You are on page 1of 32

ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 1

Animal Experimentation: Advantages and Negative Effects of Animal Experimentation

Esmeralda Toscano

Senior Research Seminar

Mr. Tempinski

May 20, 2016

Abstract
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 2

This research project examined the advantages and disadvantages of animal experimentation.

Aspects of experimentation includes the moral underpinnings, the treatment, and the reduction of

animals involved with animal research. Both qualitative and quantitative research strategies were

used to collect data from subjects that were involved in animal organization, somewhat involved,

not all involved. Data suggests the benefits and advantages gained in the scientific field are not

more important than the negative effects of experimentation on animals. The implications of this

research will encourage a change in laws for animal testing.


ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 3

Animal Experimentation: Advantages and Negative Effects of Animal Experimentation

Numerous studies have been conducted on animal experimentation. Data has shown that

scientists in the U.S. use approximately 14-25 million animals in research. While it may be

contradictory to common beliefs animal testing benefits our understanding of medicine, there is

data to challenge that notion. Thus, the significance of these findings reveal animals deserve

equal treatment because they too have ability to feel pain and suffer. This proposal will discuss

the ethics of animal testing. As I investigate this topic I hope to bring awareness to this topic,

which can then later in the future my work can encourage a person to form a group and regulate

the laws on animal testing. Additionally, I argue that animals should not be tested on because

they are moral beings. For this study, I surveyed and interviewed 19 people using the both

qualitative and quantitative approach and selected them based on their knowledge over the topic.

Fox (2007, p. 750) compares and contrasts the views of different philosophers such as

Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, and Aristotle on animal testing. He states that there is a

question that lies between the moral relationship with humans and animals. He then compares

human to animals to highlight human superiority over animals. He discusses Peter Singer's book,

as Singer argues that animals deserve equal treatment because they too have ability to feel pain

and suffer. Under the title, Utilitarianism; the author explains the definition of Utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism is a doctrine that the useful is good and that the determining consideration of right

conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences or in other words its core idea is that

whether actions are morally right or wrong depends on their effects. Peter Singer supports this
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 4

principle by listing examples of successful advantages such as in the success of open-heart

surgery, a cure for an incurable disease, and the justification on an experiment. To show a

contrast Fox uses the belief of Tom Regan to contradict the belief of Singer. The following

section of this article goes into depth on whether animals are moral beings or not. This argument

is supported by the conflicting quotes of various philosophers and authors.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2014) states the requirements for making products

safe. The FDA must ensure that products are safe and labelled correctly. The Federal Food, Drug,

and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) support the use of animal experimentation until proven that

companies that used all alternatives. The FD&C Act does not require companies to use the

method of animal testing. Companies have the decision on whether or not to use animal testing.

It is not the government that enforces this method. If a company uses the method of animal

testing then the FDA supports them because testing is to be done in a way that is possible to

maintain the safety of products. It is allowed because of the Welfare Act and the Public Health

Service Policy of Humane Care. The Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of

Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) is 15 federal research and regulatory agencies working together

to advance the acceptance of scientifically valid alternative test methods. The FDA is an

advocate for the use of alternatives for animal testing. They have integrated the 3Rs in the

ICCVAM and are proving several alternative methods to test substances.

Kaufman is an ophthalmologist that does not support the Draize test for ocular irritancy

in products. A test to determine the degree to which a substance such as a cosmetic or

pharmaceutical irritates human tissues, in which a small amount of the substance is applied
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 5

directly in the eye of a rabbit, and the rabbit is then monitored. He claims that animal testing may

not be as accurate as most people say and believe. He applied his knowledge with his experience

to provide a well supported argument against animal testing. He compares the rabbit eye

structure to the human eye structure. He asserts " the rabbit epithelial (surface) layer is 10 times

more permeable to hydrophilic solutes than the human eye." After stating several differences

between the eyes, Dr. Kaufman restates the fact that the anatomical differences provide false and

possibly incorrect results with using the rabbit eye as a method of animal testing.

