Fitzgerald 1

Bryan Fitzgerald
Adam Padgett
English 102
30 March 2016
Maltreatment in Labs: Ethical Concerns Pertaining to Animal Testing
Mahatma Gandhi once said The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be
measured by the way its animals are treated. These words directly oppose how animals are truly
treated in the world today (McDonald 30). On the news, stories about animal abuse can be seen
almost every day, whether it is someone leaving their dog in a locked car with the windows
rolled all the way up on a hot summer day, a farmer storing their animals in tiny cages in their
own feces while they wait for the day in which they are taking back to the slaughterhouse, or
even a famous person using animals for entertainment by throwing them into a pin and making
them fight to the death. These cases of animal abuse are covered closely by the media and often
televised, but these cases are not the only types of abuse going on in the world today. Animals
are also abused in laboratories by having cruel tests performed on them by experimenters who
are hoping to make the next big breakthrough in cosmetics or some other area of study. For
example, in 2002 a colony of chimps was rescued from a medical research lab in San Antonio,
Texas which had reported multiple abuses to a sanctuary in Florida. These chimps were lucky to
get out of the testing because it has been reported that testing upon chimps included repeated
blood tests, liver biopsies, anesthesia, and injection with viruses in the hopes of finding a vaccine
for hepatitis C. Some people even say that chimps may not be the best biological model for
humans since research has shown that diseases such as cancer, viruses, and heart diseases

Fitzgerald 2
develop differently than in humans and chimps, so that brings up the question being is it really
necessary to perform some of these gruesome tests on these chimps since their immune systems
deals with these diseases differently than human immune systems and were there any real
benefits to this testing (Long). There are many problems with testing on animals as in the
aforementioned story about the chimps; however, many beneficial medical related results have
come from this testing. For example, Alan Lloyd Hodgkin and Andrew Huxley performed many
tests on the nerves of squids to begin to unravel the mystery of nervous transmission and John C
Eccles did research on cats spinal cords to eventually demonstrate the nature of synapse. These
scientists work greatly developed knowledge in the area of nervous systems and it would not
have been possible without their research on animals in laboratories (Pycroft 34). Animals should
be used less in laboratory testing because of the ethical concerns involving the ways in which
they are sometimes treated; however, medical testing on animals should continue because there
are still many things that can be learned about the human body and how to medically serve it, but
animal testing for things such as cosmetics is not necessary and should be eradicated.
According to a paper written by WS Stokes, who works for the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection, public distress about how animals are
mistreated and abused in laboratory settings has led to many laws and policies and the
implementation of the 3Rs of alternatives (Stokes 1297). In addition, another article written by
Dominic J. Wells, who works for the Department of Veterinary Basic Sciences in the United
Kingdom, adds to the history of the 3Rs concept by writing about the concepts creators, William
Russell and Rex Burch. Russell and Burch created this concept to create a new way of thinking
about how animals should be used in laboratories. In the words of Wells, They (Russell and
Burch) argued that animal experiments should be designed to reduce the number of animals

Fitzgerald 3
used to a minimum, to rene the way experiments are carried out to make sure animals suffer
as little as possible, and wherever possible to replace animal experiments with nonanimal
techniques. This concept, if implemented would address both the ethical and economical
concerns involved in animal testing due to the fact that animal experiments are very expensive to
conduct (Wells 14).
Nearly all countries have implemented laws or policies that include the 3Rs concept. For
example, Stokes wrote that In the United States, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) requires
compliance with AWA regulations for warm-blooded animals used in research and testing
(Stokes 1298). Also F. Caloni, who works for the Department of Veterinary Sciences and
Technologies for Food Safety in Italy, wrote about the implementation of the 3Rs technique into
Veterinary schools in Italy. According to Caloni, the veterinary students at the University of
Milan implemented the principles of the 3Rs concept by using videos, films, mannequins and
computer simulations instead of animals to teach the veterinary students about animals. Caloni
found that the students were engaged in the alternative ways of teaching and he also wrote
importance of the implementation of the 3Rs in education, not only in the University, but also at
the post-graduate level including continuous education of professionals (post-academic training)
and teachers praising the inclusion of the 3Rs concept in teaching and calling for its further use.
In contrast with Canolis ideas about reducing the amount of animals being used in testing for
medical schools, Walter E. Howard, an Emeritus Professor in Wildlife, Fish and Conservation
Biology at the University of California, writes Those who oppose any use of live animals in
medical schools need to consider whether they would be willing to be the first animal and living
flesh that their surgeon performed emergency surgery on, when addressing the value of using
real live flesh in medical schools (Howard 203). Howard then goes on to write To me, the

