Animal Testing for the Cosmetic Industry - Research Paper Example

Lecturer: The Ugly Truth: An analysis of animal testing for the cosmetic industry The use of animals in experiments for researchhas been documented since the beginning of scientific research. The use of animals for tests has often been a bone of contention between the scientists and animal rights activists more so in the cosmetic field as the activists feel that it is unnecessary cruelty that does not bring any benefit to the rest of mankind. Many alternatives have been supported by the anti-test supporters including computer simulation model but they have been declined due to their inability to calculate all the variables that show up when an animal is used. As shown below there are many reasons why animal testing is still a practice more so in the cosmetic field in spite the criticism. The debate on animal testing and the moral and ethical dilemmas that arise is not a simple black and white issue with clear supporters and opposes except for a few hardliners. As Monamy says “most people will not have to perform animal experiments”(2), and therefore many people are not fully aware of the processes involved in animal testing and are not involved in the procedures and therefore are not in a position to give an accurate opinion on the practice. Modern day debate has however changed as there has been a dilemma been faced in many regions where it is not a simple case of supporting or opposing. In Australia the population of Kangaroos frequently exceeds the numbers the land can hold and so they are culled. According to Monamy, “There is debate as to whether Kangaroos killed in pastoral areas when numbers become too high” (3). The discussion centers on why the animals have not instead been eaten the same way that cows and sheep are used or even as substitutes for guinea pigs. It would appear that for the opposers to this move it is better for the animal to have a dignified death in culling than have them humiliated in lab having tests performed on them. One of the main reasons that animal testing needs to stop is that in spite of efforts to ensure that there are standardized procedures that would ensure the fair treatment of animals, there are so many loopholes in the current laws that procedures that border on unfair treatment to animals can still be carried out without any action taken against them. The procedures have also become extremely numerous and thus difficult to regulate. Latham says, “This is exactly what might be expected given the incredible volume and variety of animal research” (38), even if the law were to come out and ban practices that it currently views as unacceptable, given the ever changing nature of research and development, it can be concluded that new procedures do come up faster than the time it takes to investigate and enact laws regarding their use. For this reason an outright stop to the practice of animal testing would be a more effective solution to the problem of animals getting harmed during research more so in the field of cosmetics where the end product is most of the time simply made to satisfy the vanity of an individual. According to Stephanie, “sixty-five percent of the population people support the use of animals for testing products for medical purposes (33).” It is for medical purposes that they support these procedures; the use of animal testing in the cosmetic industry does not have as many supporters. Animal testing must also stop due to the use practice of some experiments which from the start are outright to cause harm to the animal even if the purpose is to benefit humans in the end. An example of this is seen in the testing of the telos characteristic in animals. The telos characteristic is a trait that is observed in jackals and raccoons whereby if the leg is trapped and no amount of struggle will set them free then the animal opts to gnaw off the leg rather than be immobilized. An experiment that is set up to see if this characteristic is present in other animals has no excuse to say that it did not intend to harm the animals. According to Rollin “the animal research community has been remiss in failing to address all three levels of ethical concern emerging from animal research” (4).In order to prevent such experiments being conducted it is better to simply ban the use of animals as test subjects. The experiments which are undertaken are also not always effective and the results aren’t completely reliable and simply result in the harming of animals for pseudo- scientific purposes.According to Conlee and Rowan “70 percent of all primate use in the United Kingdom is conducted to satisfy legislative or regulatory testing requirements and not necessarily because primates are essential for satisfying scientific goals” (31). Animals and humans have different genetic patterns meaning that the results for one group of animals is not the same as what will be observed in another group of animals or even humans. The push for an outright ban on testing is however finding difficulty in gaining supporters since it purports that the life of an animal is equal to the life of a human being. The fact remains that beneficial products do result from the research and animal trials that are performed. These animal trials are not simply done for the pleasure of the doctors but due to lack of option. Cosmetics are also an important part of human life as they are used to disguise and heal personal flaws including scars and burns and the test of cosmetic products on animals means that there is a guarantee that we as human beings will be safe when we use these products. A question of ethics will always arise regarding how much suffering or testing an animal should have to undergo for the sake of humanity but supporters of this view should also put into consideration whether they prefer the animals suffering so that humans won’t have to or for humans to simply bear for our own species suffering, as Taylor says, “Such benefit is far outweighed by the damage caused to humans by the loss to medical science and research” (164). For these reasons the call for an outright ban is shown to be weak and only gets a few hardline supporters The admission of animals into the moral debate of human beings is an unacceptable mistake and should be removed from any debate that is to be had in academic circles. Different animals possess different traits which are similar to those of humans and it wouldn’t cost much to get these animals to reproduce so as to ensure that there are constant specimens that can be used to test the effects of chemicals them. Guniea pigs are the most commonly used animal specimen