Abstract

This investigation offers a personal analysis as to whether or not animal

testing should be banned; relying on structured questionnaires I created
and my personal background research into previous theories and
personal opinions that are relevant to the debate. Using primary and
secondary data, I have attempted to answer the question based on a
general feel of people within the society’s personal views. Picking up on
previous medical disasters, I have chosen to base my project along the
simple past, present and future layout, so it’s easier to understand
where the debate is going. I contacted people such as Rosaleen
Simmonds, Mel Broughton and Alastair Buchan via e-mails and Letters in
order to gain their useful conception of animal testing in today’s society.
Each of these 'speakers' have been largely affected by animal testing in
their very own unique ways. The overall conclusion reached was based
purely on my research, in my experience, it’s very hard to put aside my
personal views and opinions and reach a conclusion on the evident
sources. According to society, animal testing should be banned in the
cases of cosmetic research, but there's a justifiable reasoning when it
comes to scientific research for medical advancement; even though
disasters such as thalidomide have previously been proven an issue, the
use of animals for vaccines and cures for diseases seems greatly
understandable according to public opinion. I am also going to highlight
the problems I faced throughout my investigation, such as ethical issues
and the subject of plagiarism, to the problem with letters being ignored
by the receiver’s. How I overcame this and learnt from this amazing
experience has yet to be discussed. National statistics will also help me
illustrate my point further

The evolutionary theory

Charles Darwin believed species mutated and changed over time, his
theory of evolution is one of importance to the argument upon animal
testing for a number of different reasons. It could be said that if it
wasn’t for Charles theory, testing on animals might have come at a later
date, or, might not have even been considered any relevance to human
science. Charles Evolutionary theory dates back to the 1850’s, he
suggested the change that generations go through is a process better
known as natural selection. In order for a species to survive over time,
they have to adapt to their environment In order to avoid extinction. The
successful, will then live long enough to reproduce and pass on their
traits to the next generation.

Because animals are so similar to human beings in terms of basic

organs, the similarities outweigh the minor differences between the two.
Its because of this similarity, that Charles Darwin supported animal
testing, going on to say him self "I know that physiology cannot possibly
progress except by means of experiments on living animals, and I feel
the deepest conviction that he who retards the progress of physiology
commits a crime against mankind."

Charles Darwin justified the use of animal testing in order to better

study human beings. Since then, Animals have been tested on to
discover a variety of different scientific advancements.

The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (1959) Darwin, Francis, ed. New York: BasicBooks,
Inc., 382-383. 23-02-10

Behavioural Theory
Another example would be Ivan Pavlov, a Russian scientist who in the
twentieth century discovered his very own behavioural theory. The
experiment he conducted was carried out on animals; dogs to be
precise. Pavlov’s research provided evidence that all animals could be
trained or conditioned to expect a consequence on the results of
previous action. In other words, he discovered humans and animals
could be ‘conditioned to associate with a specific action with a reward if
this is reinforced repeatedly’ this was referred to as classical
conditioning. Because Pavlov’s research proved to be a reliable source,
it seemed more and more experiments were taking place on animals,
only resulting in further evidence supporting the idea that animals were
needed in order to gain knowledge of how the human body works, it
seemed The evolutionary theory and the behavioural theory made
animal testing much more popular.

It seems the more research that was conducted on Animals, considering

the evidence was reliable (at these times most research being conducted
was proven relevance to scientists) the more popular animal testing was
becoming considering the scientific advancements were proving useful
to humans.

