Animal Testing

                 Animal testing and research is used in many different industries for many different reasons. The main uses of animals for research are education, cosmetics, military/space, medical, and psychology. Animal testing is a very controversial topic and there are many opinions on it. I myself have my own opinion on it but I won't write about that until I have gone over the topic unbiasedly.

                As we learned in class, it is impossible to know how many animals are used in research. There are only 1.4 million mammals that must be reported, this includes: dogs, cats, rabbits, and primates. However, it is estimated that over 14 million species are unreported because scientists do not need to report testing on invertebrates, rodents, or birds. 90% of these are estimated to be rats and mice, these species are not covered under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The Animal Welfare Act is the only federal law in the U.S. to regulate the use of animals used in research, exhibition, transport, and by dealers. There might be separate laws to protect certain species but the AWA is the minimum acceptable standard of regulation. It doesn't regulate how the animals are used but rather how they are obtained and maintained at the facility.

                So this act covers how animals are maintained in the facility and that is something we went over in class. We covered that the AWA requires the reporting on non-rodents animals. The only requirement is that animal must live in clean, warm cages. Wire bottomed cages are allowed, primates can live in groups or alone, enrichment is only required for primates, rodents live in small plastic cages, and socialization is not required. A part of the AWA is that the research facilities have to abide legal restrictions on imposing pain during the research. Pain is determined by the researchers and approved, if approved alleviation for the pain does not need to be given. Half on the animals reported to the U.S. Department of Agriculture were involved in experiments that caused "pain or distress," but there are no numbers on the unreported species. 

                The other part of the AWA that we learned about are the 3R's of research, which stand for reduction, refinement, and replacement. The 3R's are implied in the AWA and scientists must prove there are no alternatives and that the number of animals used/suffering will be kept to a minimum. Reduction aims to reduce the amount of animals used in experiments or to use the same animals for more than one experiment if possible. Refinement is to modify the experiments to reduce the pain and distress caused to the animals. Replacement is using non-animal alternatives whenever it is possible and to always work towards finding non-animal alternatives.

                Types of animal testing include eye irritancy and acute toxicity, short term poisoning. Rabbits are mostly used for eye irritancy tests and are observed 24 hours for three weeks, they are killed at the end. New data shows that these tests are inaccurate because rabbits have different eye structures and produce less tears. Acute toxicity is used to test the toxicity of a product or chemicals through exposure by mouth, skin, or inhalation. The lethal dose 50 test is most common to determine the lethal dose that causes death to half of the animals. The fixed dose method identifies the dosage that shows signs of toxicity and the animals are killed at the end. Oral and dermal toxicity as well as inhalation studies are other tests in which animals are observed for periods of time to see what effects the products/chemicals have on them. Injection and immersion studies are also common.

                So now for animal uses that we learned about in class. For education the main use of animals is for dissection. Animals are used as live models although there are many computer models available as alternatives to the students. According to the American Anti-Vivisection Society there are 18 states that have laws in which students can refuse to participate in direction and must be given an alternative. Even students living in states without this law are usually given an alternative. Animal testing for cosmetics is not required and alternatives are encouraged. It is used to testify the safety of the products for consumers and it is the most controversial type of testing. "Cruelty free" is not s legal term and products or chemicals could still be tested on animals. Medical testing tests drugs, equipment, and procedures and a lot of advancements have been made with animal testing. The Food and Drug Administration requires animal testing for drugs but many still fail in human trials and the market. Spaces testing was first to see the effects of flight and space on the body and now it is used to test long term effects on travel. Military testing is for testing weapons, radiation, burn/blast tests, and for medical training. Some animals are intentionally hurt for medical practice. Psychological tests include inducing stress, studying deprivation, effect of drugs, and electric shock to study punishment and learning.

                Now there are a lot of different opinions on animal testing. Some people believe yes it's the only way to get information. Others are completely against it and there's a lot of controversy when it comes to animal testing. Are animals like us or are they not? If they're like us then the outcomes will be similar and we'll know the effects on humans. If they're not like us then we can't know the outcome on humans. So if they're not like us it's ethical but can we be sure of the results being valid? If they are like us then the results are similar but is it ethical?

