All Living Creatures Have Rights

7/27/2019 All Living Creatures Have Rights

1/9

James 1

Tiffany James

Professor McCauley

Composition II

18 November 2010

Rights, Suffering, and a Cure

What do you think of when you hear the phrase animal rights? Do you think of crazy

activists breaking into laboratories and letting all the animals free? Or do you think of the

horrible pictures of animals suffering from chemical injections? Do you see animals being forced

to fight one another to the death? Do you think of die hard vegetarians who protest in front of

slaughter houses? All of those things are just small aspects that make up the larger picture of

animal rights. They are all equally important in their own way, but the animal rights issue that

hits home is the use of animals as product testing subjects. This issue bothers me the most

because I have three dogs and I would be horrified if anything ever happened to them. And the

thought of the things Ive seen in pictures happening to my dogs outrages me.

There are people out there who strongly feel that animal testing is inhumane and maybe it

is, but there is more to it that. Animal testing is the experimental use of non-human animals. The

main types of products scientists test include: house hold products, cosmetic products, and

pharmaceuticals. Some pharmaceutical products include HIV/AIDS drugs and vaccinations for

other diseases. To develop these pharmaceuticals animals are tested to see whether a new drug

will have an effect on the disease and whether the effect will be serious (Grinning Planet). And

to test the medicines and get results scientists use tests like the Mutagenicity test where

chemicals are administered into the bone marrow of the test animals. They also use the

Pharmacokinetics/Toxickinetics and Metabolism test which measures the rate of how fast they


2/9

James 2

absorb the chemical, how long it takes their metabolisms to work it out of their systems, and how

fast they sweat out the chemicals (American Anti-Vivisection Society). However, pharmaciticals

are not the main problem, cosmetic and household products are because ninety-four percent of

animal testing is done to determine the safety of cosmetics and household products (Animal

Testing).

Some household products that are tested on animals are bleach, washing-up liquid,

laundry detergent, insecticides, solvents, furniture polish and air fresheners (Testing Household

Products on Animals). To test these products they use tests like the Acute Toxicity test which

exposes the animals to a chemical by mouth, skin, or inhalation; or the Repeated Dose Toxicity

test which is used to evaluate chronic toxic effects on organs by orally taking a substance,

inhaling a substance, or placing a substance on the skin (American Anti-Vivisection Society).

There are also cosmetic products like eye shadow, eye liner, blush, hair spray, and

perfume that are tested on animals to see if they go blind or have some type of cornea damage.

They also expose animals to the chemical to see whether they develop skin irritations or get sick

(Grinning Planet). To test these skin based products scientist use the Skin Corrosivity test which

involves placing a chemical on a shaved patch of skin and using another shaved patch as a

control, and the Skin Sensitization test where substances are applied on the surface or injected

onto the animals shaved skin (American Anti-Vivisection Society). Cosmetic products,

household products, and pharmaceuticals are products that people use every day, products they

pick up in the store without even realizing how they are made; without even realizing that when

they buy them they are becoming a part of the reason that animal testing exists. And the way

these animals are tested for us to receive these products is inhuman and unnatural but scientist

use them because they have qualities that make it easy to observe the affects of the substances.


3/9

James 3

Most scientist and companies are only worried about the results so they use the animal

that they think will get them the best results which leads to many different animals being used.

Rabbits are used in the Draize Eye Irritancy Test because of their big eyes which make it easy to

observe the effects of the chemicals. In Acute Toxicity test rats and mice are most commonly

used because it is easy to perform a necropsy on them to see internal organ damage. Rats are also

used in tests like Pharmacokinetics/Toxicokinetics and Metabolism and Dermal Penetration

because it is easy to kill them and examine their insides. Guinea pigs are used in Skin

Sensitizations tests because it is easy to see the chemical reaction on the skin (American Anti-

Vivisection Society). Other animals used for product testing include dogs, cats, nonhuman

primates, and farm animals.

