I hope to inform everyone how diminishing it is to know that testing on animals still happens to this day. As a society, we should all work  together to stop this cruel animal testing. There can be plenty of other solutions with todays’ technology, instead of using animals.