Fitzgerald 4
conquest of unsolved medical problems such as cancer, AIDS, other infectious diseases, and
genetic, developmental, neurological and psychiatric conditions justify the current use of animals
in research (Howard 203). This idea that animals should be used in medical schools is
interesting and it is beneficial to have the next generations of surgeons perform their first
procedures on animals rather than living things; however there are also many aspects of medical
schooling that instead of using animals could use computer simulations or other alternative
methods.
According to W S Stokes, authorities have approved many about 63 alternatives to
animal testing, including computer simulation and in vitro studies, but when speaking about the
implementation of these alternative methods Stokes writes however, such efforts have not yet
measurably impacted animal use for regulatory testing and are not likely to do so for many years
or even decades (Stokes 1297). Stokes then goes on to explain the cause of the large delay
between approval and implementation of these alternative methods when he writes Before new
tests can replace animals, they must be shown to provide equivalent or improved protection as
the animal test that they are proposed to replace. The test must then be accepted by regulatory
authorities and implemented by regulated industry in order to actually avoid the use of animals
(Stokes 1297). This method that the authorities use to approve these alternatives to animal
testing is very time consuming and should be shortened to ensure that as many animals as
possible can be saved from being tested upon. The information from F Calonis paper mentions
that students support the alternative method when he writes The students approach to
alternatives was very positive and relevant for ethical and practical reasons. Moreover the
students found the economic advantages and the decrease of environmental impact using
alternatives relevant aspects. They would like to implement them not only in Veterinary

Fitzgerald 5
Toxicology but in all the disciplines where are possible to apply (Caloni 13). The information
that Caloni gathered from the students that took part in this study about the implementation of
alternative methods of testing in Veterinary schools shows that the students themselves support
the alternative methods to animal testing. Even though these methods would reduce the number
of animals subjected to testing and still give valuable information some writers such as Walter E
Howard would suggest that animals continual use is the only way in which testing should occur
by writing Its wishful thinking that we can find answers to many health and behavior questions
without using animals and tests (Howard 203). In response to Howard, animals should be used
in some instances, but there are many different benefits from using alternative methods of
testing.
The only problem with the use of these methods is the time that it takes to get the
methods approved by the appropriate authorities. According to W S Stokes, there are many
reasons that the process of getting an implementation is so long. Stokes addresses the first of
these barriers when he writes First, industry must be assured that government agencies will
accept data from accepted alternative methods. This just means that the new methods have to go
through two screenings that both verify if the alternative method provides accurate data, one by
the industry and then one by the government agency. He then states A second impediment to
implementation relates to the use of internationally accepted alternative test methods, referring
to the problem that companies often opt out of methods that have been approved internationally
because they only trust information approved by their countrys agencies. Finally, he writes A
third impediment to implementation is that reviewers and other staff in regulatory agencies are
not always aware of or familiar with accepted alternative methods, meaning they are less likely

Fitzgerald 6
to speak about or endorse some methods because they simply do not understand them (Stokes
1299).
As mentioned earlier, there are many governmental agencies that endorse the 3Rs method
and efforts to support the humane treatment of animals. For example, many researchers at the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, which is one of the largest conferences in
the United States, supported the continued use of animals in testing by saying the animals used
in testing are treated humanely (McMillan 1). In his paper Franklin D McMillian, who works
for the Best Friends Animal Society located in Kanab, Utah, analyzes the frequent use of
humanely and its actual meaning when describing the treatment of animals during laboratory
testing. McMillans paper brings up interesting points such as Specifically, how are we defining
humane? If animals are forced to endure the sufferings that toxicity studies, disease, and
countless other experimental designs cause, then what definition of the word allows us to say that
the animals are being treated humanely? He then mentions According to the Random House
Websters Unabridged Dictionary (2005), humane is defined as characterized by tenderness,
compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, especially for the suffering or distressed,
which adds to the interesting discussion involving the word humane (McMillan 2). The word
humane does not hold up to its definition and it is often used as a scapegoat for those who
support the continued use of animals in research and testing. For example Howard writes
humanely as possible when describing how animals should be used in testing (Howard 203).
After the analyzing the use of the word humane in respect to animals and testing, one should ask
isnt the most humane way to treat animals involved in testing to remove simply them from the
laboratories?

