Running head: ALTERNATIVES 1

Alternatives To Animal Testing

Brooklyn Benson

Arizona State University

ALTERNATIVES INSTEAD 2

Abstract

Animal testing for cosmetics is a controversial issue that has been around for decades.

Scientists need to stop using animals for testing and start using alternative methods. This would

be beneficial by alleviating the unjust harm, so animals do not have to suffer and be in poor

environments every day of their life. Next, by using alternative tests it would give more accurate

results. This is important due to the amount of side effects happening from makeup products

around the world. Also, if scientists stopped testing on animals and used alternative tests it would

produce less waste. Animal activists have created organizations to help protect the animals and

create more alternatives. Animal testing is not necessary to determine whether the chemicals in

cosmetic products are safe or not.

ALTERNATIVES INSTEAD 3

Women mostly in the Western and Eastern hemisphere use a variety of cosmetic products

such as mascara, foundation, and lip balm. What these women may not realize, is what numerous

amounts of innocent animals are forced to go through every day, so humans could apply their

cosmetics. Specific laws from the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FD&C) requires that

most cosmetic companies have to be ensured that their products are safe for everyone to use by

testing on animals. One of the many reasons scientists test on animals for is because not

everyone sees animals as being equal to humans. The cosmetic industry’s market value is

constantly growing every day and is currently worth billions of dollars. Due to the amount of

money that the industry is making, the cosmetic companies typically hire scientists who force

animals to undergo specific chemicals that cause them pain, suffering, and permanent harm

which usually results in death at the end of the experiment. Once the animals die, the scientists

will quickly replace them and repeat this process. Many activists believe that it is important for

animals to not be tested on, so they do not have to go through this pain and suffering daily.

People need to be educated on what animals are having to go through. Instead of testing on

animals, scientists should use alternatives because it would alleviate the unjust harm, give more

accurate results, and produce less waste.

Scientists need to use alternatives to animal testing because it would alleviate the unjust

harm. Just by using one alternative test, scientists were able to save 240,000 mice lives each year

(Phillips, 2007). A commonly known animal test is called the “draize test”. This is a horrific test

which in most cases leads the rabbit to death. It is where scientists will pin open rabbits eyes and

pour chemicals into them. They will not come back until days later to see how the rabbit has

reacted. This is an example of how humans get shampoo bottles that show that it will not be

harmful if they get the product in their eyes, because scientists have tested it. In the United States
ALTERNATIVES INSTEAD 4

about 80 million animals are being tested on, but there organizations that are striving to bring

that number down. The ZEBET, which is part of the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, is

based on replacement, reduction, and refinement. They believe in safety for humans, but they are

also trying to find more alternatives to animal testing (Liebsch, 2011). There is another big

organization in Europe called SEURAT, which stands for Safety Evaluation Ultimately

Replacing Animal Testing. This organization started in December of 2015 and is advancing its

technology every day (Daston, 2015). SEURAT has two main ideas that it is focusing on right

now to help develop research for animal testing alternatives. The first idea is to find the best

biological targets to predict the level of toxicity in the chemicals, so scientists do not have to test

on animals. They are constantly working on proving these concepts (Daston, 2015). Their second

main goal is to apply the alternatives to testing. Specifically, they want to show the rest of the

world these alternatives (Daston, 2015). Also, Abbott explains that the European Centre for the

Validation of Alternative Methods, ECVAM, has created numerous alternatives to animal testing

and they got seventeen of the tests approved. Some scientists and cosmetic companies believe

that it is necessary to test on animals. Rene Descartes, a French philosopher, believed that

animals could not think or feel (Archibald, 2004). That was when animal testing first started to

begin, in 1596 (Archibald, 2004). Specifically, in Europe, scientists have said that they need to

test on juvenile animals (Baldrick, 2013). Juvenile animals are animals that are young animals

that are not adults yet. Scientists believe that by using juvenile animals it will help them better

ensure whether chemicals are safe to use or not (Baldrick, 2013). Animal testing quickly became

a controversial subject. But like Garattini said, that is not the subject of this paper, so they will

continue to talk about the animal experimentation. Scientists do admit that improvements could
ALTERNATIVES INSTEAD 5

be made to improve the comfort level of the animals (Garattini, 2017). Now, they just need to

start implementing this.

