Annotated Bibliography on Alternatives to Animal Testing

McNamee, P., Hibatallah, J., Costabel-Farkas, M., Goebel, C., Araki, D., Dufour, E., & Macfarlane, M. (2009). A tiered approach to the use of alternatives to animal testing for the safety assessment of cosmetics: eye irritation. Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology, 54(2), 197-209.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

According to McNamee et al., (2009), it is a debate that many prefer to avoid because it easily becomes violent and in which everyone invokes ethics. Animalists say that it is morally unacceptable to keep animals in captivity and make them suffer in the name of science. The researchers, that if they stop doing it, people would be giving up important medical advances in the future. In countries such as the USA, Germany, and England, where there has been a special emphasis on reducing this type of experimentation, bioethics bodies and committees conduct visits (concerted or surprise) to laboratories to monitor their methods. Many norms and protocols have been established for the early evaluation of pain or harm in animals caused by the experiments or drugs to be tested, and the concept of "humanitarian endpoint" and euthanasia has been introduced to avoid prolonged suffering. Compliance with these regulations depends on whether or not a laboratory receives approval and funding for its investigations. As a result, in the United Kingdom, the number of animals used in research has decreased by almost half in the last 30 years.

Nohynek, G. J., Antignac, E., Re, T., & Toutain, H. (2010). Safety assessment of personal care products/cosmetics and their ingredients. Toxicology and applied pharmacology, 243(2), 239-259.

According to Nohynek, Antignac, Re, and Toutain (2010), among the possibilities of substitution to the use of animals in experiments, the authors of the article point to research through the use of cell and tissue cultures, computational simulations and bioinformatics, recombinant DNA technology and nanotechnology; and the adoption of didactics that made use of computer programs, virtual reality, interactive or demonstrative videos, specific mannequins and in vitro research. The authors conclude that it is necessary for the institutions to seek and offer their professionals access to alternative methods available, as well as to encourage the creation of new didactic-pedagogical resources, such as an institutional bank of alternative methods. There are already companies that are serious about avoiding experimentation on animals such as Protect & Gamble that manufacture products that are common in many homes such as diapers Pampers, Oral-B, Gillette or Ariel detergents. In P & G they believe that it is possible to end animal experimentation in the industry, their goal is to eliminate animal testing. More than 330 million dollars have been invested in the research and development of alternative solutions to animal experimentation. The results of their research have been published so that the entire community can benefit from them. The research works carried out by P & G have been published in more than 1000 scientific publications. P & G have developed more than 50 test methods without animals, achieving in 2015 that more than 99% of safety assessments are made if need to make tests on animals. Among the alternative methods are the predictive approaches using human cell lines, and computerized design. At P & G they collaborate with scientists, universities, other companies, governments and also with animal advocacy groups. If we look for companies that commit themselves against animal experimentation, P & G is an example in the promotion and acceptance of alternative methods to change the regulations that animal testing still requires.

To achieve this goal, they are developing innovative and ethical alternatives that are also cheaper than they are used for example to evaluate the safety of the ingredients of any product of P & G.

Nordgren, A. (2002). Animal experimentation: pro and con arguments using the theory of evolution. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 5(1), 23-31.

According to Nordgren (2002), each year, 100 million animals are killed in laboratory tests. To cause suffering in animals for purely playful reasons is absurd. There should be something that would prohibit the cosmetics industry around the world, especially from testing animals, because that is an unnecessary abuse. We know that there is a National Council for Control of Animal Experimentation (NCCAE), but it lacks rigor in the enforcement of the law. In universities, there is a great deal of pressure on researchers for the scientific production and many studies of little relevance or that are unfolding and even repetitions of other works that end up making the use of animals without necessity and, nevertheless, the NCCAE approves. When there are a real need and no alternative to using animals in trials and tests, such use should be regulated and overseen by an ethics and welfare committee. For them, in addition to anesthesia and trained staff, the tests should spare animals from all forms the physical and psychological injuries, including chronic fear and stress, pain, hunger, and other preventable sufferings.

Pauwels, M., & Rogiers, V. (2004). Safety evaluation of cosmetics in the EU: reality and challenges for the toxicologist. Toxicology letters, 151(1), 7-17.

According to Pauwels and Rogiers (2004), laboratory tests cause suffering, injury, and psychological distress. Animals do not deserve such suffering to satisfy the playful human mind; it is important to respect every form of life, without dictating it as superior or inferior. It is more than proven that the use of animals in laboratory tests is merely an abuse of the human condition. In 1933, the mascara called Lash Lure blinded more than a dozen women and even killed one of them due to a bacterial infection. From that moment, strict regulations began to be applied to test the safety of the products before putting them on sale, and until the 1980s the only way to do it was with animals until alternative methods such as cell cultures were introduced or of tissue. Today, although there are still products such as blockers, shampoos, toothpaste and creams that are tested on living beings, the practice is increasingly unpopular and is already prohibited in the European Union and New Zealand.

Rollin, B. E. (2017). The ethics of animal research. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Studies, 345.

According to Rollen (2017), in a "ranking" of themes that generate extreme discussions between animal rights activists and the scientific community, animal experimentation ranks first (with a great margin of advantage over a second place). The former defended the end of acts of cruelty over animals whose life passes as a guinea pig for scientific research, arguing that alternatives already exist. The scientific community rejects the accusation of cruelty and fights the idea that the role of animals in biomedical research can be fully replaced. The use of other models in research Just as scientific progress has helped in the demonstration of the similarities between the organisms or genes of some animals with humans, the use of other techniques in scientific research has also been achieved to eliminate these creatures from the equation at the moment start a study. The use of animals in scientific experimentation was widespread during the eighteenth century, and only from the end of the last century, this practice became heavily questioned. Such inquiries have achieved important milestones, such as the ban in Europe of testing for finished cosmetics and part of their constituents on guinea pigs, as well as the banning of invasive experiments on chimpanzees in 2010 by 27 members of the European Union. Today there is a wide variety of alternatives for animal experimentation. Some of the best known being experimentation with in vitro organs or experimentation on artificial tissues, which, far from being an alternative, are a great improvement for the...