Cavite State University: Don Severino de Las Alas Campus [PDF]

Zitiervorschau

Republic of the Philippines

CAVITE STATE UNIVERSITY (CvSU) DON SEVERINO DE LAS ALAS CAMPUS Indang, Cavite, Philippines

ANIMAL TESTING FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES: AN ANALYSIS TO THE PRINCIPLES OF ETHICAL CONDUCT INVOLVED IN ANIMAL TESTING A Term Paper Research Submitted to the Faculty of College of Arts and Science Cavite State University Indang, Cavite In Partial Fulfillment of The Subject GNED 02 Ethics Submitted By: Diokno, Deserie M. Federoso, Princess Dei P. Gabao, Mary Joy E. Gabao, Sheena C. Guardo, Geraldine M. Humarang, John David A. Javate, Janine C. Laguardia, Haydie Diah G. Langit, John Michael M.

Submitted to: Ms. Giselle Mae M. Gracia

June 2021

CHAPTER 1 This chapter contains the Introduction, Statement of the Problem, History of the Problem, and Extend of the Problem Introduction Animal testing is a way that many scientist is been doing on different kinds of animals for research purposes into the assessment of the effectivity of new products in the medicine field, for basic biology and diseases, and for environmental safety for industry and consumer products in cosmetics, household cleaners, pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals. Different species around the world is been used as est subjects for different testing of their experiments. Mice, fish, rats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, farm animals, cats, dogs, birds, mini-pigs and some non-human primates, like monkey and chimpanzees, are most of the common animals been used for testing (Humane Society International/Global, 2012). According also to the Humane Society International/Global (2012), exposure to drugs, chemicals or infectious disease, genetic manipulation, forced chemical exposure for toxicity testing and also ear-notching and tail tipping for identification, are some of the procedures for common animals. These procedures that has been applied to the said test subjects has a potential to cause physical and psychological pain, suffering, illness, and it can also lead to death. Based on the statistics gathered by the People For Ethical Treatment of Animals (2021), an estimation of more than 110 million animals are killed in U.S. Laboratories every year. This includes mice, frogs, dogs, rabbits, monkeys, fish and birds. There are no exact numbers on how many animals are being used, because mice, rats, birds and any other cold blooded animals, who make up mostly 99 percent of animals used in experiments, are not covered under the minimal protections of the Animal Welfare Act in the U.S and therefore they go uncounted. The experimenters forced the animals through the inhalation of toxic fumes and chemicals, immobilized them in restraint devices, drill holes in their skulls and burn their skins and eyes, but if the animals do not die in the said process, they have t kill it afterwards. Also, these animals are been held in barren cages, resulting them to experienced socially isolated and psychologically traumatized.

As said by Carlson (1986), animals are powerless, they cannot speak for themselves. But many people are taking this advantage to manipulate, possess and exploit the less powerful or the animals. This is not really a good kind of ethics. There is a great public concern about using animals for any experiments which is the experimenters, politicians, regulations authorities are much of a responsible to these things. Furthermore, this great number of experiments using animals do not benefit most of the mankind, there are only other groups of people who for any kind of reason are interested to this are being pursued. According to Olsson, Robinson, Pritchett and Sadoe (2002), there is no benefit that can cover up to the disrespect that have done to the rights of an individual, whether a human or an animal, if an experiment violates any kind of animal rights, there is no expected benefit for it to follow. To find out if an experiment is morally justified or not, it should reflect the respect to the animals itself and preserve their dignity. It does not matter if the experiment that is taken place causes minor harm to the animals or this experiment may have extraordinary importance to the whole humanity. Experimenting in animals are simply unacceptable because they have caused the animals like putting their life into an end. The researchers have noticed the increasing reports worldwide that many experimenters are using animals as test subject for their research purposes. This study, titled “Animal Testing for Research Purposes: An Analysis to the Principles of Ethical Conduct Involved in Animal Testing”, aims to provide systematic and logical insights that will greatly aid in understanding how research experiments affect the animals as well as their rights. This study also seeks an alternatives to animal testing and how they can help to change previous outcomes regarding the massive harassment and death of animals, particularly for those who has less protection. Statement of the Problem This study seeks to explore the analyzation of the principles of ethical conduct involved in animal testing. More specifically, this study aims to answer the questions: 1. What are the ethical conduct of the animals for animal testing? 2. How does the ethical conduct among animals affect the animal testing? 3. What are the alternatives that can be used in animal testing?

