In this blog post, we will look at the history and limitations of animal testing and examine alternative scientific methods to consider whether animal testing is an inevitable choice or a practice that needs improvement.
The debate over the necessity of animal testing
April 24 was World Day for End to Animal Testing. On this day, many campaigns were held around the world to criticize the irrationality and inhumanity of animal testing. Seeing this on the news, I began to think about a question I had long had: Is animal testing really a necessary evil, or is it a long-standing tradition that has been perpetuated? In this article, I will introduce the wrongdoings of animal testing, their causes, and alternative methods to animal testing, and present my opinion on animal testing.
When asked why they support animal testing, most people who are in favor of it argue that it is necessary to conduct medical testing on animals in order to provide safer medicines to humans. On the other hand, when asked why they oppose animal testing, those who are against it argue that the suffering animals endure during testing is inhumane. However, the general public who think this way are unaware of the fundamental problems with animal testing, and in that sense, they are unable to provide a fundamental solution for both humans and animals.
The exaggerated delusions of drugs developed through animal testing
Every year, 2 million animals are used in animal testing in laboratories in Korea alone. However, it is questionable whether these countless lives are truly being used for the health and lives of humans. For example, Michael Benatta, a professor of neurology at Emory University, who was frustrated by the failure to find an effective treatment despite decades of research using countless laboratory mice for ALS patients, said that he read all the publications on mouse research related to ALS from the beginning. As a result, he found that, first, most of the studies had flaws such as sample sizes that were too small or poor experimental design, and second, about 10 drugs that treated mice with ALS had no effect on humans, and one actually worsened the symptoms of patients. Benata likened this to looking for a key, saying that it is easier to find a key in a brightly lit area under a streetlight than in a dark place, and criticized the current state of animal testing as being like looking for a key in a dark place. In other words, no matter how hard you look in a bright place, if the key is not there in the first place, you will only waste time and effort forever. This is the same as developing new drugs using animal experiments, which are much easier than clinical research on humans.
There is another famous example that proves that the results of animal experiments are not helpful to humans. It is the thalidomide incident, in which more than 10,000 newborns were born without arms and legs. Thalidomide was taken by many pregnant women as a treatment for morning sickness, but this drug had a fatal side effect of inhibiting the development of limbs in fetuses. As the incidence of birth defects increased, many scientists tried to reproduce the side effects of thalidomide in animals, but no problems related to thalidomide were found in animal experiments. As a result, the use of thalidomide was eventually permitted again, and more than 10,000 newborns were born with disabilities before thalidomide was banned again. In addition, many drugs developed based on animal testing, such as DES, Thalidomide, Lexar, Celebrex, SSRI, Enbrel, Chloramphenicol, and Pialuridine, were found to cause serious side effects in humans. Furthermore, according to a 1991 report by the US Food and Drug Administration, 102 of the 209 drugs approved for animal testing between 1976 and 1985, or 52 percent, had serious side effects. As such, animals and humans react completely differently to drugs, and this difference can lead to catastrophic consequences.
How did animal testing begin?
If animal testing is so difficult to apply to humans and has so many side effects, as described above, one might wonder why so many doctors and scientists continue to conduct animal testing. To find the root cause, we must go back in time. Galen, a physician in ancient Rome, compiled the achievements of Greek medicine into a vast medical system and had an absolute influence on medical theory and practice in Europe during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. However, he also left behind some incorrect knowledge. In ancient times, it was forbidden to dissect human bodies, so Galen had no choice but to dissect goats, pigs, and monkeys, which became the origin of vivisection. Galen then forced the physiological data he observed in animals onto humans. This, combined with the church’s suppression of human dissection, led later scholars to dissect animals rather than humans, causing medicine to stagnate for centuries.
However, with the passage of time and the efforts of many doctors, medicine advanced and the medical knowledge we have today about the human body was accumulated. However, in the mid-19th century, a drug called sulfanilamide was developed, which killed 107 people due to side effects, and animals also died from the same symptoms. Due to this single incident, the scientific community systematized animal testing for all drug testing. Not only that, but the huge industry that generates enormous economic profits from animal testing and the medical community, which is in cahoots with that industry, falsely claim that animal testing has improved human health and longevity for their own benefit. This is despite the fact that the improvement of human health and longevity is due to clean water and food, public hygiene, and the development of sound science. Due to the collusion of these huge animal testing sponsorship organizations, animal testing is mistakenly perceived by the public as unavoidable for the advancement of human medicine. For this reason, despite the efforts of conscientious doctors, scientists, and animal protection organizations, animal testing continues today.
How should animal testing be changed?
The main argument used to justify the continuation of animal experiments is that without them, medical progress would be slowed down. At first glance, this seems reasonable. However, many methods that can replace animal testing have already been developed, such as computer modeling, clinical research, epidemiological studies, autopsies, test tube research, genetic research, and post-marketing drug surveillance. If doctors and scientists gradually expand the use of these alternatives, it will be possible to conduct research that is more ethical and applicable to humans than animal testing, which currently contributes to medical advancement. In fact, according to data released by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2006, nine out of ten drugs that were proven safe in animal testing failed to pass safety tests in clinical trials, while Lipitor, a cholesterol-lowering drug developed by Pfizer, , a cholesterol inhibitor developed by Pfizer, failed to prove its safety in animal testing during the initial development process, but its efficacy and safety were successfully proven in clinical trials, helping many people improve their health. In addition, among the methods using mathematical modeling and computer-assisted research, the Compact Project being conducted at the University of Surrey is emerging as a replacement for animal testing, with an accuracy rate of over 82 percent in more than 100 compounds. Furthermore, considering that most current treatments for leukemia, thyroid disease, and AIDS have been developed through clinical research, and that the basis for the treatment of diseases such as phosphoric acid poisoning, silicosis, and mercury poisoning was established through epidemiological studies, it is clear that animal testing can be replaced.
Of course, it is unrealistic to suddenly stop all animal testing and replace it with other methods. However, experiments conducted simply to satisfy academic curiosity, experiments for which alternative methods are already widely available and in use, such as animal testing for cosmetics, and animal testing that continues for customary or economic reasons even though alternative methods exist, must be stopped. This is because we do not have unlimited time, money, or scientists, so we must invest the money wasted on animal testing in alternative research based on the human body and focus on genuine research for human health. In addition, the government, companies, and academia must spare no effort in research and investment in the development of alternative materials so that animal testing can be reduced and eventually stopped in the future. In addition, the public must be provided with accurate information about animal testing in order to correct misconceptions. If these efforts continue, the waste of money and time on animal testing will be reduced in the near future, and medical development for the future of humanity will be accelerated.
Through various examples and evidence, we have explained how animal testing is wrong and why it must be replaced with alternatives, not based on emotional reasons such as pity for animals, but on rational reasons such as the need to advance science and medicine. It will not be easy to change the deeply rooted practice of animal testing immediately, but efforts to replace animal testing with more humane and efficient alternatives will be necessary. For the sake of animals suffering from animal testing and for the sake of people suffering from side effects caused by wrongful experiments, animal testing is a legacy of wrong knowledge that must be changed as soon as possible.