Eytan Avital; Animal traditions; Behavioural inheritance in evolution(2000) pg323-

325 pub cambridge university press 11-02-10

Thalidomide
What happens when research goes wrong?
Is animal testing always proven to be successful?
Animal testing has been around for well over two hundred years now,
and clearly science has progressed greatly thanks to the evidence from
animal testing, but surely, with all the success stories comes along some
disasters.
‘In the late 50’s early 60’s, a German company called Chemie Grunenthal
Produced a drug that treated the symptoms of morning sickness in
pregnant women’.
However, this drug was not tested on pregnant animals at the time, and
as a result, the drug caused thousands of babies to be born with
deformities. Its estimated that over three thousand five hundred babies
died before their first birthday. The thalidomide disabilities were man-
made by a drug, it seems this might have avoided if the manufactures
had carried out the adequate testing on the drug in the first place.
After doing some background research in to the Thalidomide disaster, I
decided to try and contact someone who suffered from the tragedy.
Someone who has had to live with knowing they are disabled because
tests were not carried out properly holds great relevance to this debate
on animal testing.

‘Born freak’ Happy birthday thalidomide, channel 4. 21-01-10

Rosaleen Simmonds
After e-mailing Rosie with the details of my personal research into
animal testing, I gained her consent to ask her the questions I wished, I
made it clear that she did not have to answer any of the questions if she
felt uncomfortable answering them.
I only asked her four open questions, because I believe quality is more of
an issue then quantity, and because if I felt I could not draw a conclusion
upon these results, I could simply ask Rosie some more questions.
her answers gave me an insight into other person’s personal beliefs on
the topic matter. From her answers, I can draw the conclusion that
although her life was dramatically effected by the failure to test
Thalidomide correctly, she does not hold a strong belief that animals are
no use to scientific advancement, as illustrated in question 2, she shares
the beliefs of many individuals who feel Animal testing is justifiable in
the sense of medical research. However, her answer to question three
brings me to a important point in animal testing; ‘. . . no real legislative
action taken to avoid the recurrence of another Thalidomide tragedy. . . .
.’ The law on animal testing is yet to be brought to my attention. All of
Rosaleens’ responses can be in the appendix provided

SPEAK campaign
When conducting my primary research, I decided it would be a good idea
to try and contact someone who holds a strong opinion for animal
testing, I thought Mel Broughton was a good candidate, as she has
dedicated most of her life into researching alternatives and trying to
change other people’s personal opinion on animal testing. I researched
her campaign group called SPEAK; they are currently pushing for a
legislation completely banning animal testing. Mel Broughton was also
suspected of involvement of the bombs that were let off in oxfords new
animal testing lab (these allegations have recently been dropped). Its
clear Mel has a passion for Animal testing and feels its Morally wrong,
looking at her research, I thought it would be useful to Contact Mel via
letter, asking her to answer a few questions I had conducted (same
questions Rosaleen was happy to answer) However, after six weeks of
anticipation, I decided to research other theorists relevant to animal
testing in case I never received a reply from Mel.
As weeks continued to pass, it was made clear that Mel was not going to
respond to my letter.

Alastair Buchan
After failure contacting a pressure group, I decided to try and contact
Alastair Buchan; he is head of medical science and animal testing at
Oxford University.
Alastair Buchan is openly FOR animal testing; he has held many public
speeches and informs many people in society of the great work and
knowledge that comes from the use age of animal testing. It was not
possible to get Alistair’s address via the Internet. His personal e-mail
was the only available source and so I opted for an email asking for his
permission to then forward him a set of questions. This was the same
way I gained my results form Rosaleen; Asking for consent before
forwarding the questions seemed a much politer way to ask for his
permission. It also clears up the ethical issue of informed consent – All
the people I have had contact with I explain why I am contacting them,
where the research results will be published and it was clearly explained
in my emails that this research is being produced for my own personal
gain.
Unfortunately, as well as Mel not replying to any of my attempts to
contact her, neither did Alastair. I cannot comment on as to why they
chose not to participate, I can only assume they are very busy people
and therefore, did not have the time on their hands to participate in my
extended project.
This was a major weak point in my research, and I was thankful I had
already made alternative research planning in order to overcome this
huge problem. When looking at my previous research in the past, it was
already brought to my attention that I may have to deal with
unresponsive people, so I had already started to research alternatives I
could use in order for my topic debate to reach an overall final
conclusion.

