Why Animal Testing Can't Be Phased Out, Per Scientist Warning — SkimNews
Get the Health newsletter
Daily health & science — research, biotech, public health, the studies worth knowing. Free.
- The US, UK and European Commission each unveiled roadmaps within the past year aimed at moving toward an end to animal testing, with the article noting the coming of age of technological alternatives as worth celebrating.
- Some non-animal alternatives are already more revealing than the animal experiments they replace, though the piece insists certain kinds of animal research will always remain necessary for fundamental biology and drug safety.
- Policy documents use language like "phasing out" animal testing, but the author contends this framing overstates what is possible, since animal testing cannot and will not be ended entirely.
- Extreme animal rights activists in the late 20th and early 21st centuries harassed and intimidated scientists — setting fire to researchers' property, using Molotov cocktails, and prompting national newspaper reports of calls to murder those conducting animal experiments.
- Prematurely abandoning animal tests for which no reliable alternatives exist would risk public health and safety, according to the article, while messaging that animal testing is optional could paint remaining researchers as wilfully causing harm.
- The author calls on the research community to simultaneously pursue reduction wherever possible and actively restate why animal testing remains important, rather than allowing the "phasing out" rhetoric to go unchallenged.
Why it matters: With three major Western jurisdictions now publishing roadmaps toward ending animal testing, the framing in those documents could shape public perception of researchers who continue the work — a dynamic the author warns could revive the violent intimidation seen in past decades while leaving drug safety and fundamental biology gaps unfilled.
Ask SkimNews