Galen, and Ibn Zuhr (2011) have used animal testing as a method in medicine. Early

dates have been supplied in this article and represent the approximate time that accounts for the

beginning of this method. It states that the pain animals go through should not be justified

because it benefits humans. The author supports her point when she states a past failed attempt to

not use an animal to test sulfanilamide this led to a huge amount of deaths. Hajar also discussed

the 3Rs campaign. She claims that if animal testing were to be completely eliminated that this

would have a terrible impact on humans.

An online article (2013) provides a graph that displays different animals that were used in

laboratory experiments. The usage of other animals rather than rodents has decreased in the past

20 years. The years following 1985, animal testing has declined by approximately 50% in the

U.S. For example, dog testing has decreased from 200,000 to an estimated 65,000 from 1979 to

2013. While there is no accurate estimate on the number of vertebrates used in research, it is

assumed that the total number can be up to 25 million.


ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 6

The research done on animal testing lack the aspect of morality. Articles overlook this

aspect because they focus on the other aspects such as the scientific benefits, or cosmetic

advantages . This topic is dismissed which leaves me as the researcher to have unanswered

questions. Therefore, the question that is brought up is why dont people look at animal testing in

the sense of more on the lines of morality? This question has been brought up in previous

research but has not been fully researched in depth. I believe that this connects to my research

because morality is under the surface to which leads to one forming their own opinion about the

disadvantages and advantages of animal testing.

I want to know understand how and why people think that one side outweighs the other

or if they dont think that why there are neutral to this controversial topic. I believe that this will

widen my eyes as for other too to see why this issue is controversial. The purpose is to expand

the research in a way that can help others understand it in the way I see it. It will present the

underlying understanding of why people think of the topic in not just my view but as a whole of

individuals. The purpose for this research is for me as a researcher to understand if the benefits

outweigh the advantages. Therefore, my research question is: Are the benefits and advantages

gained in the scientific field of science more important than the negative effects of

experimentation on animals?
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 7

Methodology

Participants

The participants were people who were involved in the field of work, animal testing.

These participants were either not involved in the subject, or had a direct connection to it, or in

the middle. The number of subjects that were either interviewed or surveyed was nineteen. The

three categories that divided the selection of the subjects were if they had an idea of topic, if they

had or were involved with animal rights or organizations, or if they had a set opinion due to their

choice of work.

Student A is the ceo of the Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals

in Research & Testing (ANZCCART). Student B is a animal rights activist involved with an

organization called People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Student C is the

founder of Speaking of Research, a website in which he talks about animal testing. Student D is

an Educational Materials Editor at American Association for Laboratory Animal Science

(AALAS). Student E is a researcher that is involved in the animal testing by providing an

informative on his website, Understanding Animal Research. Student F is part of the

International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (iclas). Student G is the Executive Director

of the Americans for Medical Progress (AMP). Student H is a college student who has had

experience with animal testing.

Student I-Q are subjects who had little to no knowledge about animal testing. There was

no reward but I did motivate them by telling them that I needed their help with understanding my
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 8

topic. This then acted as an incentive to answer my questions this worked for most of my data

collection.

Materials

The materials that were used were paper, pen, email, and a computer. These were used for

main communication means from and to the participants.

Procedure

I started working on my project on September 12, 2016 by asking my afterschool teacher

to be my mentor. A little over a week later, I decided to look at the data then I decided to email

the organization, Stop Animal Exploitation Now!(SAEN) to ask them about more information

involving their organization and how I could volunteer. I waited a few days for them to respond,

but on September 23, 2016, I emailed a different person of the same organization to see if they

would respond. I waited again for the organization to reply but if they didnt answer I would then

start researching other organizations.

While I was researching the SEAN organization, I discovered that this certain

organization was located in Ohio which meant that I would not be able to observe through being

involved with the field work. That same day this incident happened I started to look on online for

alternative organizations. I found numerous organizations but most of them were not located in

California or not in the U.S. I came to conclusion that I can only do surveys online and

interviews through the internet.

