Agora: Red Deer Polytechnic Undergraduate Journal
Volume 15:1 2024 Agora Conference Proceedings

Moving Beyond Animal Testing: Animal Rights and Scientific
Alternatives
Lexa A. Peterson
In 2022, there were 3,521,143 animals used in research, teaching, or testing in Canada
(Canadian Council on Animal Care [CCAC], 2023). However, this number is only representative
of the institutions certified by the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC), meaning that this
number may be underestimating the total amount of animals used in all of Canada. Given the
enormity of this number, we must examine whether the use of animals in research and testing
purposes is, or is not, necessary for scientific advancement. Many Scientists, researchers and animal activists have debated this question over the years. Those in favor of animal testing argue that
it is the best method to obtain scientific data for medical treatment without risking the harm, or
lives, of humans. While the opposition, including animal activists and several animal researchers,
emphasizes that animals feel physical pain and should not be subjected to this pain during testing.
Animal testing should be prohibited because animals feel empathy and psychological pain (Li et
al., 2018; Warren et al., 2013), are not protected by legislation (Black et al., 2022), there is inconsistencies between animal and human physiology (Akhtar., 2015), and the presence of viable alternative methods makes most animal testing unnecessary (Liebsch et al., 2011). Though these
alternatives may not yet exist in all areas of research, animal testing is only justifiable when no
viable alternatives exist, and when legislation protects these animals from experiencing unnecessary pain and suffering.
Research by Li et al. (2018) has shown that animals, such as rats, display empathetic responses and emotional pain for those they associate with, meaning that these animals should not
be subjected to unnecessary emotional suffering during testing. The study conducted by Li et al.
(2018) demonstrated that when a rat is displaying visual pain responses, like limping or licking the
affect area, the other rat who is a familiar cage mate, “showed sharing and care by consolation
through social approach, allo-grooming/allo-licking, and body-supporting toward the [affected]
rat” (p. 242). This display of consolation towards the cage mate in pain indicates feelings of empathy within the rodent (Li et al., 2018). Most animals, including mice and rats, are commonly
considered insignificant and inferior due to their perceived lack of emotional capability (Arnason,
2020). However, that notion is challenged by this display of a rat's empathy for the pain in those
139

they socially associate with (Li et al., 2018). This demonstrates how we do not properly understand
the emotional or psychological capabilities of animals. Evidence of empathy-based behavior also
makes it more difficult to distinguish the ethical separation between humans and animals. In humans, seeing another person in pain can be distressing because we experience empathy (Singer &
Klimecki, 2014). Since it has been demonstrated that rodents can also feel empathy, it may be
emotionally distressing for them as well (Li et al., 2018). Animals are currently used as a replacement for humans in experiments because it is considered unethical to cause this emotional distress
in humans during research (Behnke, 2009), but it is for this same reason that testing on animals
would also have to be considered unethical. Ultimately, this emotional distress is an indicator that
we must consider the extent and degree of psychological pain an animal experiences during experimentation.
Animals experience psychological pain during testing, which must be avoided because the
harm it causes is identical to the harm caused by physical pain (Warren et al., 2013). After experimentation, Warren et al. (2013) observed how “mice that witness, but do not physically experience,
stress have nearly identical changes in these classic stress measures as those subjected to [physical
stress]” (p. 5). If these lab animals experience psychological pain in an equivalent manner to those
who experience physical pain, then both forms of pain must be equally avoided. Especially since
it will not only be the physical pain that the animal will endure during testing, but lasting psychological trauma as well. It is considered unethical to make a human endure psychological trauma
which might have long-lasting effects on both their physical and mental health (Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics, 2023). Now knowing that animals, including mice, are forced to
endure this psychological trauma makes testing on animals unethical as well. Therefore, in addition
to the legislation that protects humans from this pain or trauma during clinical testing, the legislation that would similarly protect lab animals from inhumane treatment must be improved and adhered to.
Canada’s effort to protect lab animals is done through the Canadian Council on Animal
Care (CCAC), however it is ineffective because it is only optional for research institutions to comply to. Black et al. (2022) conducted a review of the CCAC which explained how any institution
receiving funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) or Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) to conduct animal-based research is required to
140

