Ethics in Public Administration

According to Hope R. Ferdowsian and Nancy Beck in ‘Ethical and Scientific Considerations Regarding Animal Testing and Research’, apprehension around burgeoning medical research in the late 1800s and the first half of the 20th century sparked concerns over the use of humans and animals in research. [CITED] After the genocide seen in WW2, people in the medical community began advocating for the expansion of non-human testing for allopathy, and soon for product testing.

Animal testing is the inhumane procedure of utilizing animals to test newly developed products of a brand before the launch to public, or experimentation of vaccines and chemical substances on animal skin to avoid harm to humans. It is arguably one of the vilest ethical dilemmas and shockingly legal in many parts of the world, though outlawed by international organizations. All around the globe, youth and adult campaigns alike continue to fight for the rights of animals that are ignored and violated on the daily by large scale brands to cut costs. Brands such as Estee Lauder, Dior, Calvin Klein, Maybelline, Revlon and even Colgate are not declared cruelty-free. Such brands hide behind the veil of their popularity and continue to cause deaths. For this to cease, one must help spread awareness and act now, instead of waiting for the cause to go viral.

PETA states that each year, more than 110 million animals—including mice, rats, frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, monkeys, fish, and birds—are killed in U.S. laboratories for biology lessons, medical training, curiosity-driven experimentation, and chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics testing. Before their deaths, some are forced to inhale toxic fumes, others are immobilized in restraint devices for hours, some have holes drilled into their skulls, and others have their skin burned off or their spinal cords crushed.

And the deterring effects of animal testing is not contained to animal species, it has started to prove pernicious to humans as well. “Animal experimentation is poorly predictive of human outcomes”, according to Aysha Akhtar, at Cambridge University. The disparities between animal and human disease models, genetics and physiology disprove many established factors required for medicine and products to be ‘evidence-based’.

How to actively combat the problem? Decades of intensive study and research have brought about numerous challenges and alternatives to the phenomenon of non-human testing. William Russell and Rex Burch published the seminal book ‘The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique’ which introduced the emphasis on reduction, refinement and replacement of animal use, principles which have since been referred to as the ‘3 Rs’.  One such method is that the use of animals must be planned and ‘refined’ carefully in such a way that pain and distress caused during the experiment should be minimized. Moreover, if possible higher animals should be ‘replaced’ with alternative methodologies and lower organisms (Ranganatha and Kuppast 2012, Zurlo et al. 1996).

To implement such strategies on a large scale, populace must rise in consensus. International and national organizations should be condemned for such practices and held accountable, because no matter how much research and cognitive data comes forward, the practice of subjection of torture under the pretense of the greater good continues with the advance of medical technology. , Governments and communities must rise together beyond borders and sovereignty, as such a practice inhumane is beyond just borders; research must be encouraged, and companies should be blacklisted.

As a species, let us help our fellow animals and put an end to their misery, not just for morality but for the betterment of Earth and its creatures.