I proceeded by filling out contact forms and sending emails. At that moment, I had three

organizations I was focused on. On September 24, the two alternative groups responded to my
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 9

email. I asked both of organizations if I could interview them via email and asked them if their

volunteers could do my survey.

I found four more organizations that were involved in my topic. I continued by asking

them if they could get in touch with me and do my survey or do an interview. From September

24 to December 8, I was emailing the organizations back and forth.

On December 8, I faced a challenge because one of my interviewees hadnt responded.

This delayed the official date of the global skype that I was planning for. The problem that

occurred was that I read the message wrong leaving her with not knowing the date. I sent her an

email right away stating how sorry I was for not emailing her back. That same day I emailed the

Los Angeles Times about how I could get in touch with a researcher who wrote a piece about

animal testing. The day after, I found more organizations that were located in LA allowing me to

have a chance at getting involved by doing field work. One of the organization responded, they

stated that there was an available spot for volunteering. Starting from January 7 to 19, I decided

to email numerous organizations every day to get a wide range of interviewees and surveyed

answered.

At this point, I was struggling because only two or three organizations would answer but

I decided to start doing something different. The following day, I noticed that an email that was

sent by the organization that had internships they let me know that they didnt think it was the

right approach for my project. Therefore, from January 19 and until the deadline I distributed

surveys. This was random; it wasnt targeting specific people I was doing the third selection of
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 10

how I split up my data which was surveying people randomly. This was the last step to gathering

data.

To see at the questions, refer back the appendix.

Results

My data is organized by charts, step by step answer of the questions for the survey on the pro

side, undecided, and con side. Participants that are on the pro side are those who approve the use

of animals for experimentation. Participants that are undecided are ones that dont an

straightforward one sided opinion about animal testing. Lastly, participants that are on the con

side are those who are strictly against animal testing. The following section focuses on specific

quotations that were said in the interviews and surveys. Some of the answers to the questions are

in a chart format. When a question is stated the number of participants who answered that

specific question will be stated as well. The charts will be labeled (figure 1, figure 2, ect) with a

small description of the overall data shown in the chart or table.

Figure 1
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 11

Figure 1 is a chart dividing all the participants within a group such as pro, con, or undecided.

Survey Questions-Pro Side

Question 1: What do you think about animal testing? Do you believe it is beneficial or

unbeneficial?

The responses for question 1 varied.

5 out of 5 answered beneficial for the second half of question 1.

Question 2: Do you think this topic is important in our society today?

Question 3: Does this topic have importance to you? Why?

For both question 2 & 3 all of the participants answered yes.

Question 4: Are you pro or con for animal experimentation?

The answers varied for the first half of question 4.

Second part of Question 4: Can you explain who or what made you choose a side?
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 12

All the participants mentioned similar ideas for the second half of question 4 as seen below.

would not be available to humans without testing.

I found much of the information on the anti-research side to be factually false and there was a

clear medical benefit of doing such research.

because I have seen the benefits to humans and animal health first hand.

My professor helped me understand the research done in a medical setting without cruelty and

to advance science.

I am pro for the humane, responsible need for animals in research.

Question 5: Is animal testing considered an advantage or a disadvantage or neither in your view?

The answers varied due to the fact the question asks for the participants opinion.

Question 6: From 1 to 5 how much do you consider it (animal testing) being an advantage or

disadvantage?

advantage............neutral.............disadvantage

1 2 3 4 5

4 out of 5 people choose 1 (advantage) for question 6.

Question 7: Can you give an example of a disadvantage or an advantage that animal testing is

known for?

4 out of 5 people on the pro side mentioned approximately the same idea for question 7.

Similar answers: Some of the medicine was approved on animals first.

advantage: medications
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 13

It helped develop penicillin, blood transfusions, TB treatments, macular degeneration treatments,

asthma inhalers, meningitis vaccine, kidney transplant operations, breast cancer treatments, deep

brain stimulation for parkinsons and insulin for diabetics.

