Alternatives To Animal Testing
The Animal Welfare Act is the only act in the United States that protects animals in research, yet not every animal used for testing is protected under this law. Mice and rats make up for more than 75% of the animals used for testing, but under AWA they are “specifically exclude[d]” from the definition of “animals” (Lee). The similarities between animals and humans have led to the growth of animal research to better understand the behaviors, emotions, and thought processes of these species. However, the laboratories that are in charge of animal testings are not providing the minimum requirements to hold a just and uncruel environment for these animals. Since 1859, when Charles Darwin first used animal testing to back up his theory of evolution, the idea of using animals to test out human products and theories flourished. Cruel and unjust animal testing in the United States remains a problem; consequently, alternatives to this dilemma must be found.
Due to the lack of advocacy towards animals in research, “pain and distress” have been found to not be “minimized during and after experimental procedures”; in fact, most of the animals used for testing are usually killed or end up dying by the end of the experiment (Lee). Cosmetic and personal care industries make up for some of the largest groups that have been linked to animal testing in the prior decade. Around the 1930s the use of animals in research was approved by the government, “after unsafe household products caught national attention, such as Lash Lure, a toxic eyelash dye that caused injury, blindness, and even death” (Lee). For decades, animal testing has been perceived as the main factor for medical advancements and human research, yet prior data shows for animal testing to not be one of the most efficient ways to approach health issues, as each experiment holds a “twelve percent” probability to succeed (Lee). Animal testing will continue to be a dilemma in the United States, as these voiceless creatures continue to receive inequitable treatment.
Vitro Testing is one of the many innovative alternatives that has been discovered for animal testing. Sweden has already approached this alternative, as the University of Lund makes use of human cells in test tubes, in order to end animal research. In a controlled environment, human cells are kept and observed. This way neither humans nor animals have to be used to test products out. One of the advantages of using vitro testing is that the tests will “closely mimic the functions and behaviors of humans organs”, and reduce the opportunities for inaccurate results that could be obtained by animal testings (Lee). However, this significant solution would demand time to perfect, and further research to find extensive use. As found by the University of Lund, vitro testing is intensely more accurate than animal testing. When comparing a “94%” accuracy from Vitro testing, to a “75%” from animal testing, there is no doubt that vitro testing could secure more precise data (“Next-generation”). Although the use of human cells in vitro testing is more accurate than animal testing, if experiments are conduced with only one type of human cell, the test would not be able to “mimic the reactions of every complex, interacting system in the whole human body” (“Animal Testing”). Leaving the scientest of alternatives with many more research, the United States must decode the dilema of animal testing the same way Sweden has approached to.
In the same manner, 3-D Printers could help erase the use of animals in research. One of the biggest medical device companies, J&J and Medtronic, is already working with 3-D printers to find a possible replacement to animal testing. This alternative is also be known as silico testing, the use of computer modeling and 3-D prints by laboratories to replace animals in testing. In fact, silico testing could help save thousands of animals lives, as already proven by prior studies. When comparing variable amounts for the mandatory experiments it was found that, “one thousand rats and one hundred dogs” would be required for the same test that could be covered by one silico test (Lee). Like every other innovative solution to this predicament, silico testing would have need of further research to better perfect it. Although the use of this alternative is new, it has already proved to solve more than one issue, as it was found that it “help[s] to increase the understanding of surgery by 50%” (“3-D Printing Set”). This means that eliminating animal research would not be the only benefit, because of the growth in medical possibilities that come along with using silico testing. However, in a similar manner to vitro testing, the use of one variable could create problems when dealing with “complex, interacting systems” in the human body (“Animal Testing”). The lives of thousands of animals could be saved as well as hope for further advancement in the medical field if this alternative would be to replace animal testing.
One last solution has already been practiced in Europe by an Italian biotech company, Symrise and Cutech; they use pig skin to replace animal testing. Although a big flaw of this project is that it continues to promote animal slaughter, it is an alternative to the thousands of animals being used for experiments; in fact, the biotech company claims that the experiments they have been conducting is not classified as animal testing (“Ex vivo”). However, there are some benefits of using pig skin to test out products; pig skin testing gives a “three-dimensional depiction of skin and its sensibility”, since it is “similar to that of human skin” (“Ex vivo”). Nevertheless, a 100% accuracy can not be expected from this alternative, since “pigs are only 84% similar to humans on the genetic level” (Varshney). This means that there is room for complications when comparing pig skin reactions to human reactions. While this solution could be a fundamental factor to ending animal testing, it can also help get rid of “excess waste”, and help “recycle materials that would have otherwise been discarded”, since the pig skin would be coming from freshly slaugheterd pigs that go to the meat production (“Ex vivo”). Extensive use for this practice has already been found, as it does not only help eliminate animal testing, but one of the many world wide problems.
In the final analysis, using 3-D Printers as an alternative to the disputed point is imperative. The problematic dilema of animal testing must be replaced by the strongest solution that gives the most accurate results. It is true that the technology is new and will need time to be perfected, but technology is advancing everyday, especially in the United States. Silico Testing will provide a three dimensional platform where research could be conducted, while advocating for the obolishment of animal testing. This innovative solution will prevent thousands of unnecessary animal deaths, and continue to give new constant feedback to medical research. The extensive use of this method and thought process behind it proves it to be the strongest fix to the problem. Unlike in vitro testing, where human cells will need time to develop the effects of certain products, silico testing, also known as 3-D Printing, will provide a more accessible, inexpensive and rapid solution. It is time for the United States to follow European countries footsteps in finding an alternative to the dispute of animal testing.
Works Cited
'3D printing set to replace animal testing and use of cadavers in healthcare sector.' PharmaBiz, 9 Oct. 2019, p. NA. Gale General OneFile, https://link-gale-com.lapr1.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/A602084337/ITOF?u=azstatelibdev&sid=ITOF&xid=25551ed4. Accessed 14 Oct. 2019.
'Animal testing: exploring the alternatives.' European Cosmetic Markets, May 1994, p. 18+. Gale General OneFile, https://link-gale-com.lapr1.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/A15474201/ITOF?u=azstatelibdev&sid=ITOF&xid=1551d9de. Accessed 16 Oct. 2019.
'Ex vivo animal testing alternative introduced.' Global Cosmetic Industry, Jan. 2008, p. 8. Gale General OneFile, https://link-gale-com.lapr1.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/A174059482/ITOF?u=azstatelibdev&sid=ITOF&xid=6975efb2. Accessed 16 Oct. 2019.
Lee, Courtney G. 'THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT AND ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMAL TESTING.' Animal Law, 2016, p. 14+. Gale General OneFile, https://link-gale-com.lapr1.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/A538120355/ITOF?u=azstatelibdev&sid=ITOF&xid=82157a03. Accessed 15 Oct. 2019.
'Next-generation safety testing: In vitro genetic testing offers an ethical alternative to animal testing, which is also cheaper, faster and more reliable.' Manufacturing Chemist, Mar. 2019, p. 18+. Gale General OneFile, https://link-gale-com.lapr1.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/A584176990/ITOF?u=azstatelibdev&sid=ITOF&xid=52e98a30. Accessed 14 Oct. 2019.
Varshney, Vibha. “Human and pigs genes match.” Down To Earth. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/human-and-pig-genes-match-39590. Accessed 13 Oct. 2019.