                I personally am against animal testing and wish that more effort was put into finding alternatives. Yes, I can see that great advancements have been made but there have also been so many failures. I feel greatly conflicted on this issue because there are a lot of important medical advances that could possibly be made from animal research but I do not see the need for dissection, cosmetic testing, military/space testing or physiological testing. According to Humane Society International, data shows that animal tests fail to predict human outcome in 50-99.7 percent of cases. They also mention how 9 out of ten drugs that pass animal tests fail the human clinical tests. The FDA also only approves 8% of the drugs that pass animal testing. Outcomes can never be truly predicted and with no new advancements in the medical field it makes me wonder why we're even still using animal testing? There are no major advancements medically, most chemicals used in makeup have been tested previously, there are computer models for dissection, and physiological tests have outcomes that usually common sense. As far as space tests and military tests I just personally believe there are more important a tests if anything to worry about than these areas.

                The biggest reason I am against animal testing is just ethical though. I am happy that fewer animals are being used but we never truly know the numbers and not all animals are covered. Just because not all animals are cute and cuddly doesn't mean they don't suffer. Even those covered do not have to be relieved of their pain. I do not believe this is fair or ethical. We express dominion over these animals because we have more power but who’s to say they're not suffering and can take it? We cannot be the judges of this, no one can, not even researchers or medical professionals because everyone feels pain and suffering to different extents.

                This is how I feel about animal testing and I know that it is a controversial stance. I am in no way choosing animals over humans but I simply do not see it as ethical. Animal testing will probably never be truly phased out but I would at least like to see better laws in place that protect all animals and relieve them of their pain. I would say more money needs to go towards alternatives as well since taxpayer money goes towards some of these animal experiments anyways. I would just like to see a better outcome for the animals being used because I know they won't stop using them.

Nathan Winograd and the "No-Kill Movement"

Nathan Winograd is an advocate of the "No-Kill movement" and he expresses that throughout his blog posts. He has many strong opinions about national organizations and their opinions on what no-kill shelters do. In his blog "Is No Kill Going Mainstream", he mentions that "The No-Kill Equation" provides the key to ending the killing of homeless animals. He speaks about different programs that have been carried out to save animals but how these ideas are not new. He says that the time has come for the no-kill movement and a sheltering movement based in killing is now moving towards lifesaving. According to Winograd, it goes beyond ending the killing, it's about providing the type of care that meets every single individual that enters that shelter. In this blog he also mentions a woman, Kate Hurley, and he says that although she has come a long way her ways of thinking basically still need improvement. She says that people do not want to kill these animals and also that the decision to kill animals in shelters should be left up to each shelter. It is his belief that shelters be legally mandated to adopt the no-kill philosophy and is working towards convincing Hurley of this as well, calling shelter directors lazy and uncaring if they continue to kill. 

 

In the above video he explains what this means and the various things involved in the "No-Kill Equation." In class we learned about how Nathan Winograd developed the "No-Kill Equation" to attack large animal organizations. This is definitely the kind of vibe that I got from reading his blog, he was attacking organizations like the HSUS, the ASPCA and others. He says that pet overpopulation is a myth and he wants shelter directors to be removed. I definitely saw this present in the blog as he called directors uncaring and lazy. He personally attacks them along with the organizations to spread his ideals about no-kill. We also discussed how he does not address any issues that can come from this type of sheltering. 

I personally used to believe that the no-kill movement was the way to go, I advocated for it and didn't think much about the problems with is. It seems like such a great idea to get all the homeless animals off the street and into shelters where they have a chance of finding a home or are at least being taken care of. It was because of organizations and people like Winograd that I thought this way. I let myself be convinced by them and didn't do my own research. Since coming to college and taking courses like ANSC 250 and ANSC 305 I have been able to form my own ideas because of the variety of information that we cover along with each topic. I have been able to see the issues with no-kill shelters. We learned how a lot of these animals are depressed and even develop repetitive behaviors because of the frustration.  They don't talk about how these animals can be there their entire lives and how the shelters are supposed to be a temporary place. While I wish no animals had to be killed, sometimes they are suffering so much that they need to be put out of that misery. 