History of the Problem In as early as Circa 500 BC descriptions of the dissection of live animals have been found in ancient Greek Writings. Vivisection is the dissection of a living organism and it was practiced on human criminals in ancient Roe and Alexandria. But due to prohibitions against mutilation of the human body, Greece used animals as an alternative

for

clinical

trials.

Physician-scientists

such

as Aristotle, Herophilus,

and Erasistratus performed the experiments to discover the functions of living organisms. Aristotle sticks to his beliefs that animals does not have intelligence and so the notions of justice and injustice did not apply to them, while Theophrastus believes that animals also deserves to live like humans, and he also believes that animals can feel pain, and causing to animals was an affront to the gods. The theories of Roman Physician and philosopher Galen (130-200 AD), about medicine were influential throughout Europe for over fifteen centuries. It is the about the public dissection of animals which was a known form of entertainment at the time. Galen involved himself in animal vivisection in order to develop theories on human Anatomy, Physiology, Pathology and Pharmacology. That is when he thought that animal physiology was quite similar to human beings. Despite of his realization, Galen told his students to vivisect animals without any pity or compassion. French

philosopher René

Descartes (1596-1650),

who

occasionally

experimented on live animals, including at least one rabbit, as well as eels and fish, believed that animals were “automata” who could not experience pain or suffer the way that humans do. Descartes recognized that animals could feel, but because they could not think, he argued, they were unable to consciously experience those feelings. The French Physiologist Claude Bernard wrote a book entitled Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine (1865). He argued that experimenting on animals was ethical because of the benefits to medicine and the extension of human life. He is also one of the proponents of animal testing to respond to the growing anti-testing movement.

Queen Victoria was an early opponent of animal testing in England, according to a letter written by her private secretary in 1875: “The Queen has been dreadfully shocked at the details of some of these [animal research] practices, and is most anxious to put a stop to them.” Soon the anti-vivisection campaign became strong enough to pressure lawmakers into establishing the first laws controlling the use of animals for research: Great Britain’s Cruelty to Animals Act of 1876.  In 1959, Zoologist William Russell and microbiologist Rex Burch published a book in England entitled The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. The book talks about the principles of the “Three Rs” using animals in research humanely: Replacement (replacing the use of animals with alternative research methods), Reduction (minimizing the use of animals whenever possible), and Refinement (reducing suffering and improving animals’ living conditions. The National Research council of the National Academy of Sciences in 2007 called for the reduction in using animal as subject for testing. Instead, they recommend the increased use of in vitro methods using human cells. In March 2013 there are several countries that banned the import and sale of cosmetic products that use ingredients tested on animals like European Union, India and Israel. While the United States stays the same. China is the only major market where testing all cosmetics on animals is required by law, and foreign companies distributing their products to China must also have them tested on animals. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a plan on Sep. 10, 2019 to reduce studies using mammal testing by 30% by 2025 and to eliminate the mammal testing altogether by 2035.  In Nov. 2019, the FDA enacted a policy allowing some lab animals used for animal testing to be sent to shelters and sanctuaries for adoption. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) adopted a similar policy in Aug. 2019 and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) did so in 2018. Extent of the Problem A century of suffering and dying of animals for the sake of different testing and experimenting. Experimenters have tortured animals in laboratories throughout

