While many animal rights activists are deeply opposed to the use of animals in research, it can be difficult to see any alternative when it comes to the development of new drugs and products. Animal testing of some products can be eliminated entirely, but, in some rare circumstances, experimentation on live subjects is the only way to develop new medicines, products, and technologies that benefit humans and animals alike.
This unfortunate reality does not have to mean that test animals must be tortured, slaughtered, and mass bred to the degree that they are now. Instead, companies that are determined to resort to animal testing can instead aim for humane, effective, and caring techniques for scientific study.
The ASPCA, or American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, is the nation’s premiere animal-rights organization, and is renowned for its moderate, practical positions and policies regarding animal rights. The ASPCA suggests a “Three R’s” guideline system– Reduction, Replacement, and Refinement– for making animal testing more humane.
Humane Animal Testing: Reduction
Even those who support animal testing will generally agree that it happens all too often. There is no reason for a cosmetics manufacturer to glue open the lids of a kitten while layering on massive amounts of mascara, yet this and similar procedures take place nearly every day. It is unnecessarily and unforgiveably cruel to use animals in research for any reason other than to provide advancement in a necessary and beneficial field of study.
When animals are used for biomedical research, the smallest possible number of animals should be used to acheive conclusive results. No “surplus” animals should be killed or subjected to experimentation, and conclusive studies should not be repeated for the simple sake of re-education. Companies should very carefully limit the number of animals involved in research, and should only use animal testing when no viable alternative exists.
Humane Animal Testing: Replacement
Animal rights activists do not have to choose between supporting scientific advancement and supporting animal welfare. In the vast majority of cases, leaps and bounds can be made in science and medicine without the use of live animals. Every day, the academic community comes closer to eliminating the need for animal testing under any circumstances.
Depending on the specific nature of the study being conducted, animal testing can be replaced by epidemiologic data, surveys, computer modeling, organ perfusion, and in vitro tests using cell and tissue culture. These methods often yield much more accurate results than animal testing, and they are completely cruelty-free.
Humane Animal Testing: Refinement
Animals who are being subjected to study should be treated with care and respect, and deserve complete and humane care before, during, and after any necessary procedures. Ideally, the subjects of animal testing should be treated with no less compassion than an animal undergoing a necessary procedure at a veterinarian’s office. Caution should be taken to minimize fear and discomfort for the animal.
Studies that follow the principles of humane animal testing would allow the subjects to have normal social opportunities, adequate space, quality food, and a sanitary environment, unless the specific nature of the study makes this an impossibility. If suitable, the animals involved in the studies would then be re-homed to shelters or rehabilitation services, rather than euthanized by default.
Animal testing is only truly necessary in rare circumstances, and it is always unfortunate when it must occur. However, animal testing does not necessarily have to be cruel, unsanitary, or murderous. Companies and universities that carefully consider the ASPCA’s guidelines can save the lives of many animals by seeking alternatives and maintaining a caring attitude.
Source: ASPCA Policy and Position Statements. Animal Research. General Considerations. 13 Feb 09.