In another one of his blogposts, "No-Kill 2.0", Winograd writes about how animal shelters and animal control found loopholes in laws in order to continue killing animals and getting money for their budgets. He repeats again that the no-kill philosophy is to consider each and every animal separately and to give them individual consideration. In this blog animal shelters with 90% save rates are praised and said to be doing a good job although they still must continue on the journey towards no-kill. Attention is also called to the fact that no-kill and the 90% save rate does not apply to other animals. It is meant for dogs and cats but there are still many species like rabbits, guinea pigs, and etc. that are not saved. He says that places that have achieved such a high save rate cannot sit down and say that is enough, they have to continue working and implementing new programs and saving lives. That no-kill advocates must keep pushing forward towards the goal and that animal organizations need to re-evaluate which laws they oppose or support. Like in this cartoon below from his "No More No-Kill News" blog, he described that the ASPCA needed to stop opposing the law because it would help a lot of animals. 

Winograd is not satisfied with high save rates. Yes he praises the shelters that have achieved such high numbers but in my opinion it is only to continue to push them forward. He's motivating and praising them in order to push them toward his philosophy of the "No-Kill Equation". Winograd is past the point of just advocating his beliefs, he's trying to push them onto people through legislative reform. Of course if a no-kill law is passed people will find ways around it and it will have a worse outcome. There is a way around anything and he doesn't accept the fact that not everyone can afford to do this. 

In class we talked about how no-kill can lead to warehousing and hoarding issues. If places continue to take in animals past their capacity they will have animals warehoused in unlivable spaces/conditions. There is no way a shelter will have enough kennels/spaces for dogs and cats, some are forced to live in small crates. It is no life for these animals if they are stacked upon each other and have no adequate living spaces. Hoarding as we learned is also a big issue because places can claim to be no-kill and it's just a cover up to hoard the animals. People will buy into it and donate money without investigating facilities for themselves. 

In class we have learned and discussed that we need to be the judge of these types of situations. We need to go inside and access the situation for ourselves. Questions need to be made about important issues like the average and longest term of stay. We need to see for ourselves the kind of conditions that animals are being kept in. No-Kill sin' always bad but we won't know unless we see it for ourselves. The "No-Kill Equation" sounds ideal but there are many issues it does not cover. It would be great if we lived in a world where this worked but we don't, it's far more complicated than just taking in all the animals and not killing them. Different places have different resources and its just not an attainable goal in some areas. Not to mention it's not always what is best for the animals because really their best interests should be what we work on.

It's Time to Re-evaluate our Relationship with Animals

Do we need to re-evaluate our relationship with animals? If so, in which aspects and how do we go about doing this? Lesli Bisgould gives a compelling argument in her talk and puts everything into perspective throughout various examples. She bins her talk by asking if the audience thinks that animals should be treated humanely and follows up this question with if they think that animals should not be made to suffer unnecessarily. Most people agreed to both statements. She explains to us that laws are useless, they do nothing to protect animals from suffering but are superficially pleasing. Laws permit us to cause "necessary" suffering by prohibiting "unnecessary" suffering. She then later says "For every story we see on the news about some terrible act of violence having been done to an individual animal, there is an industrial counterpart where that violence is normalized and multiplied by hundreds or thousands or millions of times."

This very quote from her talk can be tied into the concept of speciesism. We learned that this term means "a prejudice against those of another species" and that value is determined by species alone. While Bisgould does not mention this term in her speech, she definitely talks about. In her examples of how people can love a pet but experiment on others, or love a pet yet eat other animals. I believe that speciesism is a very real issue, although I wouldn't go as far as to compare it to sexism and racism. All of these issues are different in their own ways and I wouldn't say they are the same, because they are not. Speciesism does exist, in act as we learned, it is very common and extreme as it is human life vs. animal life. Bisgould gets us thinking about how we distinguish between species and how animals are of use to us. We are unwilling to let go of them as property because of what they offer us.

