Last Resort

Can technology make animal exploitation ethical?

For the vast duration of modern medicine’s existence, animal research has been essential in providing the basis for our understanding and development of cures for severe chronic and even fatal conditions. While modern medicine has developed significantly through scientific research utilizing animal models, there exists a tension when examining the practice. Although animal testing resulted in advances such as antibiotics, blood transfusions, the polio vaccine, HIV medications, and surgical procedures such as organ transplants, the employment of these animals in medical and scientific inquiry is what leads to this being one of the most controversial areas of this science.

The utilization of animals in medicine for the development of life-saving innovations should, through advances in technology, begin to wane. Throughout the history of medicine, animal research and the exploitation of animals have provided some of the key discoveries. The utilization of animals is due to their many similarities to humans with regard to biological processes and physiological responses. No medication or treatment will act on a single isolated component. Instead, medications enter the bloodstream, interact with other organs, stimulate the immune system, and produce numerous unknown or unforeseen results in humans; thus, an animal provides a good basis and understanding of a medication before potentially harming a human.

Therefore, scientific study using animals such as those used to model HIV, cancer, and chronic disease helps researchers predict how they should test and implement new, effective treatments before they cause potential harm to humans. In fact, the many lives saved through the exploration of animal bodies are immeasurable, and many people, had this not been done, might never have overcome these diseases. From the viewpoint of a utilitarian approach, the benefits obtained from the use of animals are justifiable.

Utilitarianism is based on the greatest good for the greatest number and can be a justifying ethical framework for certain kinds of exploitation or sacrifice if the resulting outcome leads to more happiness for more people. If a cure or vaccine that can help and eventually save numerous individuals can be discovered through painful means in animals, many people feel that animal suffering should not factor into the equation, as human suffering is far more significant. There is no disregard for the animal in these instances, but instead a conclusion reached by knowing that in extreme situations, painful trade-offs can result in immense happiness or absence of suffering for the largest number of humans.

However, this argument has a clear limit. It does not erase the pain, fear, and confinement experienced by animals, nor does it change the fact that they cannot consent to being used in experiments. Therefore, the ethical question is not simply whether animal testing is effective, but whether human medical progress should always be allowed to outweigh animal welfare. As new technologies create more humane and human-relevant alternatives, the defense of animal testing becomes much harder to sustain.

Modern alternatives to testing on animals include artificial intelligence, computer simulation, testing in a lab dish, and systems that mimic organs on a small chip. Artificial intelligence analyzes biological data to predict how certain compounds affect the human body. This is called in silico testing, which means testing through computer models instead of on a living being. By predicting how toxic a chemical is, how effective a drug is, or how the immune system responds, AI reduces the need for some tests on living beings. Testing in a lab dish allows scientists to study cells or tissues in a controlled setting. This can involve cells, tissue samples, or models like organoids. Organoids are structures that grow from stem cells and imitate certain functions of real organs. Systems that mimic organs on a chip take this further by placing cells inside a small chip that mimics how organs or body systems behave.

These methods are part of what scientists call New Approach Methodologies, or NAMs. NAMs are research tools that aim to reduce or replace testing on animals. These technologies matter because they make research more humane and more focused on humans. Traditional testing on animals requires scientists to compare animal reactions to human reactions.

This is not always reliable because animals and humans do not react to every drug or chemical in the same way. A computer model, lab-grown tissue sample, or organoid cannot fully recreate the complexity of a living body. For that reason, it may not be realistic to stop all testing on animals, especially for serious medical research.

Still, as AI and other technologies get better, testing on animals should only be used when no reliable alternative exists. The goal is to replace testing on animals whenever possible while making any remaining use of animals more limited and carefully justified.

Essentially, AI does not mean the complete elimination of animal testing, but a drastic increase in alternative test methods should come to the forefront as technology continues to push forward. However, the advancement of technology to replace animals for test purposes does not negate the issue that testing is inherently exploitative for gain, although it can save lives. With that in mind, technology may be used to bring the standard to a higher place for the justification of testing animals in the future.

So rather than bringing about moral justification for the utilization of animals for science and the alleviation of animal pain and suffering with advanced technology, it actually provides more for questioning the morals. The argument can be stated simply in the framework of the 3Rs: Replace, Reduce, and Refine. The 3Rs are a basic ethics framework that states:

We can use this framework as evidence of moving forward beyond just using animals for their parts in scientific innovation. We should seek to eliminate pain and suffering in this scientific endeavor while continually finding new ways to test the outcomes, or side effects, of drugs. The main moral objection to animal testing boils down to the pain or the infliction of suffering on the animal, which can no longer justify a human need when technological progress provides adequate solutions.

In my opinion, while animal research plays a vital role in human health now, its continued practice should only be supported as a last resort or be fully abandoned when technology improves.