Whether you like it or not, we need animal testing

Why do scientists continue to test drugs on animals despite moral arguments against animal testing?


Last month, a Freedom of Information request by The Tab revealed that Sheffield University killed 82,512 animals in tests during the 2015/16 academic year. This left many questioning, in a society that is as technologically advanced as ours, why does animal testing continue to be one of the primary means of performing medical research?

In short, because we currently have no alternatives. Society demands better healthcare all the time, and scientists the world over work constantly to find new treatments for common diseases, but finding these treatments requires extensive testing.

It would be considered unethical for us to test a drug of unknown effect in a human subject, yet if we are to distribute a drug we need to know what affect it has in humans. This means that before we use a drug on humans, we need to have a decent idea of what side effects it has and whether it is likely to be effective against the targeted disease.

Current research regulations require that drugs go through a series of different tests, starting off at a molecular level, with individual molecules of proteins or genes being tested. After this, bacterial cells are used to see what affects the drug has on a living cell. From there, mammalian cells (human, rat, rabbit or many others) are tested, before larger tissue samples such as organs are used. Only then can a drug be used in a living animal.

This series of tests is designed to minimise the amount of unsafe substances that any complex living organisms are exposed to, and whilst not perfect in ruling out all unsafe substances, is generally very effective. British law dictates that animal testing (humans included) is the last resort in drug testing. All other options need to have been exhausted before animal tests can be performed.

It is currently not possible to use methods such as computer simulations instead of animal testing, as we cannot create programmes that replicate the complexity and sensitivity of a living organism, partly because we do not know all the details about the organisms themselves and partly because computers still lack the capabilities of running such intensive programmes. This means that we are still reliant on physical experiments, at least for the time being.

Whether you are against animal testing or not, it is important to recognise all that it has done for our species in the past. It is through animal testing that we have found cures for smallpox, tuberculosis, polio and many other infectious diseases. We have also developed vaccines and surgical procedures as a result of animal tests, for example organ transplantation and open heart surgery were both practised on animals before humans. Treatment for diseases like diabetes and asthma rely on medicines such as insulin and prednisone that we discovered through animal testing.

In other words, nearly every modern medicine and treatment exists because of animal testing. Countless lives have been saved because of this.

It is not only humans that benefit from the scientific knowledge gained through animal testing. Veterinary treatment relies entirely upon animal testing. If a pet is injured or falls ill then we have only three options; leave the animal to suffer, put the animal down, or help the animal through medical intervention. The most morally obvious choice is, of course, to do our best to help the animal, but this is only possible if animal testing has provided the knowledge of treatment that allows us to do this.

So for the time being, there’s no getting away from it; we need animal testing, whether you like it or not.