follow CCAC guidelines, however, it is not required to comply with these standards if the institution is not receiving this funding. Consequently, the number and purpose of the animals used in
the private research sphere of Canada cannot be reliably known or held to public accountability
(Black et al., 2022). Considering that the CCAC certification has been made optional, it is easy to
bypass or ignore the standards for the humane treatment of lab animals it is meant to outline and
enforce. For instance, all a research group must do to avoid accountability under the CCAC, is
receive funding from sources other than the CIHR or NSERC. Then there is little to stop experimenters from the callous or cruel treatment of their research animals. The lack of accountability
or oversight also means that the public remains unaware and unable to speak out against any sort
of unethical treatment that is conducted. It is for these reasons that there must be legislation that
better protects lab animals from unnecessary harm. This could be done by making the CCAC certification mandatory for all research institutions conducting experiments involving animals in Canada. Ideally, the Canadian government could establish legislation and guidelines separate from the
CCAC that bans certain types of experiments to better protect lab animals from unethical testing
and experimentation. This way, all research personnel would have to uphold certain care standards
and prevent unnecessary harm to these animals. However, proper legislation can only be established when we determine how necessary animal testing is for developing accurate predictions to
better protect human lives in clinical trials.
The results found from animal testing are not always representative of the results found
during human clinical trials. Akhtar (2015) examined cases of stroke therapies, among drug developments for other illnesses, where the translation of animal testing results to human clinical trials
had a high failure rate despite the attempts to improve animal testing methods (p. 410). This was
demonstrated in 2006 where all the human volunteers of an experimental drug trial suffered severe
adverse reactions to the experimental drug, and ultimately led to systematic organ failure (Akhtar,
2015, p. 413). However, the animals used in the preliminary drug testing did not develop these
issues even though they were given 500 times the human dose for at least four consecutive weeks
(Akhtar, 2015, p. 413). Even with the knowledge that the scientific community has gained from
animal testing, not all the results are an accurate representation of what happens in human anatomy.
In some cases, the successful animal tests were misrepresentative of the effects in humans and
actually led to the fatal harm human patients experienced during clinical testing (Akhtar, 2015).
This blatantly contradicts the notion that animal testing can be used to reduce the harm of human
141

clinical trial volunteers. Ignoring the ethical considerations of animal testing, this failure for animal
models to predict results in humans means that the animal model holds no use as a precursor to
human trials. It can no longer be used as a safety measure for drug testing and development because
what is physiologically viable for the animals is not necessarily physiologically compatible for
humans (Akhtar, 2015). Due to this questionable accuracy in the determination of human safety,
the ethical nature of animal testing should now be considered. This unsuccessful translation between animal testing and human clinical trials means that we must pursue alternative methods of
experimentation, then the ones currently practiced.
Scientists erroneously argue that animal testing is the most accurate method for finding
new medications for human patients. For instance, Garattini & Grignaschi (2017) caution that animal testing is necessary because it would be unethical to test unproven chemicals in humans. They
recognize that there are alternative methods for testing drugs, however, they point out that cell or
tissue cultures are incapable of adequately mimicking the complexity of a living organism which
is influenced by many factors, such as the hormonal system (Garattini & Grignaschi, 2017). They
continue to give examples, such as the blood brain barrier, intestines, and liver which may change
the chemical formula or distribution of drugs (Garattini & Grignaschi, 2017, pp. 32-34). While it
can be agreed that animal testing may currently be the most beneficial method for understanding
new medications, pathogens, or viruses, there is experimentation like cosmetic testing where alternative methods provide sufficient results. The Center for Alternative Methods to Animal Experiments (ZEBET), is a group that works to reduce the number of animals used for research by
developing, modifying, or validating alternative methods for animal testing in many research areas
including cosmetics (Liebsch et al., 2011, pp. 841-854). For example, epidermis layers can be
reconstructed to create a human skin model in a petri dish by culturing a small sample of human
skin cells, which acts as an “in vitro alternative to the rabbit test for skin irritation and corrosion”
(Liebsch et al., 2011, p. 850). Even if there are not yet adequate models or systems for testing
medical drugs or diseases in an entire organism, Garattini and Grignaschi (2017) fail to consider
that this does not mean that all forms of animal testing are necessary. Considering the human skin
model and other research methods supported by ZEBET, there are appropriate alternatives to animal testing for at least some experiments. These alternatives are important because they may test
things like skin sensitization accurately but also avoid the unnecessary pain and suffering that it
would cause a live animal. Since the test is being conducted in a petri dish, rather than directly on
142

