Amorisa Salgado

Professor Kylee Pastore

Freshman Composition

1 November 2021

Are there Alternatives to Animal Testing?

Abstract

This essay aims to answer the question: “Are there alternatives to animal testing?” It explores these alternatives and their ability to replace existing methods of experimentation. It provides a thorough explanation of four different alternatives. It challenges the idea that alternatives are not feasible, and further proves their effectiveness and practicality.

Introduction

For as long as science has existed, so has animal testing. Animal testing refers to any experiment that is performed on a captive animal. The most common animals to be tested on are mice, rats, rabbits, monkeys, cats, dogs, and fish. Animal experimentation is a common practice in medical, cosmetic, and psychology industries, as animals are used to test different drugs, makeup products, and psychological techniques. It is also used in schools for educational purposes. Researchers test on animals because they are our closest biological counterparts. Results from animal experiments can determine whether a certain product or technique is safe for human use. According to an article on PETA.org, over 100 million animals are killed in laboratories each year. The article says, “some are forced to inhale toxic fumes, others are immobilized in restraint devices for hours, some have holes drilled into their skulls, and others have their skin burned off or their spinal cords crushed…animals… are deprived of everything that is natural and important to them—they are confined to barren cages, socially isolated, and psychologically traumatized.” These facts spark controversy, as many argue that using animals for scientific purposes is inhumane, unethical, costly, and time consuming. For these reasons, there is a large demand for change, which focuses on suitable alternatives to animal testing.

Computer Models

Modern technology is advanced enough to serve as a replacement for animals. Specialized computer models and sophisticated software programs simulate human biology and mimic human responses. One software program called Computer Aided Drug Design (CADD) is being utilized to do so. An online journal states “CADD is used to predict the receptor binding site for a potential drug molecule. CADD works to identify probable binding site and hence avoids testing of unwanted chemicals having no biological activity.” (Doke, Dhawale). With CADD, researchers create drugs for specific binding sites, only using animals to confirm the results concluded by the program. As time progresses and technology advances, animals will no longer be needed for preliminary research because results can be predicted. Another computer program called Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship (QSAR) uses its knowledge of existing substances to estimate how likely a new drug is to be dangerous. It describes the properties of drug molecules and explains their activity once they enter the human body. The article states that the QSAR program “predicts biological activity of a drug candidate based on the presence of chemical moieties attached to the parent compound.” (Doke, Dhawale). In addition, it can infer the carcinogenicity (ability to cause cancer) and mutagenicity (ability to permanently alter genetic material) of new drugs. Several companies and governments have switched to using QSAR programs, attempting to reduce animal testing.

In Vitro Testing

In vivo testing is performed on a live organism whereas in vitro testing is performed on the extracted cells of said organism. Traditional animal testing is in vivo; however, there is pressure to switch to in vitro testing. In vitro technology has coined the term “organs-on-a-chip”, which refers to small chips containing human cells that mimic heart, liver, kidney, and lung functions. These chips are used in exploratory stages of research when testing on a whole system is not necessary. A drug is administered to the chip, which in turn tests the behavior of each cell type, one at a time. The results of this type of testing are more human-relevant and accurate than animal experiments are. These chips reflect human physiology, diseases, and drug responses better than animals can. An article on PETA.org says “Some companies, such as AlveoliX, MIMETAS, and Emulate Inc., have already turned these chips into products that other researchers can use in place of animals.”, proving that this alternative is more than capable of being used in real-world situations. Another in vitro alternative uses skin tissue models (artificial 3D replicas of human skin). These models are effective in determining whether a drug or chemical will corrode, irritate, or damage skin. These skin models save rabbits a great deal of pain, as they are the traditional victims of painful and prolonged cosmetic tests done on skin. A lung tissue model, like the skin tissue model, is a 3D model of the innermost part of the human lung. This model enables researchers to study the effects of inhaled substances such as chemicals, pathogens, and cigarette smoke. Special devices that expose human lung cells (contained in a dish) to different chemicals are also used to study inhalation effects. These lung models and devices save rats a great deal of pain, eliminating the need to confine them to tiny tubes and force them to inhale toxic substances. New in vitro tests using human blood cells can detect and assess contaminants that cause fevers when introduced into the blood stream. In vitro tests can spare horseshoe crabs and rabbits from enduring invasive injections and rectal temperatures frequently used to monitor a developing fever. Another in vitro method that serves as an alternative to animal testing involves using a human-derived antibody. An example is a manmade antibody that blocks the toxin that causes diphtheria. Using this antibody eliminates the practice of experimenting on horses via multiple injections and blood draws.

