Journal Writing Project: Animal Testing

By Addison Kessler

Animal testing is an integral component of modern science, product testing, and education (Beauchamp/DeGrazia PMC). It has been used to help understand the human body for thousands of years. Animal testing is wrong because the animals have no choice in whether they will be tested or not. Why test on animals when humans and animals are not biologically the same? Wouldn’t it be more ethical to test on a test dummy or someone who had passed away and donated their body to science? Isn’t there someone who needs money who would volunteer to be tested? Even though animal testing may be effective in some experiments, ultimately, the waste of life is unethical and morally wrong.

Animal testing is also known as animal experimentation, vivisection, and vivo testing. It is called this because it refers back to the Latin word vivus, which means living. In the article “Animal Testing” from Gale in Context, the definition of animal testing is “procedures performed on animals for human research.” According to the National Library of Medicine, the term “animal model” refers to the use of live animals to study particular biological processes with the use of extrapolating that information to other animals, particularly humans. It was first recorded by a Greek philosopher around 450 B.C. Another time recorded afterwards was between 129-216. This was discovered by “The Father of Vivisection,” Claudius Galen. He studied various animals to help him understand the human nerves and muscular systems better. “Animal Testing” also says that around the 1800s, a French chemist named Louis Pasteur experimented on farm animals while developing a vaccine for rabies and anthrax. These experiments led to reliable vaccines that helped save millions of lives over the years. During the 1930s, a popular drug called Sulfanilamide was made into a liquid, and it was discovered that it was deadly to humans that ingested it. No animal testing has occurred before it was released to the public, which, in some people’s eyes, should be the case all of the time. I agree with that, but if the drug has not been properly tested, they shouldn’t release it to the public. In the 1960s, the Animal Welfare Act was passed. It regulated the treatment of animals in research, transport, and exhibition, from which many mice, rats, and fish are excluded. The animal welfare regulations required those who use animals for research or educational purposes to report whether the animal experienced pain and whether pain-relieving medication was provided during procedures. In 2020, the EU (European Union) reported that nearly 8 million (115 annually) animals were involved in testing and research across the EU and Norway. (Beauchamp/DeGrazia PMC). South Korea followed in the European Union’s footsteps by looking at the statistics of cruelty. After they looked at these, they chose to propose a five-year plan to phase out the use of cosmetics testing on animals, starting with the prohibition of the use of animals to test finished cosmetic products. The Animal Welfare Act also establishes the minimum acceptable standards of care and treatment for certain animals in research, testing, experimentation, exhibition purposes, and use as pets. The AWA covers warm-blooded animals yet specifically excludes birds, mice, and rats bred for research purposes, as well as animals used for food, fiber, or many forms of agricultural research. The Public Health System has a policy that applies to all research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and to all live vertebrates used for research purposes. In 2014, China removed a requirement for “ordinary cosmetics’’ such as hair products and fragrances to be tested on animals. As a result, the US Humane Cosmetics Act was introduced to Congress in 2015 but did not pass.

Addison Kessler is a student at Spring Grove High School. She is one of 13 area students participating in the Journal Writing Project, now in its 25th year.