More accurate results are given when alternatives are used. Many cosmetic products

often contain chemicals in them that were proven safe from testing on animals, but they end up

having side effects. It is highly unlikely that 100% of all cosmetic products tested on animals are

safe for humans to use with no side effects. For example, in New York there was an eye makeup

product that ended up having lead in it that caused blinding in humans (Phillips, 2007). Also, in

the 1950s, some pregnant women were giving birth to babies with birth effects due to specific

cosmetic products they were using (Abbott, 2005). In Britain, almost one hundred people were

killed because of the use of a cosmetic product that had been researched for multiple years prior

to going out on the market. Also, more recently in New York City, there was a warning that went

out because of certain makeup products (Phillips, 2007). The New York City Health Department

put out a warning to citizens in the area. The products included ingredients like kohl and lead.

Neither of these ingredients were in ingredients listed on the cosmetic product. Some may ask,

why are some of these animal tests failing? One simple reason is because humans organs are

much more complex than any animal (Garattini, 2017). Another reason is that some trials will

become inactive, due to the animal showing different results every time (Garattini, 2017).

Scientists believe that testing on animals is better, because they will at least eliminate the

chemicals that are extremely toxic. Scientists are able to transfer human genes into a small

animal, such as a rat, and then develop the mice until they are humanized (Garattini, 2017). For

example, when a scientist tests on a small animal such as a rat, he is able to see the way the rat

reacts to specific chemicals. The scientist can use the rat to compare how its reproductive cycle

will react to toxicity levels, and then use that data to see what the chemical would do to a human
ALTERNATIVES INSTEAD 6

(Chapin, 2013). However, this technique is not always accurate. Numerous amounts of people

are being killed from products that were considered safe from being tested on animals (Tatchell,

2004). If alternatives would be used instead of animal testing, the results would be more accurate

and numerous amounts of people would not get hurt.

Along with alleviating the unjust harm and giving more accurate results, using

alternatives to animal testing helps produce less waste. Animal testing is extremely wasteful.

Shapiro states that some animal tests are unnecessary because the chemical being tested was

already well understood and could be evaluated with computer, cell, and biochemical tests. So,

not only are some scientists and cosmetic companies hurting innocent animals, but they are

testing on them when it is unnecessary. Scientists argue that they need to test on animals anyway,

because humans would not be able to be tested at the toxicity of the chemicals they are using

(Chapin, 2013). Scientists believe in a trial and error method, where they continue to test on

animals until they find a solution (Garattini, 2017). Garattini explains that what they mean by

trial and error method is that there is no specific formula that they follow. They isolate the

animals’ organs, organisms, and cells to see how they have been affected (Garattini, 2017).

Imagine if you or your innocent pet were being tested on every day. Imagine your dog, who is

your best friend, being burnt alive, his eyes being pried open, and his arms falling off. They have

to see their friends die right in front of them, while being locked up in a cage when they are not

being tortured. How would you feel? In 1959, every single dog and rat that was tested on through

the Merk, Sharp, & Dohme died from testing (Tatchell, 2004). Tatchell continues to state that an

alternative test would have provided the scientists with the same information they got from

testing and killing the animals. Some of these scientists simply do not care about the animals

lives. It is completely unnecessary and wasteful to test on animals.

ALTERNATIVES INSTEAD 7

There are multiple specific alternatives that should be used instead of animal testing.

They test on any type of animal from rats, dogs, cats, rabbits, frogs, monkeys and more. Due to

what is happening, there are organizations all throughout the world that are rapidly trying to

create alternative tests to protect the lives of animals. With advanced technology, an in vitro test

has been created as an alternative to animal testing. It can develop and display any type of cell

from humans to animals (Garattini, 2017). Through this test scientists are able to see how

chemicals are reacting with any species functions (Garattini, 2017). There is an organization

called the European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA) that

contains animal activists that are trying to find alternatives to animal testing (Cozigou, 2015).

