Upon consideration of the question, “Should animal testing be banned?”, one wonders if we should not be looking at this issue from the reverse. We should rather be asking, “Under what conditions should animal testing be allowed?” And, if there are such conditions, then how should animal testing and experimentation be modified to reduce the pain and distress and to minimize the number of animals involved? Is it possible to replace the animals altogether? At the crux of these questions is the implication that using animals in scientific studies is unethical and carries with it the objectification of nonhuman animals as functional for human use, rather than as sentient beings with their own worth and rights to not experience distress, discomfort, pain or have captivity imposed on them. Beliefs that nonhuman animals were put on earth for human use is derived from Abrahamic religious teachings. It permeates across many of our cultures today, including the culture of science.
Often the public and media misconstrue the concept of “testing” with “experimentation”, whether of nonhuman or human animals. The difference is that “testing” implies invasive biomedical (e.g., testing for pharmaceutical development) or product testing (e.g., testing of cosmetics or household cleaning agents) that often causes pain, distress and in many cases the animals are sacrificed at the end of the “testing”. “Experimentation” certainly includes invasive studies involving nonhuman animals, where they may experience significant pain and distress. However, experimentation also includes non-invasive studies where some intervening variable is manipulated to evaluate cause and effect on behavior or physical and psychological wellbeing. One example of such non-invasive experimentation would be in a zoo setting, where a nonhuman primate such as an orangutan is provided with access to a touchscreen computer and virtual gaming software that challenges and measures the apes’ cognitive abilities in return for food rewards. In this scenario, the orangutan has the option to voluntarily interact with the computer and software, and to even interact with zoo visitors via the computer, but is not coerced to do so by research, zoo staff or zoo visitors. In this way, captive animals often “choose” to work for food rewards, despite getting a balanced daily diet. This is referred to as “contrafreeloading” and has been observed in captive species as diverse as mice and chimpanzees. This is also a form of environmental enrichment for the orangutan, who otherwise might be bored, frustrated, and potentially develop negative/harmful stereotypical behaviors, a form of psychopathology. Under the heading of “experimentation” in this case, providing cognitive challenges to captive animals when they volunteer to participate, even in sanctuaries, should therefore not be viewed as unethical, but perhaps even desirable and necessary. The point is, non-invasive studies, whether experiments or observational, do not impose the same negative aspects as invasive experimentation and therefore are not subject to the same rationale for banning.
We are at a tipping point with human populations on the increase, causing habitat destruction, pollution and climate change, where a majority of animal species are on the verge of going extinct (it was reported this week that 58% of the world's wildlife populations are in decline). Once removed from their natural habitat, captive exemplars of a species are only facsimiles of their wild counterparts. With the destruction their natural habitat, these captive species will be all that exist. The full repertoire of a species’ behaviors and behavioral and cognitive adaptations will be lost in captivity, and cannot be regained in the absence of natural habitat and appropriate social interactions. We need to learn as much as possible about species from those individuals held in captivity in order to save those who still remain in the wild. This requires that observational and even experimental work continue, although we can stipulate that the majority of the studies be noninvasive. Consequently, recent activity on the part of animal rights groups to end all experimentation with nonhuman primates (for example) is misguided and in the long term counterproductive, albeit well-intentioned. We cannot learn more about these species to save them if we do not study them. And inevitably, we learn more about ourselves, as human animals, in the process.
With regard to the question of “what animal testing should be allowed?”, a careful examination of the “absolute need” should provide guidance towards an answer. Toxicology testing is probably one of the cruelest forms of animal testing in the biomedical sciences. Imagine yourself as the animal being gavaged with toxic chemicals or drugs. Cosmetic testing and testing of household cleaning agents on animals is extremely harmful to the animals. Is it necessary? The answer is clearly no. There are products on the market that are permitted to be sold to the public because they are assessed to be safe in the absence of animal testing (and/or using alternatives). Even if animal testing were required for cosmetics, are cosmetics truly an “absolute need” that justifies the harm to animals? Why can’t we replace animals by computer modeling? Sadly, we simply do not have sufficient knowledge to create all of the computer models that would accurately reflect biological reality. And, animal testing has been instrumental to generate the data for the development of the computer models that we do have.
In the case of biomedical testing, often the “absolute need” does provide a way of justifying the use of animals. When asked to be honest about whether someone would take a drug or other medical intervention developed using animal testing to save themselves, a family member, close friend or a pet, the majority of people reply “Yes”. This is true even of individuals committed to animal welfare and animal rights, who are vegans, do not wear leather, wool, silk, and avoid using animal products as much possible. Are they hypocritical? No. They are being pragmatic and recognize the “absolute need”. John Donne’s poem, “No man is an island” can be paraphrased to state that no human in the present day can be completely separated from animal use (“exploitation”) for human welfare, at some level.
The answer to whether to ban animal testing, in fact, hovers somewhere between “yes” and “no”. In 1959, Russell and Burch introduced to the scientific community the concept of “The Three R’s”: reduction, refinement and replacement. The crux of the three R’s is to modify testing and experimentation using animals so to reduce the number of individuals being tested, refine the protocol to eliminate as much pain and distress inflicted while providing for the animal’s welfare both physically and psychologically, and wherever possible, to replace the animals with a non-sentient alternative (e.g., cell culture). Refinements, including environmental enrichment for captive animals in laboratories, are vital to good scientific outcomes and in almost all circumstances, good animal welfare leads to good scientific outcomes.
Should we improve animal welfare generally, in the wild and in captivity (zoos, labs and in people’s homes)? Should we improve how animals are treated when they are used in testing and experimentation, to eliminate as much suffering as possible? Yes to both, as we have an ethical imperative to do so towards other sentient beings. Should we eliminate all invasive animal testing and experimentation in biomedical science? Not until we have realistic and workable alternatives, but we can and should minimize it and continue to pressure the scientific community to keep innovating to create these alternatives until animals are no longer needed in invasive scientific research. Should we eliminate non-invasive animal experimentation? Absolutely and resoundingly, no, as this work is critical to inform our ability to share this planet with others.