history. In these trials, animals are made to eat or inhale things, or have them rubbed onto their skin or injected into their bodies. Then, the animals were evaluated under different monitoring and testing before being killed, almost always to allow researchers to examine the effects on their tissues and organs. As what People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (2014) discovered, there are approximately 200 stories of twisted experiments featured. Including dogs that were forced to inhale cigarette smoke for months, mice were sliced up while still alive, and cats were deafened, paralyzed, and drowned, among other experiments. The pain and suffering after the experimentation are subject to is not worth any possible benefits to humans. The American Veterinary Medial Association defines "animal pain as an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience perceived as arising from a specific region of the body and associated with actual or potential tissue damage". When animals are used for product toxicity testing or laboratory research, they are subjected to painful and frequently deadly experiments. Two of the most commonly used toxicity tests are the Draize test and the LD50 test. John H. Draize created the Draize Test, which is used on the skin and eyes of animals, such as rabbits, to test the effects of a product. Another example is the LD-50 (Lethal Dose-50) test, which was created in the mid 1900s. LD-50 is used to determine the maximum dosage of a substance that would kill half the animals in a testing group. It was used in experiments with household products, pesticides, and drugs. In addition, Animal testing can also harm not only for the animals but also for people and the environment. Every year, millions of animals used in testing are discarded. According to Waste Collection reports from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) division of Intramural Research Laboratories, in just 18 months from the year 2011 to 2013, animal testing produced over 1.5 million pounds of animal breeding, excrement, and excess food waste. The animal waste is contaminated with toxic or hazardous chemicals, viruses, and infectious diseases and it can also affect to the animal and people as well. According to the Humane Society Fact Sheet on cosmetic testing, during experimentation, “chemicals are rubbed on shaved skin or dripped into the eyes without any pain relief.” Other tests, such as ones for potential carcinogens, involve harming pregnant animals and their fetuses, while others use the same animal repeatedly for an extended period of time.

According to Lloyd (2018),

"The first observations of significance to modern

science were made in the 1600s, when William Harvey used animals to observe and describe the blood circulatory system”. According to the Humane Society, registration of a single pesticide requires more than 50 experiments and the use of as many as 12,000 animals. This excessive abuse of animals clearly shows how negatively testing affects them. Some of the drugs that first tested to the animals are Vioxx, New monoclonal antibody treatment, Drug for the Anxiety and Parkinson’s disease and Hepatitis B drug fialuridine. First, Vioxx is a drug used to treat arthritis, was found to be safe when tested in monkeys and five other animal species but has been estimated to have caused around 320,000 heart attacks and strokes and 140,000 deaths worldwide. Next, Human volunteers testing a new monoclonal antibody treatment (TGN1412) at Northwick Park Hospital, UK in 2006 suffered a severe allergic reaction and nearly died. Testing on monkeys at 500 times the dose given to the volunteers totally failed to predict the dangerous side effects.

Then, A drug trial in France resulted in the death of one

volunteer and left four others severely brain damaged in 2016. The drug, which was intended to treat a wide range of conditions including anxiety and Parkinson’s disease, was tested in four different species of animals (mice, rats, dogs and monkeys) before being given to humans. And lastly, A clinical trial of Hepatitis B drug fialuridine had to be stopped because it caused severe liver damage in seven patients, five of whom died. It had been tested on animals first. According to People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (2021), “PETA is at the forefront of the fight to end animal cruelty. Our devoted team of scientists and other staff members work full-time to expose the brutality of animal testing and bring it to an end as soon as possible.” By this it will eliminate the use of animals in laboratories, leads hardhitting eyewitness exposes and public campaigns that have shifted public opinion against animal testing, and persuades major corporations, government agencies, and universities to abandon animal testing in favor of modern, non-animal methods. Animals’ rights are violated when they are used in research. Based on Regan (2013), “Animals have a basic moral right to respectful treatment. This inherent value is not respected when animals are reduced to being mere tools in a scientific experiment.” Animals should be respected in the same way that people are. However, when animals

are used in research, their rights are violated because they are not given a choice. Animals are exposed to experiments that are frequently painful, cause permanent harm, or result in death, and they are never given a choice of dropping out of the experiment. Therefore, animal experimentation should be stopped because it violates the rights of animals. This study focuses on analyzing the ethical conducts to the strict implementation of alternative testing on animals. The researchers aims the readers and future researchers that knowing the animal rights and also its ethical conduct is not enough, but as much as possible to know and understand that there are ways to lessen the usage of of animals as test subjects in various researches. Due to the current events that the researchers are experiencing these days and they are undergoing community quarantines, the timing of the study causes the researchers not to widen and execute more the study. Also, they had limited access on different literature which they can find at libraries. Since, the researchers only have limited time and limited resources because of the said event, data collection process is all done using the internet, they cannot do interviews from different people, their main resources only are websites, articles, journals, and other research paper from the internet.