Alternative Methods
What does the future hold for animal testing?
Before researching the future of testing on animals, I already had some
background knowledge of my own that I wanted to know was valid
information. A lot of people I had spoke to believed their was a current
law passing through the legislative process in order to completely ban
animal testing, as scientists had found greater alternatives to testing on
animals and they were no longer needed for lab experiments.
Using the internet (mainly the search engine Google) I came to the
conclusion that this was simply hear say; scientists had discovered a
way of creating human skin cells in laboratories which meant that
animals are now not needed for certain experiments. However,
currently, there is still a need for animal testing. The only law I found
when regarding the use of Animals was The Animals act 1986 and the
home office allowing people to hold a licence for animal testing in their
department. These laws are simply in order to monitor and assess the
level of harm the animal is suffering; it is not clear in the law exactly
HOW this is monitored and assessed.
New technology has developed which now allows skin cells to be
artificially grown in a laboratory, and they can then be tested instead of
animals. This alternative can be used to demonstrate the effects of
chemicals or topical treatments on human skin. The only problem with
this method is the fact that it doesn’t completely abandon the idea of
animal testing. The use of Animals is still relevant for vivi-sections and
other scientific research. What about the costs involved with these
alternative methods? Wherever a new method is available, there is also
the issue of cost to be covered. Its highly unlikely, scientists will turn to
alternative methods if there is a high cost around the method suitable to
use as an alternative. When considering artificial skin production, this
seems to be a much more cost efficient alternative rather than using
animals for tests

Ethical concerns
The question that has now been brought to my attention is one arising
from the issue of ethics. A question of Specism is now to be discussed. Is
it morally right for humans to use animals for our personal gain? Is it fair
that animals suffer in order for scientists to advance their knowledge
with the newest mascara? These questions are not easily answered, as
they require a subjective point of view; they cannot be answered
objectively as there is a need for personal opinion, there is no right or
wrong answer.
It would seem, judging by my research (primary and secondary) that
Specism is overridden by the positive attributes of animal testing;
specifically Banting and bests research into diabetes. There research
saved the lives of millions of people, for the sacrifice of ten dogs. It
seems research like this and the previous ones I have explored clearly
shows that some research conducted on animals is largely life saving,
and has made millions of peoples life’s much more manageable.
Therefore, animal testing in terms of Specism is out weighed by the
millions of lives saved over the years from the evidence provided.

Nature vs. Nurture

When focusing on the question in debate, I decided it would be
beneficial to my personal research if I look further in to where the
debate stands in terms of the nature versus nurture argument. First of
all, it can be said that humans are choosing to use live animals for the
benefits of the human race; there seems to be no reward or gain for the
animals themselves. It can also be said that because animals cannot
talk, they cannot express there pain and suffering easily to humans,
which allows humans to ignore the fact that pain and suffering is being
felt on the animal’s side in the first place. All in all, animal testing is a
product of nurture. We as humans have learnt that it is justifiable to kill
or put in danger another living creature in order for our own scientific
advancement, and we have also learnt that this is justifiable considering
the outcomes that have been delivered. We are not born with a natural
innate inhibition to use animals for our own benefit; it is therefore learnt
through our environment, modern day society. Although this seems to
be a problem, it can also be argued that because humans have learnt
that animal testing is justifiable, we as a society could also change this
view, through vicarious reinforcement. Eventually, as a society it is
possible to ban animal testing and change societies view on the topic
one day in the future.
Specism is the name often used when humans use animals for their own
personal gain.