Animal experimentation is advantageous because it leads to significant medical breakthroughs,

such as antiretroviral drugs to help HIV sufferers.

Question 8: Explain your reasoning about how animal testing is advantage or disadvantage?

Answers varied.

Question 9: If your opinion is toward the end of either side of the spectrum, can you consider

being in the shoes of the view contrary to yours? Yes or no?

4 out 5 people choose yes this question.

Question 10: Do any of these facts sway you to your opposing view about animal testing? If the

facts do sway you, check the box next to the fact.

The countries of the EU in 2011 reported that they used 17,896 dogs,

3,713 cats, 358,213 rabbits, 6,686 horses, 6,095 monkeys, 675,065 birds, 77,280 pigs,

28,892 sheep, 30,914 cattle, over 1,000,000 fish and over 8,500,000 rodents.
Experiments in which dogs had their pancreases removed led directly to

the discovery of insulin, critical to saving the lives of diabetics.


Neither, sway me.

5 out 5 people answered neither for question 10.

Survey Questions Undecided side

Question 1: What do you think about animal testing? Do you believe it is beneficial or

unbeneficial?
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 14

The subjects state that its beneficial or unbeneficial depending on how animal testing is used.

But for this question the majority (6 out 9) of the subjects state that animal testing is beneficial.

Question 2: Do you think this topic is important in our society today?

8 out 9 people answered yes.

Figure 2
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 15

Figure 2 represents the answers to this question in a chart form.

Question 3: Does this topic have importance to you? Why?

6 out of 9 people state that yes animal testing is important to them. 3 out of 9 state that it had no

importance to them.

Question 4: Are you pro or con for animal experimentation? Can you explain who or what made

you choose a side?

For question four, 6 out 9 declared undecided.

Figure 3

Figure 3 represents the answers to this question by three colors. The blue is the color for the

answer neither. The color orange represents the answer advantage. The color grey represents that
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 16

animal testing is both a both a disadvantage and advantage. This chart demonstrates the answers

that were divided in a three way for the undecided side.

Figure 4

In figure 4, 67% of the participants chose 3 (neutral). 22% of the participants chose 2 (not a full

advantage but close to neutral). 11% of the participants chose 4 (not a full disadvantage but close

to neutral).

Figure 5
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 17

Question 8: Explain your reasoning about how animal testing is advantage or disadvantage?

Answers varied.

Question 9: If your opinion is toward the end of either side of the spectrum, can you consider

being in the shoes of the view contrary to yours? Yes or no?

7 people out of 9 declare yes for question 9. The 8th subjects answer is no and the 9th subjects

answer is considered as other.

Question 10: Do any of these facts sway you to your opposing view about animal testing? If the

facts do sway you, check the box next to the fact.

The countries of the EU in 2011 reported that they used 17,896 dogs,

3,713 cats, 358,213 rabbits, 6,686 horses, 6,095 monkeys, 675,065 birds, 77,280 pigs,

28,892 sheep, 30,914 cattle, over 1,000,000 fish and over 8,500,000 rodents.
Experiments in which dogs had their pancreases removed led directly to

the discovery of insulin, critical to saving the lives of diabetics.


Neither, sway me.
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 18

Figure 6

Figure 6 divides the answers of the subjects into four categories for question 10. To refer back

to the question it is above the chart labeled Question 10. The categories depend on which fact

the subject chooses. Blue represents the fact that the subject chose both facts. Orange represents

the fact that the subject chose fact one because it swayed them. Grey represents the fact 2.

Yellow demonstrates that neither facts swayed the subject. Dark blue represents an answer as

other.

Survey Questions Con side

Question 1: What do you think about animal testing? Do you believe it is beneficial or

unbeneficial?

3 out of the 3 participants state that animal testing are unbeneficial.


ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 19

Question 2: Do you think this topic is important in our society today?

3 out of the 3 participants state that animal testing is important in our society today.

Question 3: Does this topic have importance to you? Why?

3 out of 3 people state that animal testing is important.

Question 4: Are you pro or con for animal experimentation? Can you explain who or what made

you choose a side?

3 out of 3 people state that they are con or against animal experimentation.

Question 5: Is animal testing considered an advantage or a disadvantage or neither in your view?

The 3 participants that declared to be con all choose the same answer for question 5. The answer

that is picked is disadvantage.

Question 6: From 1 to 5 how much do you consider it (animal testing) being an advantage or

disadvantage?

advantage............neutral.............disadvantage

1 2 3 4 5

For question 6, the subjects consider animal testing as a disadvantage.

Question 7: Can you give an example of a disadvantage or an advantage that animal testing is

known for?

Participant con 1 (PC1) and participant con 2 (PC2) mentioned similar ideas about the

disadvantages of animal testing such as suffering and torture. PC1 and participant con 3s (PC3)

answers are related due to the idea of accuracy and inaccuracy.

Question 8: Explain your reasoning about how animal testing is advantage or disadvantage?
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 20

PC2 and PC3 both mention the idea of testing the product this links them to the same idea.

Question 9: If your opinion is toward the end of either side of the spectrum, can you consider

being in the shoes of the view contrary to yours? Yes or no?

PC1s answer is yes but the two other subjects answer are no for this question.

Question 10: Do any of these facts sway you to your opposing view about animal testing? If the

facts do sway you, check the box next to the fact.

The countries of the EU in 2011 reported that they used 17,896 dogs,

3,713 cats, 358,213 rabbits, 6,686 horses, 6,095 monkeys, 675,065 birds, 77,280 pigs,

28,892 sheep, 30,914 cattle, over 1,000,000 fish and over 8,500,000 rodents.
Experiments in which dogs had their pancreases removed led directly to

the discovery of insulin, critical to saving the lives of diabetics.


Neither, sway me.

All three participants state that neither facts sway them for this question.

Interview Questions - Pro and Con sides Answers

To ignore the scientific value and benefits that have come from animal -

based studies would be nave, yet to ignore the ethical issues associated with the

scientific use of animals would also be unconscionable.


I think we need to be careful about using history to justify the future. Yes,

it can be a very useful guide, but each case going forward must be justified and

considered on merit.
A test tube cant cough and a computer model doesnt get pregnant. All

methods (including animal studies) have their particular areas of use.


ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 21

Rinderpest killed tens of millions of cows worldwide, the disease has

now been eliminated thanks to animal studies.


Animals should have the right to have their interests kept in mind. For

instance, a dog has an interest in not getting beaten. Similarly, bunnies have an interest in

not having chemicals dripped into their eyes to find out if shampoo is OK for human use.

We should keep these interests in mind and respect them.


Even the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has admitted that of all

prescription drugs that are determined in tests to be safe and effective for animals, 92

percent are found to be either unsafe or ineffective in humans. Thats a 92 percent failure

rate!
More lives could be saved and more suffering stopped by educating

people on the importance of avoiding fat and cholesterol, quitting smoking, reducing the

consumption of alcohol and other drugs, exercising regularly, and cleaning up the

environment than from all the animal tests in the world.


More lives could be saved and more suffering stopped by educating

people on the importance of avoiding fat and cholesterol, quitting smoking, reducing the

consumption of alcohol and other drugs, exercising regularly, and cleaning up the

environment than from all the animal tests in the world. For example, aspirin is poisonous

to cats and does not alleviate fever in horses, benzene causes leukemia in humans but not

in mice, insulin produces birth defects in nonhuman animals but not in humans, and so

on.
Research animal users must, and do, accept stewardship of the animals

under their care. That the animals are unable to communicate is irrelevant.

Survey Question Con Side Answers


ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 22

Animals are living things that feel pain. We do not need to put them

through that suffering. They are causing us no harm, then why do we cause it to them?