CHAPTER II Methodology This chapter shall discuss the research methods that were used for this study. The researchers explain how the necessary data and information to address the research objectives and questions were collected, presented, and analyzed. This will present the data-gathering technique and research design that takes place to provide comprehensive finding interrelation to the study entitled “Animal Testing for Research Purposes: An Analysis to the Principles of Ethical Conduct Involved in Animal Testing”. For this study, qualitative research was utilized. According to Bhandari, P. (2020), qualitative research involves collecting and analyzing non-numerical data to understand concepts, opinions, or experiences. This technique had an enormous benefit for the researchers to determine and analyze the problems encountered in the study interrelation to the topic. For the collection of data, the imperative information gathered by the researchers that are related to the topic from the analysis of the following resources obtained on the internet namely: 

Electronic articles such as news articles and journals



Related dissertation, thesis, and research study

Furthermore, the data collected was in the form of textual information that can be analyzed using qualitative research methodology. The researchers accumulated the said data through the help of the internet and secondary data. This chapter also includes the instruments utilized and how the data was analyzed and collected thoroughly. Moreover, the researchers obtained information from local and foreign websites to provide necessary solutions for this study. This section outlines the following general procedures considered in the data collection process. 

Initially, the researchers obtain significant information needed in the study coming from various credible and reliable sources.



Subsequently, the analysis of collected data is elucidated in an appropriate manner depending upon how it is needed in the study.



Lastly, the citations and references are specified. Finally, to deeply understand the study, the research gathered insurmountable

information to give a previous solution, possible future solution, and impact of this study .Consequently, it will be further discussed in the following chapters.

CHAPTER III RESULT AND DISCUSSION This chapter contains the Previous Solution, Possible Future Solution, and Impact Previous Solution Throughout the history of biomedical research, animals have been used countless times. The publication of The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique in 1959 was one of the most influential attempts to examine and influence the use of animals in research. William Russell and Rex Burch wrote this seminal book in response to significant growth in medical and veterinary research and an increase in the number of animals used. According to Ferdowsian (2011), the principles emphasized in Russell and Burch's text were reduction, refinement, and replacement of animal use, which have since been referred to as the "3 Rs." These principles encouraged researchers to use as few animals as possible in experiments, to refine or restrict the amount of pain and distress to which animals are subjected, and to replace animal use with non-animal alternatives whenever possible. According to the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), countless numbers of animals suffer and perish as a result of testing, training, and other experiments such as using them in harsh chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics tests, as well as medical training exercises and curiosity-driven medical experiments at universities in the United States. Animal tests include forcing mice and rats to inhale toxic fumes, force-feeding pesticides to dogs, and dripping corrosive chemicals into the sensitive eyes of rabbits. It may still be commercially produced even if a product is harmful to animals. On the contrary, just because a product has indeed been shown to be safe in animals does not necessarily mean it will be safe to use in humans. Statistical data are unavailable because mice, rats, birds, and cold-blooded animals, which account for more than 99 percent of animals used in experiments, are not protected by even the most basic provisions of the Animal Welfare Act and thus go uncounted.

The maltreatment of animals in various practices, use in clothes, consumption, or even recreation is why the People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals was established in 1980 as a non-profit international humanitarian organization associated globally located in Norfolk, Virginia. According to PETA (n.d.), the organization is dedicated to protecting the rights of all animals and advocates humane animal handling in order to educate the public and legislators about the animal. Furthermore, Henry Beston, an American writer, and naturalist referred to the "other nation." in addition to appreciating their worth. Naturally, this entails allowing animals to live freely, which is why PETA is attempting to establish an international society. PETA focuses on four industries: entertainment, agriculture, clothing, and laboratories. Big organizations are working to put an end to animal testing. First, the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (ECEAE) promotes the abolition of animal testing in the European Union and exerts influence on other countries. For nearly 25 years, they have served as a voice for the helpless animals. During that time, they abolished animal testing for cosmetics in the EU and established globally recognized cruelty-free standards for cosmetics and other purposes. Second, PETA conducts animal regulatory testing. It highlights their accomplishments, such as donating a million dollars to develop a non-animal testing method. They have proposed various solutions for the United States to shift away from the use of animals in product testing for toxicity. In addition to these institutions, John Hopkins University hosts the Physician Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) and the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) (Sindicich, 2014). According to Doke and Dhawale (2013), various alternative methods were proposed to stop animal testing to overcome some obstacles connected with animal experiments and prevent unethical procedures. One of the alternative methods is Computer models in which there is no need to dismember animals as the computer develops simulations to predict various biological outcomes and toxic effects of chemical or possible drug candidates. Another vital alternative method used in animal testing is associated with the growing cells outside the body in a laboratory setting from the use of in vitro cells and tissue culture to check the toxicity, irritancy, and efficacy of cosmetics, chemicals, and drugs. Companies are already using Cells and tissue cultures alternative

