While animal rights activists, including the Students for Animal
Liberation, make a valid point that animals should not be subjected
to cruel forms of research testing, a differentiation needs to be
made between the various forms of animal testing currently
practiced in the laboratories at UCLA, other universities and
research corporations.
The student animal rights activists who participated in the
World Week for Animals in Laboratories last week concerned
themselves more with appealing to people’s sentimentality
about animal suffering, rather than logic or informed debate about
whether alternative strategies as effective as animal testing
exist. Protesters held signs showing mutilated animals with
inflammatory assertions, such as “Tax dollars down the drain,
UCLA is to blame,” or, “Why should innocent animals
die, vivisection is a lie.”
Their actions are understandable ““ even the most avid
supporter of animal testing would be disgusted by the images of
suffering or dead animals the protesters flashed. But the larger
point is being missed. No differentiation was made between animal
testing that’s truly cruel and unnecessary and that which
must happen, even when we know it will involve animals suffering.
Scientists use animals because they don’t want human subjects
to be exposed to the dangers of experimental tests. Today’s
current technology is not sufficiently advanced in all fields to
fully model the physiological and psychological responses of living
creatures to drugs, disease and injury.
When possible, researchers do use human subjects. But there are
many procedures that simply cannot be conducted on a living human
being; some experimental drug tests, vaccinations and surgeries are
simply too dangerous to try on humans before more is known about
their side effects. Although animals are not identical to humans,
many do exhibit similar response because of genetic similarities
““ thus they efficiently serve to differentiate between
medical procedures which might be valuable and those without
promise or with too many risks involved.
Many activists ethically and philosophically equate humans with
animals: why should one suffer at the expense of the other? Does
not every living thing have an equal right to live? Unfortunately,
this belittles the problem to a black and white issue of right or
wrong ““ it’s more complicated. It may seem archaic to
argue that life is hierarchically structured such that human life
is more valuable than animal life, but it’s a decision we
have to make.
Animal testing has been used to examine diseases such as
diabetes and heart disease. Now, animal testing is teaching doctors
about AIDS, cancer, brain damage and other conditions. To say that
animal testing ““ much of which does injure or kill the
animals involved ““ should not be used devalues human life. It
might be philosophically problematic to sacrifice animal life for
these ends. But realistically, when we are honest with ourselves,
we realize it’s for the best.
There are forms of animal testing that have no place in the
world; those used for cosmetics or non-academic purposes should be
banned. Consumers should also avoid products that use animal
testing for non-essential products.
Credit should be given to the many professors and doctors who
try every means of laboratory testing before resorting to animal
testing. Some day animal testing will be a thing of the past as new
technology emerges, but for now it’s a
“primitive” procedure we must live with.