LIMIT ANIMAL TESTING

Imagine being born into a sterile, windowless cage. You are subjected to painful procedures, injected with chemicals, burned, blinded, poisoned, or your eyes sewn shut at birth—not because it’s necessary for survival, but because it’s the default method deemed “scientifically acceptable.” That’s the reality for over 115 million animals used in laboratories worldwide each year, according to estimates from Cruelty Free International. These include monkeys, dogs, cats, rabbits, mice, and others whose lives are reduced to data points in experiments that often fail to produce meaningful insights for humans.

Animal testing spans from biomedical research and drug development to cosmetic products and household cleaners. The common justification is that it’s essential for scientific progress and human safety. But is it? The evidence suggests otherwise.

In biomedical research, the translation rate from animal models to effective human treatments is dismal. A 2014 study published in The British Medical Journal found that 90% of drugs that pass animal testing fail in human clinical trials due to ineffectiveness or safety concerns. This isn’t surprising when you consider the vast biological differences between species. Mice and humans may share a significant percentage of DNA, but that doesn’t mean our bodies respond to diseases or treatments in the same way.

Consider the case of thalidomide, a drug that caused severe birth defects in thousands of babies in the 1950s and 60s. It had been extensively tested on animals and deemed safe. The opposite happened with penicillin—discovered by Alexander Fleming but initially dismissed after it proved toxic to rabbits. Thankfully, it was later tested on humans, where it worked wonders. These examples aren’t outliers; they’re symptoms of a flawed system.

Cosmetic testing is even more ethically indefensible. Rabbits have chemicals dripped into their eyes to test irritation, guinea pigs are shaved and smeared with substances to check for allergic reactions, and rats are force-fed toxins to determine lethal doses. All of this suffering to create products like mascara, shampoo, or anti-aging creams. Thankfully, over 40 countries, including the European Union, India, and Israel, have banned cosmetic animal testing, proving it’s both unnecessary and archaic.

Alternatives to animal testing are not just ethical—they’re scientifically superior. In vitro methods use human cells and tissues to study biological processes. Organs-on-chips, microfluidic devices lined with human cells, mimic the functions of organs like the heart, liver, and lungs, providing more accurate models for drug testing. Computational models and artificial intelligence can predict toxicological effects based on existing data, reducing the need for live subjects. A 2018 study in Nature Communications demonstrated that organ-on-chip technologies could predict human drug responses more reliably than traditional animal models.

Legislative shifts are already underway. The European Union’s REACH regulation (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals) promotes non-animal methods, and in the U.S. the EPA has pledged to eliminate all mammal testing by 2035. However, loopholes, regulatory inertia, and industry resistance slow progress.

Critics argue that eliminating animal testing could jeopardize medical research. But this overlooks the fact that animal models have failed us repeatedly in areas like cancer, Alzheimer’s, and stroke research. Financial interests also play a role. The animal testing industry is lucrative, with suppliers breeding animals specifically for laboratories. Companies profit from selling not just animals but cages, equipment, and testing services. This economic entanglement creates inertia, discouraging investment in alternative methods despite their promise.

Animal welfare laws often provide little protection. In the U.S., the Animal Welfare Act excludes rats, mice, and birds—species that account for over 95% of animals used in research. Even when protections exist, enforcement is weak. Investigations by PETA and the Humane Society have repeatedly exposed cases of neglect, abuse, and unnecessary suffering in research facilities.

But change is possible. In 2015, the Netherlands announced plans to phase out animal testing for safety assessments by 2025, focusing on human-relevant methods. Organizations like the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement, and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) promote the “3Rs” principle—Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement—aiming to minimize animal use.

Ethical considerations extend beyond animal suffering. Animal testing reinforces a hierarchical worldview where sentient beings are treated as disposable tools. This mindset bleeds into how we treat vulnerable human populations, the environment, and each other. Philosopher Tom Regan, in The Case for Animal Rights, argues that animals are “subjects-of-a-life,” with intrinsic value beyond their utility to humans. Recognizing this challenges us to extend our moral circle, fostering empathy and humility.

Education and transparency are key. Many people support animal testing because they believe it’s necessary, not because they endorse cruelty. Public awareness campaigns, combined with scientific literacy, can shift perceptions. When people understand that alternatives exist—and often perform better—support for animal testing erodes. Animal testing is unjustified when better, more humane options are available. In a world facing existential threats from climate change, pandemics, and social injustice, clinging to outdated, cruel practices reflects a failure of imagination and ethics.

Therefore, under Folklaw:

Animal testing shall be strictly limited and gradually phased out in favor of scientifically advanced, humane alternatives. Cosmetic testing on animals will be banned outright. Biomedical research will prioritize non-animal methods, with mandatory investment in technologies such as organ-on-chip systems, computational models, and human cell cultures.

All existing animal research will be subject to rigorous ethical review, with a requirement to justify the necessity of animal use when no alternatives exist. Whistleblower protections will safeguard those who expose animal cruelty in laboratories.

Public funding will support the development and validation of alternative testing methods, and international cooperation will promote global standards for ethical research.