like AlveoliX, MIMETAS, and Emulate, Inc., to replace the animals in the research of other scientists. Methods that replace techniques that use live animals or testing substances without live animal use are known as alternatives, replacements, or non-animal methods. Some prefer the term advanced technologies given the fact that they often rely on more sophisticated technology and are more human-relevant than the animal test they replace (Langley et al., 2015). There have been efforts to replace animal tests since the 1960s. Significant progress initially came in replacing animals used to diagnose human disease, to produce biological drugs (such as vaccines), and to safety test batches of these drugs as they were produced. Furthermore, animal testing for research purposes is neither ethical nor scientifically justifiable. The future beholds on medical researches does not rely on animals for testing certain diseases possess on humans; instead, various alternative testing methods have been used to end the suffering of animals. According to Callanan (2009), there has been much successful research and many tests done to help find treatments for diseases and sicknesses that have plagued humans and did not involve animal testing. The NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 directed the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to support research to replace animal use in biomedical research and to develop and validate alternatives to animal use for acute and chronic safety testing. Many scientists have started developing alternate ways to test and find treatment for people. These alternatives to animal testing include sophisticated tests using miniature organs and advanced computer-modeling techniques (often referred to as silico models). These and other non-animal methods are not hindered by species differences that make applying animal test results to humans difficult or impossible, and they usually take less time to complete. Possible Future Solution A significant proportion of advances in medicine and veterinary medicine involve some animal research. It is nearly impossible to provide medical care while also avoiding the use of any products that have been developed using animals. But much of the safety testing that involves animals is for non-medical products. These options have something to do with the company and the manufacturer. Moreover, there are progress bills in

animal testing in Australia: the End Cruel Cosmetics Bill 2014 and Ethical Cosmetics Bill 2016. These two bills seek to prohibit the sale and importation from other countries that have something to do with animal testing. Australia believes that effective political lobbying by the community will see new laws implemented soon (RSPCA, 2019). Clinical studies take years to complete, and testing a single compound can cost more than $2 billion. Meanwhile, innumerable animal lives are lost, and the process often fails to predict human responses because traditional animal models often do not accurately

mimic

human

pathophysiology

(Human

Organs-on-Chips,

2021).

Consequently, alternative ways to model human disease have been used to accelerate the advancement and development of new drugs. Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement are the three Rs that scientists are encouraged to follow to reduce the impact of research on animals. Everyone commonly knows this as the basis of reducing the usage of animals in research, but it is constantly being forfeited. The reduction reduces the number of animals used in experiments by improving the experimental techniques and data analysis and sharing information with other researchers to avoid multiple testing times. Refinement is how animals are cared for to reduce their suffering by using less invasive techniques, having better medical care and living conditions. Lastly, replacement is the alternatives that would help research by experimenting on cell cultures instead of whole animals, using computer models, studying human volunteers, and using epidemiological studies that would aid animals who suffered a lot. In recent years, scientists have started growing cultured human cells on scaffolds embedded on plastic chips, forming tiny structures that mimic the functioning of our heart, liver, kidneys, and lungs known as organs-on-a-chip. These miniature organs could provide a novel way to test the effects of new compounds or drugs on human cells. The chips can be used instead of animals in disease research, drug testing, and toxicity testing and have been shown to replicate human physiology, diseases, and drug responses more accurately than crude animal experiments do. Testing on these simplified, miniaturized versions of our physiology could deliver more human-relevant results than animal experiments. Crucially, the tests could also replace the use of whole animals in the exploratory stages of early research, when scientists don't necessarily