Research methods
Before conducting my research, it was vital to actually look into what
research methods would be suitable to use. It was clear the ways in
which the research was conducted and analysed was an important
decision I had to make. I chose to create a questionnaire to hand out to
a small scale sample of twenty people; I created and first and second
draft, and evaluated them both in order to come up with my final
questionnaire. As well as a questionnaire, I thought it would be useful to
try and contact some speakers who would be relevant to the animal
testing debate; I therefore, chose to contact these people via e-mails
and letters in order to gain there views and opinions on the subject
matter. A letter would be more reasonable way of gaining their views
because it’s a more formal and polite way of contact. It’s also worth
stating that recorded delivery could well of been an option I should of
considered further, if I chose recorded delivery, perhaps I would have
known the sources actually received the letter but clearly, chose not to
reply. Secondary research including a lot of usage around the internet,
many of my sources were from the internet itself, and main issues that
were brought to my attention here the reliability and validity of the
sources available on the internet. Wikipedia is a source I purposely
chose not to make use of in this extended project, because anyone can
use the wikipedia I therefore found it a unreliable piece of data. I used
some information from books, but very little and any quote or
information used was then referenced in the Harvard way, to make sure
I had no other problems arising from the topic of plagiarism. I also
considered the media to have a huge impact on the debate itself;
looking at my personal research, I found newspaper articles that have
been published influence society’s moral viewpoint on the debate itself.
A prime example of this would be a newspaper article written by the
sun, supporting the ban on animal testing; if the debate receives bad
publicity from popular newspapers, its more likely many people will take
into consideration what they have read and apply these views to their
own opinions and moral’s on the matter. All of the research I conducted
and sources I used have been referenced and can be found in the
appendix and bibliography section to avoid any confusement

Questionnaire analysis
I only created five simple questions when it came to the development of
my own research. I came to this decision after taking into consideration
previous research I have conducted: to my knowledge most of the public
do not like time-consuming surveys, and to increase the reliability of the
results, I have found the fewer questions there are to answer, the more
likely the public will answer them. I also included a introduction at the
beginning of the questionnaire so the people who answered them knew
why the survey had been conducted in the first place. This was only a
short introduction, so the people who answered them did not loose
interest or get bored. As well as this, I chose to make the questionnaire
Anonymous, there are many reasons for this, as during the research I
conducted when creating my questionnaire, I found that when people
can remain anonymous, they seem to answer the questions more
honestly; because there is no way they can be individually picked out
and penalised for the answers they each produced. After creating a first
and second draft of my questionnaire, my final questionnaire was then
ready to be distributed.
Four of the five questions I asked, were closed questions, inevitable the
answers will only be the ones that are available to choose from on the
questionnaire itself. However, I included an open question on the most
important question in the survey, because qualitative data is vital
because it’s in detail, which is exactly what I need for variation. The
question I left open was ‘if you could change anything around the
testing on animals, what would it be?’ Samples of twenty people were
asked this, and I have recorded some of the results below:
• ‘Ban it completely; animal testing is not acceptable under any
circumstances’
• ‘Make sure the animals involved suffered very little’
• ‘If there are alternatives use them, don’t allow animals to suffer
unnecessarily’
• ‘Animals have always been used and always will be used in the
future; we cannot experiment on humans’
• ‘There is a need for animals in science; I would change the use of
animals for testing on cosmetics’

If I take in to consideration all the research I have done, including

primary and secondary, it would be difficult to come to a particular
conclusion. It is very clear that not everyone shares the same opinion on
animal testing; the matter in debate is highly subjective, therefore we
cannot conclude a right or wrong answer, as there isn’t one. The only
conclusion I can come to, would simply be that many people sit on the
bench of this subjective debate. Although most people I have asked are
for animal testing, they only agree with it to an extent. It would seem
many people do not like the idea of animals being used for the purposes
of cosmetic research. Clearly, this is a topic of subjective rather than an
objective issue, which could explain the arising problems of today.