They are one of the biggest organizations is Europe that are working towards creating

alternatives. They are specifically researching the stem cell project. This is a test where scientists

can take human tissue and change the programming to make the cell go back to its embryonic

stage (Cozigou, 2015). This way the cells can recreate any type of model and then scientists can

use this to test as an alternative (Cozigou, 2015). In Italy, a group called the Scientific Advisory

Committee of European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) announced

that they have five new alternative methods to animal testing. One of the tests they are using is

where they are able to mimic human skin. They can create different circumstances, such as if the

human would have oily or dry skin (Phillips, 2007). There are two other tests that the ECVAM

found that will also take away the need for the rabbit eye test (Phillips, 2007). More specifically,

Phillips talks about how scientists are able to understand and determine if the product would

cause irritation in the eyes. Phillips mentions that another one of their tests can save up to

240,000 mice. There are numerous amounts of alternatives that are still being evaluated and
ALTERNATIVES INSTEAD 8

created to this day. If any of these alternatives were implemented, they could save thousands of

innocent animals lives.

Animal activists are speaking out, because they feel that they are not being heard. They

would like to be consulted before any animal test is done (Wickenson, 2010). Wickenson

compares the right of animal activists to university communities, researchers, and administrators.

He does this by saying that those groups of people are able to have a discussion about anything

before it happens, but it is not the same way for animal rights activists. Wickenson continues on

that even if the animal rights activists and scientists did not come to an agreement with each

other, he mainly wants both sides to listen to each other. This way both the scientists and the

animal rights activists will learn the reasonings from each side. Scientists attack animal rights

activists, because they accuse them of budging into conversations that they were not invited to be

in (Wickenson, 2010). If they were consulted, then there would be a greater chance that both

activists and scientists could come together and form a compromise. The activists could make

sure that the animals get better living conditions and the animals are only in tests that do not

harm them. David Blunkett is proposing laws that take away more rights from animal rights

activists (Tatchell, 2004). Tatchell explains how he is more worried about the activists than the

actual problem.

There are two main attitudes towards animal testing. The first is animal welfare and the

second is the conditions that animals are under (Swami, 2008). The activists strongly support

animals being held in safe and reasonable conditions. Americans tend to be more on the

scientists side of testing on animals (Swami, 2008). Usually, vegetarians tend to be extremely

against animal testing as well (Swami, 2008). Also, Americans are usually less enthusiastic about

animal welfare (Swami, 2008). Animal welfare is also known as animal care and the way the
ALTERNATIVES INSTEAD 9

animals are being treated. Not surprisingly, women showed that they were more against animal

testing than men (Swami, 2008). Swami explains that activists are worrying, because the number

of animals being tested on every year are rising. There was a study done to British

undergraduates about their thoughts on animal testing. The majority of students were against

animal testing and against any laboratories that promoted animal testing (Swami, 2008). But,

studies have shown that some attitudes differ from this. For example, some students with

different majors were more against animal welfare, instead of for it (Swami, 2008). Studies have

also shown that depending on your personality, your viewpoint may be different. For example,

people who have more masculine and conservative personality traits tend to be more positive

about animal testing (Swami, 2008). Swami continues that while people with more sympathetic,

tender-minded, and imaginative were more against animal testing. Believe it or not, there are a

few scientists who do not believe in what they are doing. They would much rather work quietly

and not say anything than get fired (Aziz, 2011).

Meanwhile, there are some scientists that do not say what they do because they are afraid

of the backlash and they do not want to be attacked. Although some scientists are afraid, there

are also scientists that will stand up to a crowd and defend what they do. Colin Blakemore is a

professor at the University of Oxford and he is not afraid to go out into public and tell everyone

what he does for work (Aziz, 2011). This did not end well. He had bombs sent to his children

and was attacked multiple times (Aziz, 2011). So, scientists have stayed quiet about what they

are doing. Some researchers believe that because of this, animal activists have assumed that the

animal tests are useless and unhuman (Aziz, 2011). But then, scientists will lie in debates. For

example, scientists told the animal activists that no animals were tested on when they were first

discovering insulin (Aziz, 2011). Aziz continues to say that this was a lie. The scientists actually
ALTERNATIVES INSTEAD 10

experimented on dogs and prepared the chemicals on mice. Based on peoples sex, age, religion,

political stance, and personality all contribute to whether they believe in animal testing or not.