need to test on whole systems. Some companies, such as AlveoliX, MIMETAS, and Emulate, Inc., have already turned these chips into products that other researchers can use in place of animals (Alternatives to Animal Testing, 2021). Moreover, researchers have developed a wide range of sophisticated computer models that simulate human biology and developing diseases. According to Sawyer (2020), researchers from the University of Oxford (UK) have developed computer simulations that are able to outperform animal models in drug trials to predict the clinical risk of drug-induced arrhythmias. The group was able to test a new cardiac drug in a virtual human for adverse side effects with an accuracy of 89–96%. The results, published in Frontiers in Physiology, demonstrate the advantages of using computer simulations over animal models in early drug trials and the improvements these approaches can make to drug safety. Studies show that these models can accurately predict how new drugs will react in the human body and replace the use of animals in exploratory research and many standard drug tests. Impacts Alternatives in reducing animal testing would be more beneficial to animals in accordance with their rights. Animal rights extremists often portray those experiments on animals as cruel to have forfeited any own moral standing. Based on the Ethics and Behavior of John Gluck, the lack of ethical examination is common a generally involves denial or avoidance of animal suffering, resulting in the dehumanization of researchers and the ethical degradation of their research subject. He added that the use of animals in research should evolve out a strong sense of ethical examination which involves a careful self-analysis of one personal scientific motives. In addition, it requires a recognition of animal suffering and a satisfactory working through of that suffering in terms of one’s ethical values. Alternative testing saves animals' lives. Various incidents have been reported that research and experiments on animals have resulted in over a hundred million animal deaths. The "Lethal Dose 50" experiment was one of those that resulted in animal death (LD50). The LD50 method of testing involves giving toxic substances to animals until half of them die and the other half are killed later. As a result of this occurrence, a Swedish researcher named Dr. Bjӧrn Ekwall created a replacement for

LD50. This replacement test, which makes use of donated human tissues, saves the lives of animals. It is also more accurate – the test can accurately measure toxicity up to 85 percent of the time, compared to only 60 to 65 percent with LD50. Furthermore, unlike animal testing, the test can target effects on specific human organs and reveal certain toxicity features (InVitro International, 2018). Alternatives to animal testing are less harmful to the environment. This is particularly valid in toxicity testing, where researchers breed, test, and then discard millions of test animals labeled as hazardous or pathogenic waste. Animal testing alternatives are less detrimental to the environment and lower production costs. Alternatives save animals by developing safer and more practical testing methods, reducing or eliminating the need to test products on animals. Furthermore, using alternatives to animal testing does not endanger humans and does not halt medical progress. On the other hand, using these alternatives improves the overall quality of society (InVitro International, 2018). An experiment would cause more harm than not performing it; then, it may be ethically wrong to do so. Failure to perform the test may endanger the person who will benefit from it. However, as the experiment's harm continues, it will affect an experimental animal's moral worth, the number of animals suffering in the experiment, and the negative value of the harm done to each animal. It is challenging to distinguish potential harm that can be put in two conceptually different things. First, if the experiment is carried out, the animals will undoubtedly suffer. Second, the harm done to humans by not experimenting is unknown because no one knows how likely the experiment is to succeed or what benefits it might produce if it does succeed. Furthermore, acts and omissions could lead to the idea that "it is morally worse for the experimenter to harm the animals by experimenting on them than it is to potentially harm some human being by not doing an experiment that might find a cure for their diseases." Non-animal research, testing, and teaching methods are now widely accepted and increasingly used. Instead of using dogs and rabbits, medical students can learn physiology and pharmacology through interactive computer models and selfexperimentation; cell-culture tests are replacing experiments on mice and guinea pigs; brain studies are conducted safely in volunteers rather than invasive research on

monkeys. Nonanimal techniques allow us to save lives tomorrow without taking lives today. Whatever benefits animal experimentation is thought to provide, the same benefits can be obtained by testing on humans rather than animals. Given the difficulties that scientists face when extending from animal models to humans, one might believe that there are compelling scientific reasons to use human subjects. In other words, if the human subjects were normal and capable of giving free and informed consent to the experiment, this might not be morally objectionable (BBC - Ethics - Animal ethics: Experimenting on animals, 2021).

