The Wall_Spring 2023_Issue 9

Artwork: Grace Oldfield, LVI

Amber Mitchell, (she/her), LVI, explores arguments to try to answer one of society’s most asked questions - is animal testing ever justified?

For decades, the practice of animal testing has prompted complex and heated debates driven by strong views on morality and scientific imperative.The topic is highly controversial and the greatest ethical dilemma facing modern science. On the one hand, testing animals for the sole benefit of humans is morally wrong. On the other hand, the complete removal of animals from labs would stop researchers from developing new vital treatments. Humans share many genetic similarities with animals.The benefits of testing drugs on animals; whether cosmetic or chemical, avoids the inevitable cry of outrage if they were to be tested on humans. Consequently, no matter how good scientist intentions are, they can never be expected to apply the same level of sympathy to an animal as they would a human. One can only imagine that guidelines for treatment are frequently overlooked, at the expense of animal wellbeing.Animal testing is cruel and inhumane and can result in: the loss of motor skills, uncontrollable seizures, and excruciating pain. One hundred and

backed by family lawyers and politicians to ensure effective treatment.Animals are entirely defenceless and at the mercy of the most dangerous laboratory tests carried out by scientists. It is impossible to argue that there is no animal that falls victim to inhumane and unkind treatment in this context. The pros to animal testing are obvious and, inevitably, scientific advancement will always come at a cost. Testing unknown drugs and chemicals on humans is clearly unpalatable, not least in democratic states where it is the people who in theory run the country.Testing done in the most controlled circumstances not only minimises human

suffering, but also greatly advances scientific progress, which drastically saves and improves the lives of millions.A notable example of this was during the recent Covid pandemic.The vaccination wouldn’t have been developed so rapidly and effectively in the absence of animal testing which saved millions of lives and trillions of pounds. be different? Advances in the spheres of Information Technology and Artificial Intelligence could pave the way for a transformational approach to drug and chemical development.The practice of animal testing has been commonplace sinceVictorian times, if not longer. It is essentially an exercise of testing and learning – something that in.Therefore, is it possible to foresee a future where animals and humans’ responses to tests could be so well understood that their responses to unknown ingredients could be predicted?Whilst this may not irradicate the need for animal testing in its entirety, one can only hope that it could dramatically reduce the Ideally, scientists would prefer to test living human beings. Could the future

ten million animals die at the hands of animal testing every year. Humans on the other hand demand treatment with the best possible care,

devastating volume of animals that sadly need to suffer at the expense of human advancement.

Artwork: Maggie Conway-Hughes, S8

61