There are many methods and factors that can go into whether a person is more likely to become

an animal activist or not.

Overall, most scientists and animal rights activists have extremely different opinions

when it comes to animal testing. Based on gender, age, and personality there will be different

strong opinions. Animal testing will always be a controversial subject on whether scientists

should be allowed to test on the animals or not. The easiest way to avoid this is for scientists to

just use alternative tests. By using alternatives, scientists can save thousands of animals lives.

There would be fewer innocent animals living their lives in cages just waiting their turn to be

tortured for the use of cosmetic products. Also, they would produce more accurate results that

would also save human life. There would be less mistakes happening from the side effects of the

products humans use. On top of everything else, they would produce less waste. There are so

many alternative options that are available for scientists to use. If scientists used alternatives to

animal testing it would alleviate unjust harm, give more accurate results, and produce less waste.
ALTERNATIVES INSTEAD 11

Works Cited 

Abbott, A. (2009) The Lowdown on Animal Testing for Cosmetics. Nature News. Doi: 

10.1038/news.2009.147 

Abbott, A. (2005) Animal Testing: More Than A Cosmetic Change. Nature, 438, 144-146. 

Nature.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu 

Archibald, K. (2004) Animal Testing Call for Open, Scientific Debate. The Lancet, 364, 1486. 

www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu 

Aziz, T. (2011) Animal Testing: TV or not TV? Nature, 470, 457-459.  

Nature.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu 

Baldrick, P. (2013) The Evolution of Juvenile Animal Testing for Small and Large Molecules.  

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 67 (2), 125-135. Doi:

10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.07.009  

Basketter, A. (2013) Skin Sensation- Moving forward with non-animal testing strategies for

Regulatory purposes in the EU. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 67 (3), 531-

535.

www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/science/article/pii/S0273230013001785

Chapin, G. (2013) Assuring Safety Without Animal Testing: The Case for Human Testis in 

vitro. Reproductive Technology. 39, 63-

68. www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu 

Cozigou, G. (2015) The European Partnership for Alternative Methods in Europe and Beyond. 

Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science. 54, 209-213.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu 

Daston, G. (2015) SEURAT: Safety Evaluation Ultimately Replacing Animal Testing

Recommendations for future research in the field of predictive toxicology. Archives of

Toxicology, 89 (1), 15-23.

ALTERNATIVES INSTEAD 12

http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=3179f95

2-52cf-448e-92b5-97f2f779b89d%40pdc-v-

sessmgr06&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=100239714&db=eih

Dolgin, E. (2010) Animal Testing Alternatives Come Alive in US. Nature Medicine. Doi: 

10.1038/nm120-1348 

Garattini, S. (2017) Animal Testing is Still the Best Way to Find New Treatments for Patients. 

European Journal of Internal Medicine. 39, 32-35. Doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2016.11.013

 
Liebsch, M. (2011) Alternatives to Animal Testing: A Current Status and Future  Perspectives.  

Archives of Toxicology, 85, 841-858.

 https://link-springer-com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/article/10.1007/s00204-011-0718-x 

Phillips, K. (2007) New Methods to Eliminate Animal Testing. Chemical Week. 169 (17), 

 25.  

https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/docview/222528167 

?accountid=4485&rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo 

Swami, V. (2008) Free the Animals? Investigating Attitudes Toward Animal Testing in Britain 
 
And the United States. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. 49(3), 269-276. Doi: 

10.1111/j.1467-9450.2008.00636.x 

Tatchell, P. (2004) Why Animal Research is Bad Science: The Government is Wrong to

Support Vivisection—and not only because of the Suffering Caused to Non-Human

Creatures.  Most Human Diseases are Unique to Us, and Testing on other Species is

Downright Misleading. New Statesman, 133, 18-19.

http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA121150282&v=2.1

&u=asuniv&it=r&p=LitRC&sw=w 

Wickenson, F. (2010) Activists Should be Consulted in Animal Testing Decisions. Nature 

International Journal of Science. 463 (7279),

ALTERNATIVES INSTEAD 13

293. http://www.nature.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/articles/463293b