CHAPTER IV This chapter contains the summary of findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Summary This research shows and analyzes the ethical conduct principles involved in animal testing for research purposes. It also discussed the animal testing cruelty occurring in every animal test research and the effects of it to the subjected animals. Moreover, it mainly focuses on spreading knowledge onto importance of the rights and life of every kind of animals. Chapter 1 provided a brief overview on the research topic and stated the research problem which will be the focus of the study. Animal testing history was discussed in the history of the problem and the extent of problem limits the study to data gathering obtained from various online sources. Next, Chapter 2 shows the methodology used in the study. Since there are no respondents, the researchers obtained related information as research data for data analysis through qualitative research approach using textual analysis. Next, Chapter 3 which consists of previous solution, possible future solution, and the impact of the study. The previous solutions include proposals on reducing ang abolishing animal testing through various proposed alternatives by different animal organizations such as PETA and ECEAE. Possible future solution which suggests safe animal testing by the proposed bills, use of set principles made by scientists to reduce research impact on animals, and use of technology-assisted growing cultures cells on plastic chips which is beneficial to disease research. Lastly, the impacts of animal testing which the potential harm outnumbered the benefits. The lack of ethical examination generally involves the avoidance of animal suffering which results in dehumanization of research and the ethical degradation of their research subjects (animals). Hence, having various alternatives on animal testing bestow less impacts on animals and are beneficial as it saves animals’ lives, and it is less harmful to the environment.

This research reveals various truths about animal testing for research purposes. It also gives importance to the animals’ rights and emphasizes the use of ethical conduct principles in doing animal testing for the purpose of research. Moreover, the study helps to consider various alternatives in animal testing. CONCLUSION This study entitled “Animal Testing for Research Purposes: An Analysis to the Principles of Ethical Conduct Involved in Animal Testing” entails an extreme evidence that Animal Testing should not be disregarded. This study provides a thorough understanding about how Ethical Conduct is involved in the use of animals as test subjects. It proved that there are ethical implications on how the animal testing should be in accordance with the Animal Rights. The lack of ethical examination is generally involving a denial or avoidance of animal suffering, resulting in the dehumanization of researchers and the ethical degradation of their research subject. Moreover, the use of animals in research should evolve out a strong sense of ethical examination which involves a careful self-analysis of one personal scientific motive. In addition, it requires a recognition of animal suffering and a satisfactory working through suffering in terms of one’s ethical values. Ethical conduct is a great opportunity in reducing the numerous uses of animals in different kind of testing. As the experiment’s harm continues, it affects an experimental animal’s moral worth, the number of animals suffering in the experiment, and the negative value of the harm done to each animal. It is proved that ethical conduct in animal testing is a great challenge in distinguishing the potential harm that came up in two concepts. If experiment is carried out, the animals will undoubtedly suffer and if the harm done to humans by not experimenting is unknown because no one knows how likely the experiment is to succeed. Significantly, with this study, it will make people more aware and informed about the ethical conduct in terms of animal testing. Since, animals are powerless, they cannot speak for themselves, and maltreatment continues. There are certain organizations, advocacies, bills, and rights that offers help to the development of biomedical research and propose alternative methods to reduce and continually stop animal testing. Furthermore, to overcome some difficulties connected with animal experiments and prevent unethical procedures. This

study proved that there are ethical conducts and showed alternative methods that are indeed beneficial and still evolving. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the conclusions, the following recommendations are made: 1. The researchers recommend improving of animals’ laws and rights for an absolute animal protection to all kinds of animals. 2. For animal organizations and activists, continue to be an advocate in spreading awareness on reducing animal testing to prevent all forms of animal abuse and cruelty. 3. For further laboratory testing and research, they must strictly adhere to all the ethical conduct principles in animal testing for an absolute animal abuse and cruelty avoidance. 4. For the future researchers, they can use a different research approach specifically quantitative research to come up with numerical data for better analysis of the study.

REFERENCES: WEBSITES: Alternatives

to

Animal

Testing.

(2021,

May

19).

PETA.

Retrieved

from

https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternativesanimal-testing/ Bandari, P. (2020). An introduction to qualitative research. Retrieved from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/qualitative-research/ BBC - Ethics - Animal ethics: Experimenting on animals. (2021). Bbc.co.uk. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/using/experiments_1.shtml Callanan,

C.