We can also think about social construction; it gives us a better understanding of why certain animals are viewed certain ways by us. Our views of animals will change depending on what the animal is or on the context. I fully believe in considering all animals and not just considering them for what they can do for us but for who they are as sentient beings as well. I myself am a vegetarian and I am on board with animal rights as well but that will not make me judge the lifestyle of another person. I will not push my beliefs onto others, but it would be nice for people to consider all animals and how they are treated. Most people never think of animals unless they interact with them in some way, and we need to see them as living beings as well and to consider how our perceptions change.

Bisgould briefly talks about how she became involved in animal rights when she saw an image that disturbed her. She says she felt compelled to learn more and that she saw nothing humane in those images, unless humane means horrible. We learned about the tactics used by animal rights groups and how these images and videos are intended to have a shock value. They are intended to shame companies if nothing else can be done. We've seen videos of these tactics being used and sometimes they are effective and reach people. They do make people like Bisgould and myself go out and find out more, to want to be involved and make changes.

A good point is brought up in the talk, that no one disputes that animals are the subjects of a life who an think and feel. That we do not treat animals badly because they are property but rather classify them as property in order to treat them badly, but we can change all this by classifying them differently. Why is it okay to harm animals but not each other? What are those differences and how can we use those differences to still give them rights? In class we heard about how the moral standing of animals has been debated for thousands of years and how we are ranked according to different categories.

This moral standing/ranking determines the main reasons we treat animals the way we do. We heard in the talk, like I mentioned earlier, that animals are treated as property. In class we also learned that this is one of the reasons why we treat animals with basic respect, it is not for the animal's sake. Bisgould wants to generate equal rights for animals by getting rid of their property status. She talks about how animal rights does not mean extending human rights to animals because no one thinks animals need the right to vote, or to marriage, education, etc.. She says animal rights is about establishing the right to have their fundamental interests respected when actions are considered that will affect them. All this can happen according to the speaker, by changing an animals status to legal person. This wouldn't be weird to think of them this way because churches, municipalities, and other corporations are considered legal persons. This is to protect their interests and be able to advance them. Animals are the only sentient beings who are not considered legal persons.

This applies to what we learned in class about equal consideration of interests rather than equal treatment. It doesn't give equal rights because humans and other animals are different from one another in various ways. Peter Singer definitely believes that animals deserve this consideration from us. Tom Reagan also said that we are all "subjects-of-a-life" and we all have inherent value just by being alive, not by out utilitarian value. I would definitely have to say I agree with these two points of view. Abolition, like Gary Francione believes in, seems way too extreme and I feel we need these interactions with other animals. We are sharing this earth and our homes with them, we need to give them this standing of a legal person in order to protect their rights, not to give them human rights.

Law is constantly evolving, as Bisgould stated. It won't be an easy road just as it hasn't been for any kind of change. We are at a point where yes most of us believe that animals should not suffer unnecessarily but are we really ready and willing to accept them as more than property? I don't believe that humans will ever truly give up animals, they are in all of our lives in one way or another. The animal rights movement is growing as time passes and as Bisgould stated, "Law will begin to reflect our biological kinship with animals as soon as we decide we really want it to." It is up to us individually to re-evaluate these relationships we have with animals and start to put their interests ahead of ours. Individually, as a society, we have the power to bring about these changes. It's all up to us.

Depressed Dogs, Cats with OCD- What Animal Madness Means for Us Humans

The similarities and differences between animals and humans are vast, and we might never truly understand all that makes us and them unique. Just as we humans can feel complex emotions and experience certain things, it is safe to assume that animals do as well. In what ways it is hard to say but like Laurel Braitman said in the video, we will always be wondering about what non-human animals are feeling.