The way these tests affect these animals is something that humans cannot even begin to

imagine. The Draize Eye Irritancy Test uses household products, shampoo, pesticides, weed

killers, and riot control gases (Testing Household Products on Animals). The substance is

sprayed or put in the eye of an albino rabbit. No pain relief is given and the test goes on for about

seven days. The scientists look for signs of opacity, ulceration, hemorrhage, redness, swelling

and discharge. The testing of Acute Toxicity in animals is dangerous and sometimes deadly. The

test requires poisoning large numbers of animals in Lethal Dose 50 (LD50), which is conducted

until at least one half of the test animals die (Leeuwen, and Vermeire 240). In tests done for

cosmetics and pharmaceuticals test animals may develop tumors or other nasty conditions, and

are often killed intentionally at some point in the test so scientists can examine the animals'

innards for signs of damage (Grinning Planet). These tests did not crop up of their own accord

humans created them for a reason.


4/9

James 4

If animal testing continues more and more animals will be born just for the sake of testing

products, which is just as bad as puppy mills. The poor, innocent, abandoned animals from the

pound will continue to be used in the laboratory as test subjects. That doesnt need to happen

because animal testing can become a thing of the past because it is ineffective. For example, the

Draize Eye Irritancy test has often been condemned on scientific grounds because it produces

unreliable results which can bear little relation to human responses (Stop Testing Household

Products on Animals). According to Kelly Overton, an animal rights activist, we spent billions

of dollars to cure cancer in mice, but so far have failed to replicate human cancer in any animal,

let alone close in on a cure. Animal testing has proved to be unnecessarily painful and studies

have shown that these tests are ineffective, so there is no legitimate use for animal testing. So

why do we human subject animals to it? Because animals were the only option people saw at the

time, but thats not true anymore. There are new and more effective alternatives out there now.

One of those alternatives is cell culture the process by which a cell is grown under

controlled conditions. It is used in the 3T3 Neutral Red Uptake Phototoxicity Test to assess the

potential for sunlight-induced (photo) irritation to the skin (PETA). And the test systems based

on continuous cell lines have the exclusive advantage that they do not have to use animals in

experiments. The test has relitivly low cost rate and is very beneficial because it gives

researchers information that relate directly to humans. However, they lack the interaction

among different regulatory mechanisms and pattern formation in embryogenesis which are

crucial to development (Alderth H. Piersma). It also does not work because the researchers

cannot see the effects of the substance in a living body.

Another possible solution is to use that Murine Local Lymph Node Assay. Some

scientists believe that it will become new and effective way of testing products instead of animal


5/9

James 5

testing. Murine Local Lymph Node Assay is used as an alternative to guinea pig tests that screen

for allergic reactions on the skin. The LLNA tests, reduces animal use as well as pain and

suffering; it is also faster and provides dose-response information (AltTox). But the big problem

is that even though the protocols test with such specificity now that it requires far fewer animals

for testing than previous protocols it still doesnt stop the use of animal testing all together, it

only switched to using mice instead of guinea pigs. It also does not give enough accurate

information about the living systems of the human body.

The Rat Skin Transcutaneous Electrical Resistance tests are also a possible solution. The

European Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods believes that it is highly effective and

useful. They test two endpoints following the exposure of isolated rat skin for 2-24 hours to a

test chemical: changes in the transcutaneous electrical resistance and the binding of a dye,

sulforhodamine B (AltTox). The test is more humane because it no longer uses live animals to

test chemicals, but it still has a flaw. To get the rat skin that is used in the test scientist end up

killing the rats. Even though the rats are humanely killed, animals are still being killed in the

process and the purpose of an alternative is to stop the misuse of animals. And killing them for

their skin is defiantly abusing them.

Animal testing is dangerous and ineffective which is why we should use an alternative

method known as EPISKIN. It is an artificial skin, a human epidermis reconstructed on collagen.