Alternative Organisms

While they are both impressive, in vitro methods and modern computer software do not replace testing on actual living beings. For this reason, scientists have begun experimenting on lower vertebrates, invertebrates, and micro-organisms, rather than higher model vertebrates like dogs, cats, rabbits, etc. Using these alternative test subjects is a more efficient and ethical way for scientists to arrive at the same conclusions and get the same results. Lower vertebrates are the closest relatives to higher model vertebrates. One example of a commonly experimented on lower vertebrate is the zebrafish. During development, the zebrafish has a transparent body that allows direct observation of internal structures. Experiments done on the zebrafish have allowed scientists to study developmental stages, gene expression, mutations, and the effects of different toxins on the body. They are mostly used for molecular and genetic research to investigate the toxicity of different drugs and chemicals. They have even been used to investigate cancer, heart disease, neurological malfunctions, and organ development problems. Invertebrates, like the fruit fly, are also used to investigate toxicity as well as behavioral disorders, muscle dystrophy, wound healing, cell aging, and diabetes to name a few. Each stage of fly development (embryo, larva, and adult) has its own purpose in terms of study, making it the perfect test subject. Most notably, the adult fly’s heart, lungs, gut, kidney, and reproductive system are identical to those of higher model vertebrates. Micro-organisms such as brewing yeast (a type of fungi), are used to study genetic structure, cell architecture, the life cycle of cells, cell death, cancer, and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and Huntington’s. Brewing yeast has organelles such as the nucleus, peroxisome, and mitochondria that mimic those of higher model vertebrates.

Human Volunteers

Computer models, in vitro testing, and alternative organisms are merely substitutes for humans. Who better to be the test subjects, but the expected consumers? A closely monitored method called micro-dosing, involves giving human volunteers small dosages of a new drug. These dosages are too small to cause significant physiological impacts, in the event that the drugs are hazardous. The dosages contain just enough medicine to circulate throughout the system, allowing researchers to determine its effect on individual cell types. Once consumed, imaging techniques are then used to monitor the drug’s behavior. An online source says, “The idea is that this cautious approach could help eliminate nonviable drugs at an early stage, instead of using thousands of animals in studies that may only establish that a drug doesn’t work.” (Bryce) This shows that using this method weeds out the hazardous drugs before they are used in larger-scale trials and allows for researchers to make necessary improvements. Micro-dosing provides researchers with vital information on the safety of new drugs and how they are metabolized in the human body. It has been adopted by several pharmaceutical companies and has been proven to be both safe and effective. This method directly tests which drugs are and are not suitable for human consumption, eliminating the need for animal test subjects. Another method involving human volunteers uses functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to record and photograph the human brain. This spares rats, cats, and monkeys from traditional tests that damage their brains. Using fMRI technology is precise and safe, allowing scientists to study single neurons at a time.

