Tom Regan is an animal rights activist who argues that animals are not only sentient, but have other mental capacities as well, animals have inherent value, and that all animals with inherent value have moral rights.[vi] Regan believes that animals have the capacities for emotion, belief, desire, use of general concepts, intentional actions, and some sense of a future. He argues that these animals are not only alive in the biological sense, but also have a psychological identity. Because these creatures also have a psychological identity, they have a value independent of both the value they may place on their lives and the values others may place on them. The fact that these creatures have an inherent value prohibits us from treating them as mere receptacles. It gives them moral rights just as humans have. Regan’s theory on the inherent rights of animals is very controversial, and the subject of much debate.

Speciesism is the hurting of others because they are a member of another species; Richard Ryder believes that speciesism is just as bad as sexism and racism and feels that it is responsible for experiments done on animals. Scientists say that it is beneficial to humans to test out all these products and drugs on animals, but they leave out the part about how it would be even more beneficial to test things on humans. Ryder and other people who are strongly against the idea of speciesism feel that the real reason why humans sacrifice so many animal lives to save a few human is because we view ourselves as more superior to these animals.[vii] Just because a mammal is not human, is no reason to treat it as though it has no importance, and as though humans are far more superior to it. In some areas other animals are more superior to humans. Because humans are the most powerful species on Earth, we have the ability, not the right to use other animals for our own benefits.

As a result of the growth of the animal rights movement, the concept of alternatives has been introduced to animal experimentation. Although this is a meeting ground between science and animal welfare groups, there is still some disagreement between the two groups on this subject. Animal Welfare groups view alternatives as techniques that can lead to the total replacement of laboratory animal use. Scientists agree that non-animal experimentation could be helpful, but feel that it could never completely replace the valuable detailed information that is gained through animal experimentation. They strongly adhere to the belief that only animals can demonstrate the effect of disease, injury, treatment, or preventive measures on a complex organism. Therefore scientists view non-animal experimentation as an adjunct, rather than an alternative to animal research. They define the alternative forms of testing as a way of reducing the number of animals experimented on and reducing the pain that the animals suffer. 

The search for alternative methods to animal testing is underway in many laboratories across the world. While success has been made, the research is far from over. These alternatives have been developed using the concept of the three R’s. In 1959, William Russell and Rex Burch defined the principle of the three R’s in the book Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. The three R’s are reduction, refinement, and finally replacement. The first concept, reduction alternatives, covers any strategy that will result in fewer animals being used to obtain the same amount of information. Reduction also refers to maximizing the information obtained per animal so as to limit or avoid the use of more animals.

The second principle, refinement, represents the modification of any procedure from the time the laboratory animal is born until its death, to minimize the pain and distress experienced by the animal. Paying attention to issues of animal welfare is not only important in light of ethics, but also in the matter of good science. The experience of pain and other stress is likely to have an effect on the variability of experimental results. [viii]In fact, it is in the best interest of the researcher to ensure that conditions in animal facilities are the best possible. It does not require excessive funding to enrich the environment in which the animals live

The final concept of the three R’s is replacement. Any experimental system that does not use whole, living animals is considered to be a replacement alternative. Some of these techniques still involve the humane killing of an animal for the purpose of obtaining cells, tissues, or organs for in vitro studies. Other techniques involve no use of any biological material from a fully developed vertebrate, non-human animal. In some cases, replacement methods can be used for the total replacement of animals in a study, in others they will complement animal experiments and reduce the total number of animals used in the whole project.

Currently there are five popular alternatives to animal experimentation, each one will either reduce the number of animals required, replace the use of laboratory animals altogether, or refine an existing procedure to minimize the level of stress endured by the animal. 

Physical and chemical techniques now available to biomedical research workers are more sensitive and powerful than those techniques previously used. This has resulted in total replacement of animals in some areas. For example, laboratory animals used to be necessary for the assay of fat-soluble vitamins, but now vitamins A, D, and E can be assayed by gas-liquid chromatography and mass spectroscopy. The greater sensitivity of these modern machines also means that fewer animals need to be used in other research areas.[ix]

A second alternative approach is computer/ mathematical analysis and modeling. The number of animals required for a series of studies can be reduced by effective use of statistics and by prior analysis using a computer model. However, this alternative could backfire and actually increase the demand for animals because data can be analyzed so much faster, and in more detail, thus leading to more problems to investigate.[x]

The third alternative is microbiological systems. These systems have in a few cases completely replaced the use of animals, but are more commonly used to reduce the total number of animals required. The need for fewer animals is a result of the fact that initial screening studies for a particular experiment can be made in the microbiological system.

The fourth alternative is tissue cultures. This is the method for which most has been claimed with respect to the development of satisfactory and practical alternatives. [xi] Tissue culture systems have replaced the need for animals in virus vaccine production, and in some vaccine potency and safety tests. The employment of this alternative can also significantly decrease the number of animals required for experimentation due to the use of cell and organ culture systems as preliminary screening systems before testing chemicals on the animals.

The fifth alternative is clinical and epidemiological studies. This involves the use of human patients, volunteers, or populations in the application of a new cure. The results gained from human experimentation are obviously more accurate than those gained from animal experimentation, however, there are many strict ethical guidelines that prevent human experimentation. In spite of this 1/3 of NIH funded projects involve human experimentation instead of animal experimentation.

In conclusion, the animal rights debate covers many different attitudes held by people. Supporters of animal experimentation feel that animals do not have rights as humans do, and feel that the benefits of the experiments on animals justify any pain that the animals might have to endure. Advocates of animal rights disagree with the idea that animals have no rights. Any being that is capable of feeling and experiencing pain and suffering such as humans has the right not to suffer this pain. Until alternative methods can be proven to be just as, if not more, effective than animal experimentation, the question of the rights of animals and experimental research will continue to be debated and questioned. Advancements are being made every day, and, hopefully, one-day animals will not have to be used in experiments. 

[i]Orlans, F. Barbara. In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. pg. 23

[ii] “ “ pg. 23

[iii] “ “ pg. 22

[iv] Locke, Edwin. “Only Humans Can possess Rights.” The Rights of Animals. Roleff, Tamara L. ed San Diego: Green Haven Press, 1999. pg. 36

[v] Rowan, 93

[vi] Warren, Mary Anne. “Difficulties with the Strong Animal Rights Position. ” Animal Experimentation : The Moral Issues. Ed. Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum. Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1991.

[vii] Gray, J.A. “In Defense of Speciesism” Animal Experimentation : The Moral Issues. Ed. Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum. Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1991. pg 67

[viii] Orlans, pg. 81

[ix] Rowan, Andrew N. Of Mice, Models and Men: A critical Evaluation of Animal Research. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984 pg. 262

[x] “” pg. 263

[xi]“” pg. 263