Editorial: Animal testing, Not all black and white

Two weeks ago, voters in Switzerland rejected a proposal that would make animal testing illegal in the country. About 21% voters favoured a ban on experimenting on animals, whereas 79% opposed the ban. The referendum was part of the nation’s system of direct democracy where issues of national importance are introduced to the electorate on an annual basis. Had the results tilted in favour of banning medical experiments on animals, Switzerland would have been the first nation to introduce the measure.

Over 5.56 lakh animals were used in experiments last year in Switzerland. The animals include mice, birds and rats. While animal rights activists called the practice of animal testing inexcusable, lobbies representing the pharma sector hailed the referendum for recognising the role of research in people’s health.

The subject of animal testing has been raging for many decades now. In the 1950s, the Soviet Union selected a stray mongrel from the streets of Moscow to become the occupant of the spacecraft Sputnik 2, launched into orbit in November 1957. The female dog named Laika became one of the first animals in space, and the first animal to orbit the earth. Unfortunately, Laika had a one-way ticket to space, as the technology to de-orbit had not been developed. Laika’s sacrifice was viewed by the scientific community as a necessary measure to gauge the impact of space travel on living beings, before launching a manned flight.

Since then, billions of animals have been used for scientific experiments in medical research, in the treatment of diseases, in defence research, toxicology and cosmetic testing. In the 70s, armadillos were used to develop antibiotic treatments and vaccines for leprosy. Subsequent progress in genetic research saw the birth of Dolly, the sheep in 1996. The animal was the first mammal to be cloned from an adult cell. As per animal rights group PETA, over 100 mn animals including monkeys, dogs, birds, rats, mice and frog are killed in labs in the US as part of research every year.

The tests involve inhalation of toxic fumes, staying immobilised under restraint devices for hours together, sustaining injuries in vital parts of the body including the eyes as well as sustaining burn injuries on the skin. Following widespread protests from citizens who have been questioning the ethics of animal testing, three states in the US have prohibited animal testing for making cosmetics and personal care items, while other alternative are available.

A decade ago, India became the first nation in south Asia to ban animal testing for making beauty products. The tests banned in India in 2012 include the acute oral toxicity limit test, as well as the oral mucosal irritation test. The reasoning was that these tests could be substituted with computer simulations or via testing on animal/human cells. Around 27 nations in the EU block have also banned the sale of cosmetic products tested on animals since 2004.

A research institute at Harvard University is now working on developing alternative in-vitro organs for drug screening. The lung on a chip is a combination of micro-fabrication techniques with modern tissue engineering, and it mimics the biochemical and mechanical behaviours of the human lung. Computer simulations are also able to replicate health conditions such as asthma, even though medicines developed using such techniques would still need to be tested on animals and humans. For a world hit by a pandemic, one of the factors that aided recovery was the COVID-19 vaccine. These vaccines were developed rapidly due to extensive animal testing. And that’s why there will be no easy, black and white answers to the moral dilemma involving animal experiments.