Further research
If I had more time on my hands, I could have carried out further research
into my extended project and looked into various aspects of the debate
in which I failed to highlight in my research. Looking at all my research,
it is not clear the surrounding costs of alternative methods into animal
testing; from what I have read on the internet, many people are unclear
as to whether or not the expenses of alternative methods are much
higher than testing on animals. If this is the case, then this could be the
main reason as to why a development of alternative methods appears to
be a slow procedure in itself. As well as this, I would have liked to look
further into other campaigns and increased my population sample when
I handed out my questionnaire. If I had asked more people what there
opinion was on animal testing, maybe I would have had a larger variety
of different answers, contrasting with one another, and I would have
also liked to investigate in to animals being used for the purposes of
cosmetic testing and products such as bleach (household products),
from what I have already discovered, lots of people do not like the idea
of animals being tested on for cosmetic purposes, however, I failed to
find out why because my research was focused mainly on medical
research. If given the chance I would have investigated this much
further.

Bibliography

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, 1986

Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned Reflexes: An Investigation of the

Physiological Activity of the Cerebral Cortex. Translated and Edited by
G. V. Anrep. London: Oxford University Press. Lecture three.

Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals (1995) HMSO,

London

"Thalidomide:40 years on". BBC news. BBC. . Date published 05-01-2009

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2031459.stm Date viewed 23-10-2009

'Facts and figures on animal research in Great Britain' (1995) RDS

John Bryant, _Fettered Kingdoms: ‘An Examination of A Changing Ethic’

(Washington D C, PeTA, 1982). p. 15

Animals and the Advancement of Science (1990), BAAS

http://www.armyths.org/

http://www.politics.co.uk/briefings-guides/issue-briefs/environment-and-
rural-affairs/animal-testing-$366650.htm

http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk

Appendix

Rosie’s reply to my e-mail

1. Do you think Animal testing is relevant in today’s society,
considering scientists have found alternative methods for medical
research ?
First and foremost, I don't have a great deal of knowledge about
animal testing per se. However, I don't like the idea of animals
being used to test things like cosmetic make up, washing powder,
alcohol and so on.
Further, I am not familiar with what the alternative methods are in
relation to medical research. Consequently, I feel that there is still
a necessity to use animals for testing purposes in relation to
medical research.

2. Mice and Rats are the most commonly used animal when doing
medical research; do you think this is justifiable considering the
outcomes of scientific research? (Vaccines and cures for diseases)
I understand that mice and rats are the most commonly used
animal when doing medical research because of their similarity to
human beings! I do feel that this would be justifiable in relation to
vaccines and cures for diseases.

Further, if Chemie Grunenthal (the German company who initially

 produced Thalidomide) and Distillers Company (Biochemical’s)
Limited (the company licensed to distribute Thalidomide in the
UK), had tested Thalidomide on pregnant rats, they would have
discovered the association between Thalidomide causing defects
in foetuses, and hundreds and thousands of babies would not
have been affected.
Here is a quote from page 13 of my book talking about their
failure in the testing of Thalidomide on pregnant animals:-
"Crucially, they had failed to test the drug on pregnant females
during their testing of animals, and it never seems to have
occurred to anyone to do so later, when it was being promoted as
being safe for expectant mothers. Even though German
regulations concerning new drugs were in place to ensure that
unapproved medication would not be available, the company
cheerfully ignored these. No clinical trials had been completed,
and no application had been made for approval of the drug other
than to have it classified as a sedative."

3. Animal testing is reported to have improved since the

Thalidomide tragedy in the 1960's, however, it is still reported to
this very day that prescription drugs kill 100,000 people every
year. Do you think animal testing is therefore ineffective?
The Medicines Act 1968 and the Congenital Disabilities (Civil
Liability) Act 1976, both of which were enacted as a direct result
of the Thalidomide scandal, and generally there have been many
changes throughout the world of medicine and society as a whole
also directly as a result of the Thalidomide scandal. However,
there has been no real legislative action taken to avoid the
recurrence of another Thalidomide tragedy.
As to the number of people killed every year by prescription drugs
I can only assume that that is as a result of taking the drugs
incorrectly, abuse of drugs, lack of information and knowledge
about the drugs, over prescription by doctors, overdoses by
patients etc. I cannot see the link between this and animal testing
and therefore cannot comment as to whether it is ineffective or
not.