We are absorbed by consumerism and believe that attaining physical material things will

bring us happiness, but at what cost? The world doesnt need another eyeliner, hand soap,

food ingredient, drug for erectile dysfunction, or pesticide so badly that it should come at

the expense of animals lives.

Discussion & Conclusions

The three participants that declare to be against animal testing are emotionally attached to

the topic. The people which state to be neutral mostly have controversial opinions about animal

testing in general. The participants that declare that they were for it mostly support their opinions

with the past science and medical knowledge they had obtain. Most of the answers that alert me

as a researcher are the free response on the interview questions. These quotations are ones that

highlight significant information I have not heard about before. Significant Quotations:

Quote 1: To ignore the scientific value and benefits that have come from animal - based studies

would be nave, yet to ignore the ethical issues associated with the scientific use of animals

would also be unconscionable.

The first part of this quote is true because I think this applies to everyone no matter what side

one is on. The second part is true too which makes me understand both sides perfectly.

Quote 2: I think we need to be careful about using history to justify the future. Yes, it can be a

very useful guide, but each case going forward must be justified and considered on merit.
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 23

I think the first sentence is so unique because I havent hear this opinion before. I dont think that

we should rely on the past for the future either, it doesnt sound reasonable on our part. I dont

think we have followed traditional rules so why should we stick to this way of doing science or

testing.

Quote 3: A test tube cant cough and a computer model doesnt get pregnant. All methods

(including animal studies) have their particular areas of use.

This person compared non-living things to animals which have life and are living creatures. I

dont think its the same thing to compare these two things are completely different from each

other.

Quote 4: Rinderpest killed tens of millions of cows worldwide, the disease has now been

eliminated thanks to animal studies.

This quotation strikes me because it is a fact that I didnt know about. This quotation gave me a

perspective on things and sides based on animal testing. This is one fact that has indicates that

animal testing on a disease affecting animals has helped save themselves.

Quote 5: Animals should have the right to have their interests kept in mind. For instance, a dog

has an interest in not getting beaten. Similarly, bunnies have an interest in not having chemicals

dripped into their eyes to find out if shampoo is OK for human use. We should keep these

interests in mind and respect them.


ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 24

This quotation states that animals should have some types of rights because they are alive and

they are part of the world too. This connects to my research because one of the articles I read

discusses this specific topic. This participant is saying something similar to this.

Quote 6: Even the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has admitted that of all prescription

drugs that are determined in tests to be safe and effective for animals, 92 percent are found to be

either unsafe or ineffective in humans. Thats a 92 percent failure rate!

This quote surprises me because in my literature review I found an article about the U.S. Food

and Drug Administration too which made me connect these two things together. The difference is

that this participants is talking about how they were supporting the con side of animal testing

which made me think twice because I thought the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has done

been on both sides but has also remained neutral in my view.

Quote 7: More lives could be saved and more suffering stopped by educating

people on the importance of avoiding fat and cholesterol, quitting smoking, reducing the

consumption of alcohol and other drugs, exercising regularly, and cleaning up the

environment than from all the animal tests in the world.

I completely agree with this quote because its true we wouldnt need to be testing animal for all

types of different prescriptions and medications if people got more educated and eat healthier. I

believe its a waste of a life to use an animal just for finding a new treatment for people are have

mainly put themselves in that certain health situation.


ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 25

Quote 9: For example, aspirin is poisonous to cats and does not alleviate fever in horses,

benzene causes leukemia in humans but not in mice, insulin produces birth defects in nonhuman

animals but not in humans, and so on.

I think this quotes explains clearly how animal testing can go wrong because of the anatomical

differences between animals and humans.

Quote 10: Research animal users must, and do, accept stewardship of the animals under their

care. That the animals are unable to communicate is irrelevant.

Therefore this quote helps me conclude that the scientists do not care for the way animals

communicate. It states that the way their expressing any pain is irrelevant but its only useful if it

indicates that the product is not safe.