The similarities between animals and humans are that we both have the capacity to think and feel. We are both sentient beings, beings that can "feel." In class we learned that even a group of prestigious scientist signed "The Cambridge Declaration of Consciousness" which says that animals, like humans are conscious beings. In connection to this video, being aware that animals are sentient beings as well helps us understand that they are capable of so much that we can feel as well. Braitman stated that some would argue that it is anthropomorphizing animals, but she believes that we have to anthropomorphize them to a certain extent. We need to give animals certain human characteristics so that we may learn about more about them and know what is going on, especially if they are our pets. In the video we get certain examples of animals exhibiting strange behaviors, one could ignore them as just a habit but these are behaviors that go on for hours on end. Us as humans do things like pacing and self harm when something is wrong, so why should it imply anything else when it comes
to animals? If we know that they can feel pain, why would they repeat an action that harms them?

Often times we fail to notice something is wrong in ourselves but we will notice it in others. By us noticing certain traits of mental health issues in other humans we can help them seek help before it is too late. We can do the same for our fellow animal companions. Braitman explained that often times humans with mental health issues cannot explain how they feel; animals cannot explain how they feel either so that shouldn't stop us from seeking help for them. Just as we would help a human seek help because we care for them we should also seek help for animals as well.



Another similarity between humans and animals is our ability to form bonds with other species. Just as we form deep bonds with animals, they form bonds with us and with other animals as well. While we covered that it is impossible to truly know what animals are feeling we can compare a bit through our own feelings and what is going on inside our brains at those moments. We learned that we experience heightened levels of oxytocin when we are with our pets. Oxytocin is present often times between mothers and their babies; while having a baby to love is not the same as a pet, we definitely love them enough to experience these feelings of love and adoration for them. It is possible as many of us have experienced, to love another species and care for them as our own.

So then experiencing the closeness of animals to us goes to show that they must feel something towards us too. Their oxytocin levels rise as well and just the fact that they seek us out as well shows that there is something there. We won't know to what extent they feel it or if it is even similar to how we feel but just having them want to be there is enough to show we can form bonds. All the videos and pictures of animals getting along between species is also showing us that they enjoy each others company. They want to be close and they form those bonds even though it is thought they should not get along.

One major difference other than communication is that us as humans have domesticated animals and that has made them change so much over the generations. Domesticating animals must benefit us in some way but does it always benefit the animals? Would animals still experience all these problems with anxiety and depression in the wild? Would they be able to get over these problems with the help of their own species or is that just something that us humans are willing to do for them? We heard of various examples in the video but they were all brought on by humans. Giving pets medications, giving the rabbits to the monkey. By domesticating animals we made them more dependent on us, could they have developed certain traits, emotions, reactions just for us? Like the guilty dog look, in the video we saw in class dogs who hadn't done something wrong but were scolded gave their owners the guilty look. Although they hadn't eaten a treat without their owners permission they acted/looked guilty when scolded. We know animals have an impact on us and that we have to change to accommodate them as well so maybe animals do the same except in a more extreme way since we are domesticating them for traits that we want to see in them.

As mentioned in the video, for humans we have an atlas of all the accepted mental diseases in humans but for animals there isn't much research. Mostly the only thing we have for animals is YouTube videos. Braitman does bring up an excellent point that she in no way thinks that the mental issues animals have are the like the ones humans have but that doesn't mean they don't also have them. She explains how a dogs PTSD isn't the same as a humans but that it isn't the same for two humans either. There are different levels and extents to everything. Us humans might have the same emotions but we feel them differently. It can be the same for animals.

Animals are sentient beings just as we are, we know that much. Without further research we cannot fully understand to what extent we are a like but we know we show a lot of similarities to each other. Mental health issues as we saw in the video affect animals, it is a real thing and it can be treated like in humans as well. She brings up the point that just because we don't know what is going on in an animals mind, that shouldn't stop us from empathizing with them, "The best thing that we could do for our loved ones is, perhaps, to anthropomorphize them." Anthropomorphizing should not be viewed as a negative thing, well to some extent. If we instead showed anthropodenial, where would that lead us? It wouldn't bring us any closer to non-human animals if we thought they couldn't share anything like emotions with us. We can help animals with mental issues by anthropomorphizing them, by trying to understand them. We cannot do help them or each other if we do not stop and try to envision what could possibly be happening and why.