4. What do you think the future holds for animal testing?

Whether we are for or against animal testing, I am afraid that I
still feel that there is a need for the use of animal testing,
particularly with regards to medical research.
Maybe in the future someone will find a way of testing drugs and
other things without having to use animals that would still give
the same reliability that animals do currently

I hope this has been of some help to you, and I wish you good luck
with your project
Kind Regards
Rosie.

Questionnaire and graph analysis

Introduction
I am doing some research into Animal testing for a college project, and
have constructed this questionnaire in order to help me with this
research. Please answer as many questions as you can, Thank you.
1.Do you think its ok animals are tested on in order to produce vaccines
and cures for diseases?

YES NO MAYBE

2.Do you think the way animal testing has been reinforced has improved
since medical tragedies (thalidomide disaster) in the past?

YES NO DONT KNOW

3.New technology has been developed, and human skin cells can be
produced in laboratories. Do you think there is still a need to test on
animals?

YES NO MAYBE

4.If you could change anything around testing on animals; what would it
be?

5. On average, how many live animals do you think are tested on each
year in the UK?

Hundreds thousands millions billions

New technology has been developed, and human skin cells

can be produced in laboratories. Do you think there is still a
need to test on animals?
answers from survey

maybe

no Series1

yes

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
number of people
 On average, how many live animals do you think are tested on each year in the
UK?

billions
answers given

millions
Series1
thousands

hundreds

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
number of people

Do you think the way animal testing has been reinforced has
improved since medical tragedies (thalidomide disaster) in the
past?

yes
no
don’t know

Do you think its ok animals are tested on in order to produce

vaccines and cures for diseases?

14
12
number of people

10
8
Series1
6
4
2
0
yes no maybe
a nsw ers from surve y

Letter sent to Mel

Dear Mel,
I am writing to you regarding your campaign SPEAK, as you are indeed
the manager of this group.
Let me start by introducing myself. My name is Hayley Martinelli, and I
am currently studying three A-levels at college as well as an extended
project qualification, which has led me to contact you via this letter
today.
My project is based upon animal testing; should animal testing be
banned ? whilst conducting my research, I am in need of opinions from
people who hold relevance to the debate. Indeed, your opinion would be
greatly valued, as you have done a lot of work around forming
petitionsand of course, developed a pressure group holding all your
progress. I am also aware that you were a possible suspect regarding
the oxford bombings, in which the charges against you were later
dropped, ( I am not sure to how true this information is, as I read it
online in a news article, and im aware that they can sometimes
manipulate the truth).
It would be a great interest to me to hear your opinion on the debate
itself; Why you against animal testing, do you think there will ever be a
complete ban against animal testing and whether or not animal testing
is still necessary in todays society. I understand this is a very sensitive
topic too many people, if not yourself and I hope you don’t feel I am
trying to violate your privacy, I simply feel your opinion would contribute
to my project. I have attached some questions to this letter for you to
answer if you wish to participate.
Kind regards
Hayley Martinelli

E-mail sent to Alastair Buchan

Dear Alastair, I am sorry to disturb you via e-mail, but i have no other
way of contacting you.
I will start by saying I have recently been researching you via the
internet, and I have been looking at all the work you have conducted
regarding animal testing.
I am e-mailing you because I am currently at college studying A-levels
and a extended project.. The project itself is on whether animal testing
should be banned.
I understand you have a strong opinion that animal testing is largely
beneficial for the scientific advancement of medicine, and because of
your great work, I thought it would be rewarding to my project if I could
gain your opinions on the debate itself.
If you are willing to give me your views on the subject itself, i will email
you a few questions in which you can simply answer and return back to
me, i understand your a very busy and i therefore do not wish to take up
too much of your time.

If you do not wish to give your opinion, i will respect your wishes and
make no further attempt to contact you on that matter.
Kind Regards
Hayley Martinelli

All other work can also be found on my personal blog I created to keep
my work on. www.hmanimaltestingepq.blogspot.com/