the body of a living person, it avoids harming a human test subject. Also, these alternatives demonstrate the effects of toxins or drugs directly on the affected human cells, which helps avoid the
issue of misrepresentation between animal and human physiology. If the same accuracy of results
can be achieved through alternative methods, there is no ethical reason to continue the use of live
animal testing for these types of experiments. Overall, the knowledge of alternative experiment
methods must persuade countries like Canada to ban all animal testing that is not strictly necessary
for accurate results.
On June 27, 2023, the Canadian government announced the passing of Bill C-47, which
will amend the Food and Drugs Act to officially ban cosmetic testing on animals (Health Canada,
2023). Canada must continue to prohibit all unnecessary animal experimentation and improve the
legislation to more effectively protect animals from inhumane treatment during research (Black et
al., 2022). In addition to that, more resources or incentive should be put into finding better alternatives for medical testing, such as the development of a non-animal viable model to better predict
or test the effects of new treatments on an entire organism. These changes must be made because
it was shown that animals feel empathy and psychological pain, making the use of animal testing
unethical (Li et al., 2018; Warren et al., 2013). The inconsistencies between animal and human
physiology also makes animal testing and unreliable precautionary measure to human clinical trials
(Akhtar., 2015). Though Garattini & Grignaschi (2017) argue that alternatives to animal testing do
not yet exist in all areas of research, there are viable alternative methods that make most animal
testing unnecessary (Liebsch et al., 2011). Overall, it can be concluded that animal testing is only
justifiable when no viable alternatives exist, and when legislation protects these animals from experiencing unnecessary pain and suffering.

143

References
Akhtar A. (2015). The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation. Cambridge Quarterly
of Healthcare Ethics, 24(4), 407–419. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000079
Arnason, G. (2020). The Emergence and Development of Animal Research Ethics: A Review
with a Focus on Nonhuman Primates. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(4), 2277–2293.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00219-z
Behnke, S. (2009). Reading the Ethics Code more deeply. Monitor on Psychology, 40(4), 66.
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/04/ethics.
Black, V., Fenton, A., & Ormandy, E. H. (2022). Protecting Canada's lab animals: The need for
legislation. Animals, 12(6), 770. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12060770
Canadian Council of Animal Care. (2023). CCAC animal data report 2022. https://ccac.ca/Documents/AUD/CCAC_Animal_Data_Report_2022.pdf#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20there%20were%203%2C521%2C143%20an
imals%20used%20in,the%20CCAC%20%28see%20Figure%201%20and%20Table%201%29.
Garattini, S., & Grignaschi, G. (2017). Animal testing is still the best way to find new treatments
for patients. European Journal of Internal Medicine, 39, 32-35.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2016.11.013
Health Canada. (2023, June 27). Health Canada announces the end of cosmetic animal testing in
Canada. Government of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/news/2023/06/health-canada-announces-the-end-of-cosmetic-animal-testing-in-canada.html
Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics. (2023, January 11). Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Government of Canada. https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/tcps2-eptc2_2022_chapter1-chapitre1.html#b
Li, C. L., Yu, Y., He, T., Wang, R. R., Geng, K. W., Du, R., Luo, W. J., Wei, N., Wang, X. L.,
Wang, Y., Yang, Y., Yu, Y. Q., & Chen, J. (2018). Validating rat model of empathy for
pain: Effects of pain expressions in social partners. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience,
12, 242. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00242

144

Liebsch, M., Grune, B., Seiler, A., Butzke, D., Oelgeschläger, M., Pirow, R., Adler, S., Riebeling,
C., & Luch, A. (2011). Alternatives to animal testing: Current status and future perspectives. Archives of Toxicology, 85(8), 841–858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-011-0718-x
Singer, T., & Klimecki, O. M. (2014). Empathy and compassion. Current Biology, 24(18), R875–
R878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.06.054
Warren, B. L., Vialou, V. F., Iñiguez, S. D., Alcantara, L. F., Wright, K. N., Feng, J., Kennedy, P.
J., Laplant, Q., Shen, L., Nestler, E. J., & Bolaños-Guzmán, C. A. (2013). Neurobiological sequelae of witnessing stressful events in adult mice. Biological Psychiatry, 73(1), 7–
14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2012.06.006

145