Survey Question Con Side Interesting Answer

Animals are living things that feel pain. We do not need to put them through that suffering.

They are causing us no harm, then why do we cause it to them? We are absorbed by and believe

that attaining physical material things will bring us happiness, but at what cost? The world

doesnt need another eyeliner, hand soap, food ingredient, drug for erectile dysfunction, or

pesticide so badly that it should come at the expense of animals lives.

This quotation explains the idea of morality which is a key topic in my research. I agree that we

are doing all this because consumerism. I dont think an animal live should be wasted on trying

to save a person who couldve saved himself by taking good care of himself.

As Dr. Bernard A Fox (n.d.) compares and contrasts the views and opinion of different

philosophers in The Ethics of Animal Testing, I did the same when I had to analyze the the
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 26

answers of the subjects who were neutral. Most of their opinions are similar and slightly

different. One of the subjects who is neutral re emphasizes the idea of how the FDA or a

government committee has to go through a process to let companies use animal testing as a

method of experimentation. Another subject uses a persuasive fact linking the FDA, and the

involvement of animal testing to explain the importance of the unreliable results for humans. The

response of one participant directly links to the conclusions found in the article Problems with

Draize test.

A limitation for me was time because it was hard to make people hurry and answer

questions when they werent going to get anything in return. Analyzing the data I had collected

took me hour to determine what was relevant, important, and significant. I think most researchers

need to manage time wisely because managing time at the last minute will become extremely

difficult.

Every opinion that was provided to me connected directly to my literature review, my

overall question, and project. Most participants had similar opinions for each opinion the point of

view was always slightly different. Yet, I always discovered new opinions that were logically

different. Almost all opinions were adding to the previous information I had gathered before. I

believe that this opinions have helped me expand my ideas of morality on animal testing.

The results directed me merely to a different angle in how I use to see things involving

animal testing. The results of my data collecting suggested that animal testing is controversial in

the eyes of many people including me. The main findings of my project implied that it all
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 27

depends on the limitations of animal testing. There is an extent to where participants stated was

wrong and right. This invisible scale was built on the ideals of having animal rights but also not

letting that get in the way of furthering science and medical advances. These results emphasized

that the outcomes of animal testing neither outweigh nor undermined the idea of morality.

All the research which had been produced for this project will eventually be able to help

others mold their own opinions of this topic. The data has made major connections to different

aspects of the project. This project has made me think about the rights and wrongs of this issues.

This project has and will open up the eyes of people who are one sided in this topic. This project

has provided the idea of seeing grey not only black and white. This idea of having limitations

connected to the importance of morality.

Reflections

As a researcher, I couldve worked harder to get more beneficial outcomes for my

project. One thing that I couldve done was work harder on the whole outline of the project for

Ms. Jones last year. I did work really hard in certain parts other parts needed to be revised. What

I couldve done to help me get less stress is doing the data collection during summer break. I

didnt think it was as important as focusing on pre-calculus, but now Im realizing that this

assumption was completely wrong. I didnt manage my time wisely during summer break, and

this ended up delaying my whole project as a whole. I dont think that my priorities were

numbered in the right order when summer break happened. When school started, I believed that I
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 28

would be able to gather all my data before the deadline. As hard as I worked to get results, I

dont believe that it shows my hard work.

As a researcher, I think that I did try to make it as comfortable as possible when I

surveyed and interviewed subjects. I would ask them to do my survey, but then I would leave

them to it and let them come to me when they were finished. I learned that it made people feel

uncomfortable and rushed when I would wait near by. I decided to stop this by letting them take

their time. When I sent emails out to several organizations, I thought that it was good on my part

to introduce my project and myself. I got a few responses that informed me that my approach for

gathering data was too black and white. I tried to not put opinion when the participants wanted to

know more about the project, because I didnt want to push them toward a certain direction. In

cases like this, I tried to be objective because I wanted them to form their own opinions about

animal testing.