EPISKIN can be, manipulated and adapted based on the tester's needs: it can be made to

resemble older skin, can be made to tan and, by using donor cells from women of different

ethnicities, can assess the efficiency of sunscreen for various skin tones ( Jeremy Elton

Jacquot). The ICCVAM and the European Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods have

both authorized the use of the EPISKIN test. And many scientists are saying that it could
http://www.treehugger.com/author/jeremy-elton-jacquot-los-angel-1/http://www.treehugger.com/author/jeremy-elton-jacquot-los-angel-1/http://www.treehugger.com/author/jeremy-elton-jacquot-los-angel-1/http://www.treehugger.com/author/jeremy-elton-jacquot-los-angel-1/


6/9

James 6

potential stop all animal testing sometime in the future. That is the best way to go, humans dont

have to worry about using human subjects or animal subjects and the product companies and the

FDA still get the same response they wanted. However, there are those people out there who still

feel iffy about it. Some people feel it cost to much and all companies can afford it. Well animal

activist groups like PETA and the AAVS could help pay for the creation of this new skin. Or the

government could pitch in and help foot some of the bill. There are many way that we could

make it easier to pay for the skin. There are also some people out there wondering if the product

will even work for other types of tests. EPISKIN is still in the testing phase, but according to the

European Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods sometime in the future the

government will make it mandatory for the drug, food, and chemical industries to start using it

(Jeremy Elton Jacquot).

When you hear the phrase animal testing what do you think of? I know I dont think of

it the same way I use to. I use to see animal testing as scientist injecting various chemicals into

animals and rabbits were the main subject. But I have learned that animal testing is much more

than that. It is subjecting animals to potentially dangerous chemicals and substances. It is

spraying defenseless rabbits in the eyes with harmful solutions and initially inflicting pain on

them without providing relief. Subjecting them to lethal chemicals until half of them die and then

killing the rest to see how they were affected. Animal testing is cruel and ineffective. That is why

several scientists and companies have come up with several new types of alternative methods for

animal testing. However, not all of the methods they came up with are something people should

start using because they do not all work the way they should. A good portion of them still use

animals just a lower number of them and some of them are ineffective. But one test stood out

among the rest, the EPISKIN test. Its a win-win situation that makes everyone happy, it gets the
http://www.treehugger.com/author/jeremy-elton-jacquot-los-angel-1/http://www.treehugger.com/author/jeremy-elton-jacquot-los-angel-1/


7/9

James 7

data that the FDA wanted, companies can still sell their products, and animal activist get animals

out of laboratories.


8/9

James 8

Works Cited

Alternatives: Testing Without Torture. PETA. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals. Web.

30 November 2010.

American Anti-Vivisection Society Types of Animal Testing. American Anti-Vivisection

Society. NA. 240-242. Web. 18 Nov. 2010.

Animal Testing. About My Planet. About My Planet. Web. 18 Nov. 2010.

Draize Eye Irritancy Test. Stop Testing Household Products on Animals. Stop Testing

Household Products on Animals. Web. 18 Nov. 2010.

Elton Jacquot, Jeremy. Episkin: Growing Skin in the Lab. Tree Hugger 27 July 2007. Web.

30 November 2010.

H. Piersma, Alderth. Alternative Methods for Developmental Toxicity Testing. Basic &

Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1 May 2006. Web.

30 November 2010.

Jeantheau, Mark. Manimal and the Cosmetics Testing Laboratory. Grinning Planet. Grinng

Planet, 12 October 2004. Web. 18 November 2010.

Overton, Kelly. Stop Animal Testing - It's Not Just Cruel, It's Ineffective. All-Creatures:

Animal Rights Articles. All-Creatures, 23 Jun. 2006. Web. 18 Nov. 2008

Skin Sensitization. AltTox. Non-animal Methods for Toxicity Testing, 11 December 2008.

Web. 30 November 2010.

Testing Household Products on Animals. Animal Research. Animal Research, 17 March 2009.

Web. 18 Nov. 2010.
http://www.treehugger.com/author/jeremy-elton-jacquot-los-angel-1/http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/07/episkin_growing.phphttp://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/07/episkin_growing.phphttp://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/07/episkin_growing.phphttp://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/07/episkin_growing.phphttp://www.treehugger.com/author/jeremy-elton-jacquot-los-angel-1/


9/9

James 9

Van Leeuwen, C. J., and T. G. Vermeire. Toxicity Testing for Human Health Risk

Assessment. Risk Assessment of Chemicals: An Introduction. Dordrecht, The

Netherlands: Springer, 2007. Print.

Documents

All Living Creatures Have Rights