Fitzgerald 7
NH Franco and IAS Olsson analyzed the awareness of the 3Rs in their research by asking
Do you know the 3Rs of animal research? to a sample of people. The results from their study
are 58% of respondents admitted to be completely unaware of the 3Rs, 21% claimed to know
but failed to name the 3Rs correctly, and 20% properly named these principles. The level of
awareness varied signicantly (P<0.001) between courses, as well as through the years and

dierent venues. Knowledge of the 3Rs was neither inuenced by age, gender nor by number of
years of experience with laboratory animals. One year after the course, the percentage of
respondents from all courses naming the 3Rs correctly rose (P<0.001) to 96% (Franco, NH, and
IAS Olsson 53). These results can be seen in Figure 1 below. These results show how little the
general public knows about the problems with animal testing and the 3Rs; however these results
also show that after taking an informational class on the 3Rs people learn a lot about the
problems involving research.
Figure 1- Age distribution of course participants (a) and experience with laboratory animals (b)
for participants at the beginning of laboratory animal science (LAS) courses and in follow-up
tests (Franco, NH, and IAS Olsson 53).
The 3Rs method works to reduce, refine, and replace animals in research. In order to put
the 3Rs fully into practice people need to be educated about the many benefits to both humans

Fitzgerald 8
and animals when this method is implemented. Once educated the governmental agencies must
enforce this method by creating tighter restrictions on when animals should or should not be used
in a laboratory. Finally, the researchers themselves must pledge to follow these rules and
regulations by limiting the number of animals needed for their experimentation, reducing the
amount of stress on the animals that are chosen for experimentation and implementing
alternatives to animals in their tests. Animals should not be completely removed from the
laboratories; however, to reduce the amount of abuses and maltreatments that animals suffer,
animals should only be used when necessary, for medical research or medical school training.

Fitzgerald 9

Works Cited
Caloni, F. "RT03 Education And 3Rs: An Italian Experience In Veterinary Toxicology." Journal
Of Veterinary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 29.S1 (2006): 12-13. Academic Search
Alumni Edition. Web. 30 Mar. 2016.
Franco, NH, and IAS Olsson. "Scientists And The 3Rs: Attitudes To Animal Use In Biomedical
Research And The Effect Of Mandatory Training In Laboratory Animal Science."
Laboratory Animals 48.1 (2014): 50-60. Academic Search Complete. Web. 30 Mar. 2016.
Howard, Walter E.. An Ecologist's View of Animal Rights. The American Biology Teacher
56.4 (1994): 202205. Web.
Long, Judy. "In the Positive Side: What's Fair for the Chimps of the Alamogordo Primate
Facility?" Las Cruces Sun-News 27 Nov. 2010: n. pag. LexisNexis Academic
[LexisNexis]. Web. 2 Feb. 2016.
McDonald, Janet A. "Defending Those Who Cannot Speak: Civil And Criminal Prosecution Of
Animal Abuse." Florida Bar Journal 88.9 (2014): 30-32. Academic Search Complete.
Web. 30 Mar. 2016.
Mcmillan, Franklin D.. What Dictionary Are Animal Researchers Using?. Journal of Animal
Ethics 2.1 (2012): 15. Web.
Pycroft, Laurie, and Helen Marston "Is Animal Testing Necessary To Advance Medical
Research?." New Internationalist 444 (2011): 34-36. Academic Search Complete. Web.
30 Mar. 2016.
Stokes, W. S. "Animals And The 3Rs In Toxicology Research And Testing." Human &
Experimental Toxicology 34.12 (2015): 1297-1303. Academic Search Complete. Web. 23
Mar. 2016.
Wells, Dominic J. "Animal Welfare And The 3Rs In European Biomedical Research." Annals Of
The New York Academy Of Sciences 1245.1 (2011): 14-16. Academic Search Complete.
Web. 30 Mar. 2016.

Fitzgerald 10