By: Lyz Boyd, Peak Contributor
When you hear “animal experimentation,” are you conjuring images of sad animals suffering unspeakable horrors? Are they locked in tiny cages? Getting stabbed by huge needles?
If so, you’re missing a lot of the story. Through my personal experience working with animals in scientific research, I agree that performing research on animals is not something we should be thrilled about; however, it is not the terrifying horror show that some believe it to be.
Many people seem to oppose animal testing in part because they are picturing their own beloved cats and dogs being tortured in mysterious underground labs. On the contrary, the majority of animals used in research in Canada are mice (41%) and fish (32%). Cats and dogs combined only make up 0.7% of the animals used. I’m not arguing that the life of one animal is worth more than another, but this may be a comfort, at least on an emotional level.
Opponents of animal testing also seem to be concerned that scientists are going rogue, doing whatever they like with the animals on which they experiment. This is not the case. In fact, research on animals is one of the more highly regulated practices in science.
The Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) releases guidelines and performs assessments of institutions doing research on animals to ensure the guidelines are being followed. These guidelines cover everything you’ve ever worried about and things you haven’t even thought of, from climate control to animal hypnosis.
Additionally, anyone who works with animals in a scientific capacity has to go through rigorous training, including courses on the ethics of using animals and the practical skills needed to perform procedures humanely.
Research on animals is only considered acceptable when it deepens basic understanding of biology, or when it has the potential to provide insight that could improve human or animal health. This means that research on animals is not performed as thoughtlessly as many believe it to be.
Another consideration when evaluating the necessity of animal testing is: what are the alternatives? This question is especially relevant in the area of drug testing. Before a new drug moves into human clinical trials, it has to be safe and effective when tested on animals. Even with this requirement, there have been issues with the safety of new drugs during and after human trials. Without preliminary testing on animals, these problems would only get worse.
If drug safety research using animals was banned, I foresee two possible outcomes: either potentially dangerous drugs would have to be tested on humans right off the bat, or no new drugs would get clinical trial approval due to safety fears. As a result, the world would miss out on life-changing new treatments for patients suffering from cancer, arthritis, chronic pain, and many other conditions. Both outcomes are undesirable and highlight the need for research using animals.
Animal testing is not ideal, but it is a necessary evil. Regulations and training imposed by the CCAC help to make the treatment of research animals as humane as possible and most scientists do their best to treat the animals with respect and dignity. With the exception of a handful of bad apples who are bound to be out there, the vast majority of scientists take no pleasure in experimenting on animals.
For all of these reasons, we should be informed and hold companies and institutions accountable for their treatment of research animals, instead of opposing animal testing outright. Animal experimentation is not something to be celebrated, but it is required to advance the fields of biology and medicine and, ultimately, to improve the lives of humans and animals alike.