and can reproduce up to five times a year producing one to four offspring per gestation this cannot be compared with the human period of nine months to produce a single offspring which would take eighteen years in order to attain maturity and given their constitutional rights it is not a guarantee that they would accept to have such procedures performed on them. Although research is being performed to manufacture cosmetics, the fact remains that there is a risk that the substances created could prove harmful to man. According to Ellen and Jeffrey “it has been axiomatic that human life in all circumstances has prior claim over none human life” (465). The cost of treating a human being for unexpected side effects is too high as well as the fact that they might be permanently disabled and thus need payment for life. There is also the risk of death and if such cases do happen the company or institution performing these experiments would be guilty of murder and could be taken to trial. To avoid these legal concerns animals are the preferred option they do not cost as much and are not valued as much. Finally, if injuries are extreme it still remains that animals have a shorter life span than most humans with the most popular specimen –the guinea pig- living a maximum of five years and so the time to care for the animal if euthanasia is not approved is not as long. Modern day animal testing is not like the past where scientists had free reign over what to do, modern day codes of ethics have been put in place so that animals are not forced to endure unnecessary pain or harmful procedures simply to satisfy the researchers’ hypotheses. Modern evaluation methods are not been used so that animal tests can be used however it cannot be an overnight affair due to the nature of chemicals. The cost of changing from the current procedures of animal testing to other analysis methods are extremely high and even the leaders in research would find themselves financially strained if they moved from the standard animal tests and it could halt several important development projects for a long time before viable alternatives are practical. Abbott says “Human toxicity data are off course hard to find.” (246) and we therefore the use of animals is viewed as a more welcoming alternative. The opposers to animal testing while having an argument on the grounds that the animals are being harmed have yet to provide a practical solution to the animal testing problem that they feel is against the rights of the animals. O’driscoll points out that, “despite the Scientific Procedures Act of 1986, animal research is beginning to rise again” (5). The fact remains that animal tests are on the rise due to their reliability over other methods. Even with the high rate of drugs whose results in animals differ from those results in human beings the critics of animal tests have yet to come up with more humane but more accurate substitutes. There have been increased efforts by governments to reduce the level of tests done and this had been mainly through the ThreeR program. The ThreeR is an acronym for replacement, reduction and refinement. Replacement is the substitution of current animal test procedures with other methods that do not involve testing animals. The Reduction is done by the development of procedures that will not involve as many animals as were prior used. The reduction process will therefore involve more accurate tests and the development of better machinery to analyze development. The refinement refers to the improvement of procedures so as to reduce the suffering that animals have to endure while animals are being experimented upon. Stephanie says “Giving pain medication to lab animals can make lab experiments more bearable” (45). This would include provision of painkillers where possible to reduce the pain and smaller doses so as not to cause extreme effects in the animals. Animal testing is still the best option for researchers who are developing effective products that are non-toxic to human beings and methods to verify that they will not harm us. Even Kolar acknowledges that they, “deliver results that could provide valuable gain and contribute to biomedical research or toxicological classifications” (111). There are many products that are currently sold in the cosmetic world that would not be available without trying it on animals first and therefore it should stay. Animal testing is the experimentation of products on animals first before they are verified to be suitable for humans. This method has many opposers due to the fact that animals do face injuries and some experiments from the start are intended to cause them harm. There is also a lot of criticism over the fact that the legislation put in place to protect animals is scanty and there are many loopholes through which procedures are developed that harm animals legally. The tests however cannot be stopped due to the development of beneficial products and the fact that the cost of using humans is too high. As ethical issues arise there has been a focus on the replacement, reduction and refinement of procedures to reduce the suffering of animals now and in the future. Works Cited Abbott, Alison. "Animal Testing: More Than A Cosmetic Change." Nature 438.7065 (2005): 144-146. Academic Search Premier. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. Conlee, Kathleen M., and Andrew N. Rowan. "The Case for Phasing Out Experiments On Primates." Hastings Center Report 42.(2012): S31-S34. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Nov. 2013. Kolar, Roman. "Animal Experimentation." Science & Engineering Ethics 12.1 (2006): 111-122. Academic Search Premier. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. Latham, Stephen R. "U.S. Law and Animal Experimentation: A Critical Primer." Hastings Center Report 42. (2012): S35-S39. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Nov. 2013. Monamy, Vaughan. Animal Experimentation: A Guide to the Issues. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Print. O'Driscoll, Cath. "Animal Testing On The Rise." Chemistry & Industry 14 (2007): 5. Business Source Elite. Web. 8 Nov. 2013. Rollin, Bernard E. "The Moral Status Of Invasive Animal Research." Hastings Center Report 42.(2012): S4-S6. Academic Search Premier. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. Stephanie, Watson. Animal Testing: Issues and Ethics. New York: Rosen Publishers. 2009. Print. Taylor, Robert. "Testing Drugs On Animals: A Test Case For Socially Responsible Investment." Business Ethics: A European Review 14.2 (2005): 164-175. Business Source Elite. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. Read More