Criticisms of Alternative Methods

People are comfortable with the familiar. Despite the availability of numerous alternatives, certain companies continue with animal testing. In some instances, animal testing is necessary. For example, to know the receptor binding site of a drug, in vivo testing is required, and in vitro methods cannot be utilized. Alternative organisms such as invertebrates do not possess adaptive immune systems, limiting their useability to study human diseases. Computer models erase the hands-on part of learning. In order to even use a computer model, accurate information extracted from animals is required. Many drug researchers argue that testing for possible side effects can only be done on animals, since they are the only other organisms that possess circulatory, endocrine, nervous, and immune systems (which act accordingly to distribute the drug to different organs). Testing on animals has led to a better understanding of viruses and bacteria, and thus a creation of life-saving vaccines. Insulin was created following an experiment performed on dogs. Vaccines for Hepatitis B and C were created following experiments performed on chimpanzees. Overall, drug safety and life expectancy rates have increased in recent years due to copious amounts of research, often involving animal testing. An online article states “According to the Biomedical Research Association in California, most of the medical breakthroughs that have taken place in the last century have emerged from animal tests and research.” (Layne) Imagine how many people would have died had these scientific breakthroughs not been made. In addition, most countries have laws in place that require some form of animal testing of a drug prior to human administration. While many agree that animal testing is unethical, most agree that human testing is even more unethical. The government values its citizens more than the well-being of animal test subjects. However, there are laws regulating the living conditions for research animals, offering evidence that they care about them, even if minimally. Additionally, testing on animals can be beneficial to the animals themselves. Treatments for hepatitis, rabies, feline leukemia, anthrax, canine parvovirus, glaucoma, and dysplasia were all created as a result of animal testing. Some species were saved from extinction due to experiments done on them.

Conclusion

To answer the initial question, yes, there are multiple alternatives to animal testing that are accurate and dependable. As with anything, there are drawbacks to these alternatives, yet these are easily outweighed by potential gains. While use of computer models eliminates hands-on learning, it is preferred by most students. Studies done to gage whether traditional laboratory tools were preferred over computer models demonstrated that learning via computer models improves students’ ability to solve problems and retain information. Unfortunately, computer models do not eliminate animal testing (as they require initial extraction of animal DNA in order to work), but they limit it, offering a step in the right direction. Past animal testing has only been successful in creating lifesaving vaccines because animals were the default test subjects. Now that alternative organisms can be used in most cases, the possibility of new vaccines is limitless. The laws in place requiring animal experimentation prior to human experimentation can be changed to include these alternatives. The short life cycle, small size, and simple anatomy of alternative organisms makes them easier to care for and cheaper to house. Computer models and in vitro testing are also less costly than traditional animal testing methods. As an ever-evolving society, we really need to lean into these alternatives because they can be implemented into systems that are already in place. This is inferred because it has been done before with the companies I previously mentioned (AlveoliX, MIMETAS, and Emulate Inc). This does not include the tons of other companies who have followed suit. Modernization follows a natural pattern of replacing old techniques with new ones. As society progresses, these animal testing alternatives will become the new norm. They have proven to be cost efficient, ethical, dependable, and require minimal animal involvement. Alternative methods are imperfect, but they offer a brighter future. As they become standard procedure, their effectiveness and accessibility will only improve.

Works Cited

“Animal Testing Facts and Statistics”, PETA, https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-used-experimentation-factsheets/animal-experiments-overview/?v2=1, October 06, 2021, Accessed October 25, 2021

Doke, Sonali K. and Dhawale, Shashikant C., “Alternatives to animal testing: A review”, Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319016413001096, November 18, 2013, Accessed October 25, 2021

“In Vitro Methods and More Animal Testing Alternatives”, PETA, https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-animal-testing/?v2=1, October 06, 2021, Accessed October 25, 2021

Bryce, Emma, “What are the Alternatives to Animal Testing”, LiveScience, https://www.livescience.com/65401-animal-testing-alternatives.html, May 04, 2019, Accessed October 25, 2021

Layne, Jordon, “22 Extensive Pros and Cons to Animal Testing 2021- Ablison Energy”, Ablison, https://www.ablison.com/pros-and-cons-of-animal-testing/, June 09, 2021, Accessed October 25, 2021