(2009).

Tests

on

trial.

Nursing

Standard.

Retrieved

from

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19248443/ Carlson, B. (1986). Ethical Issues in Animal Experimentation--View of the Animal Rightist. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3469886/ Conner, A. (2017). Galen’s Analogy: Animal Experimentation and Anatomy in the Second

Century

C.E.

Retrieved

from

https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1100&context=anth os Doke, S. & Dhawale, S. (2013). Alternatives to animal testing: A review. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259157456_Alternatives_to_animal_tes ting_A_reviews. EPA continues its effort in reducing Animal Testing (2021). EPA. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-continues-efforts-reduce-animal-testingannounces-guidance-fish-testing

Ethics with Medical Research of Animals. (n.d.). U.S. Law and Animal Research. Retrieved from http://animalresearch.thehastingscenter.org/u-s-law-and-animalresearch/

Ferdowsian HR, Beck N (2011) Ethical and Scientific Considerations Regarding Animal Testing and Research. PLOS ONE 6(9): e24059. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0024059. Retrieved from https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0024059 Hajar,

R.

(2011).

Animal

Testing

and

Medicine.

Retrieved

from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3123518/ How can I reduce or avoid animal testing? (2019, May 19). RSPCA knowledgebase. Retrieved

from

https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/how-can-i-reduce-or-

avoid-animal-testing/ Human

Organs-on-Chips.

(2021,

May

28).

Wyss

Institute.

Retrieved

from

https://wyss.harvard.edu/technology/human-organs-on-chips/ Humane Society International/Global (2012). About Animal Testing. Retrieved from https://www.hsi.org/news-media/about/ InVitro International. (2018). The Many Benefits of Using Alternatives to Animal Testing. Retrieved from

http://invitrointl.com/the-many-benefits-of-using-alternatives-to-

animal-testing Langley G.R, C.P. Austin, A.K. Balapure, L.S. Birnbaum, J.R. Bucher, J. Fentem, S.C. Fitzpatrick, J.R. Fowle, R.J. Kavlock, H. Kitano and B.A. Lidbury (2015). Lessons from Toxicology: Developing a 21st-Century Paradigm for Medical Research. Abstract

-

Europe

PMC.

Retrieved

from

https://europepmc.org/article/med/26523530 Olsson,

A.

et.

al

(2002).

Animal

Research

Ethics.

Retrieved

from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235940998_Animal_Research_Ethics

PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) (2014). The Truth About Animal Testing.

Retrieved from https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-

experimentation/animal-testing-101/ PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) (2021). Animal Testing: Animals Used in Experiments. Retrieved from https://www.peta.org/issues/animalsused-for-

experimentation/

PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) (2021). 11 Shocking Animal Testing Statistics

That

Are

Hard

to

Swallow.

Retrieved

from

https://www.peta.org/features/animal-experimentation-statistics/ PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) (2021). What can be done about animal tests

that

are

required

by

law?

(2021).

Retrieved

from

https://www.peta.org/about-peta/faq/what-can-be-done-about-animal-teststhat-are-required-by-law/ People for Ethical Treatment of Animals. (n.d.). Animal Testing Facts and Alternatives. Retrieved from https://gisl.eu/dPUgFEP People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals (n.d.). All About PETA. Retrieved from https://www.peta.org/about-peta/learn-about-peta/ ProCon.org

(2020).

History

of

Animal

Testing.

Retrieved

from

https://animaltesting.procon.org/history-of-animal-testing/ Pugh

C.

(2016).

Animal

Testing

is

Animal

Cruelty.

Retrieved

from

https://www.oneworldeducation.org/our-students-writing/animal-testing-is-animalcruelty Regan, T. (2013). Save the Animals: Stop Animal Testing. Retrieved from https://www.lonestar.edu/stopanimaltesting.htm Sawyer, A. (2020, August 6). Animal testing outperformed by computer models. BioTechniques. Retrieved from https://www.biotechniques.com/drug-discoverydevelopment/animal-testing-outperformed-by-computer-models/

Sindicich, S. (2014). 5 Awesome Organizations Fighting to End Animal Testing. Retrieved from https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/5-awesomeorganizations-fighting-to-end-animal-testing/