As a researcher, I had an ideal goal of having more subjects against animal testing but the

data shifted my point of view on the subject. I dealt with this by having an open mind about

animal testing. While analyzing the data, I noticed that some information that is always said

about animal testing didnt appeal to me. I wanted to see more people develop new opinions that

way it can give me and others a different perspective. In this way I believe that I was being

biased but I think more of it as gathering new information or opinions for my project.

Appendix

Animal Testing Survey:


ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 29

1. What do you think about animal testing? Do you believe it is beneficial or

unbeneficial?

2. Do you think this topic is important in our society today?

3. Does this topic have importance to you? Why?

4. Are you pro or con for animal experimentation? Can you explain who or

what made you choose a side?

5. Is animal testing considered an advantage or a disadvantage or neither in

your view ?

6. From 1 to 5 how much do you consider it being an advantage or

disadvantage?

advantage............neutral.............disadvantage

1 2 3 4 5

1. Can you give an example of a disadvantage or an advantage that animal testing is known

for?

1. Explain your reasoning about how animal testing is advantage or disadvantage?

1. If your opinion is toward the end of either side of the spectrum, can you consider being in

the shoes of the view contrary to yours? Yes or no?

1. Do any of these facts sway you to your opposing view about animal testing? If the facts

do sway you, check the box next to the fact.


ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 30

The countries of the EU in 2011 reported that they used 17,896 dogs,

3,713 cats, 358,213 rabbits, 6,686 horses, 6,095 monkeys, 675,065 birds, 77,280 pigs,

28,892 sheep, 30,914 cattle, over 1,000,000 fish and over 8,500,000 rodents.

Experiments in which dogs had their pancreases removed led directly to

the discovery of insulin, critical to saving the lives of diabetics.

Neither, sway me.

Interview Questions:

1. Are you pro or con for animal experimentation? Can you explain who or what

made you choose a side?

2. Did you have experience with animal rights before? From a 1 to 5, How involved

were you? 1-Not involved at all 2-Occasionally involved 3-Semi involved 4-Involved but not

committed 5-Constantly involved

3. When you finally choose a side what organizations or supporters did you get

involved with?

4. Once you got involved was it just a hobby at first and then did it suddenly become

a passion, a job, a lifestyle?

5. Do you believe that one side has more of a disadvantage or advantage than the

other? What makes you believe this?

6. Because of the amount of advantages that animal testing has provided over the

years, is it justified?
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 31

7. Do you believe that there is no adequate alternative to testing on a living, whole-

body system?

8. Because animals have no means of communication, is it rightly acceptable to test

on them? Do you believe this is a valuable argument?

9. Do you believe that the negative outcomes and side effects on animals morally

right when it comes down to its advantages? In other words, Do the advantages justify the

negative effects on animals? Explain your reasoning.

10. Some people argue that animals themselves benefit from the results of animal

testing. For example, if vaccines were not tested on animals, millions of animals would have died

from rabies. Is this a valid justified statement or does it seem like an acceptable excuse?
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 32

References

Fox, B. A. (n.d.). The ethics of animal experimentation. Retrieved May 12, 2016, from

http://emj.bmj.com/content/24/11/750.short

"U.S. Food and Drug Administration." Animal Testing & Cosmetics. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 May

2016. <http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/ScienceResearch/ProductTesting/ucm072268.htm>.

Kaufman, S. R., M.D. (n.d.). Safer Medicines Campaign. Retrieved May 12, 2016, from

http://www.safermedicines.org/reports/Perspectives/vol_1_1989/Problems with the Draize.html

Hajar, R. (2011). Animal Testing and Medicine. Heart Views: The Official Journal of the Gulf

Heart Association, 12(1), 42. http://doi.org/10.4103/1995-705X.81548

U.S. Statistics. (2008). Speaking of Research. Retrieved from Speaking of Research. <

http://speakingofresearch.com/facts/statistics/>

You might also like