In March 2026, a mugshot of Alexandra Paul, an actress in Baywatch, went viral on social media. It was not because of a DUI or drug use, like why other celebrities were caught, but for breaking into a breeding facility that supplies beagles for animal testing and took 31 beagles away. This incident brought animal testing back into the spotlight and resurfaced the old question: Should we allow scientists to conduct animal experiments for technological development?
Whether activists like Ms. Paul like it or not, animal experimentation has become increasingly common, particularly within the pharmaceutical industry. Before a vaccine is released to the public, it goes through many rounds of animal testing. In the case of COVID-19 vaccines, researchers first tested the vaccine on small animals, like mice, to evaluate immune responses, then conducted challenge experiments and trials on primates to confirm protection and safety before moving to human trials. Therefore, animal testing remains necessary in pharmaceutical research to ensure human safety and to gain the biological understanding required for developing new medicines.
Animal research has provided people many essential benefits. It helps detect toxicity and side effects and establishes the safe dosage ranges. If animal experiments were not used to test drugs and assess their safety, the potential harm to patients in clinical treatment would be unacceptable. Although we have alternatives like computer modeling or cell-based experiments, they still have considerable limitations. They are also far simpler than whole-organism testing and may miss critical factors, such as complex immune responses that only become evident in a living body. A famous case isthe thalidomide disaster in the 1950s. Because the drug lacked sufficient preclinical animal testing, its severe teratogenic effects went unnoticed—until thousands of babies were born with deformities. Relying solely on computer simulations or cell-based assays before human trials would expose the first patients to unacceptable risks.
There is also a utilitarian perspective to consider. Humans and animals are not morally equal; it is not right to weigh their suffering on the same scale. Humans have more advanced abilities than animals such as self-awareness, long-term planning, moral reasoning, and language. So, humans understand injustice and experience psychological suffering in more complex ways than human. Thus, human suffering has significantly greater consequences as it disrupts not just physical well-being, but identity and autonomy. Secondly, humans live in societies based on mutual obligations such as family, law, and rights. We have stronger duties to fellow humans than animals because we depend on each other for survival and cooperations. If human life weren't prioritized, social trust and order would collapse. Also, people will gain massive benefit from animal experiments. Only a few animals can save millions of people. The discovery of insulin is a real example. In the 1920s, Frederick Banting used stray dogs in his experiments—many died painful deaths after having their pancreases removed. One dog, named "Marjorie," lived only 70 days on insulin before being euthanized. That was a real sacrifice. But before insulin, diabetes was a death sentence. Today, insulin saves millions of lives every year. For the dozens of dogs that died, hundreds of thousands of human lives have been saved. The quantitative benefit to humanity is far greater.
Contrary to many people’s assumptions, the animals used in experiments are not wild animals or pets like cats or dogs; instead, they are specially bred for research. Most of them are small animals like mice and rats. Researchers also try to reduce their suffering as much as possible. After experiments, animals are treated or humanely euthanized to prevent further pain. Many countries have also established laws to protect laboratory animals. For example, the United States has the Animal Welfare Act, and Europe has Directive 2010/63/EU. These laws ensure that scientists only use animals when there is no other choice and that they follow strict ethical standards. Scientists are also encouraged to reduce the number of animals used and to look for alternative methods whenever possible.
To ensure these rules are followed, monitoring mechanisms are in place. Before the initiation of experimental procedures, research institutions are required to undergo comprehensive ethical review processes, with the requirement that humans avoid any unnecessary harm to animals. This underscores the fact that contemporary scientific practice does not disregard ethical considerations; rather, it seeks to minimize animal use while advancing medical progress.
Of course, harming animals is not something to take lightly. Their lives also matter, and we should respect them. But if we were to completely halt animal experiments, many life-saving drugs could not be developed as quickly, and many patients would continue to suffer from their diseases and even lose their lives. I think as long as animal experiments are necessary, they should be conducted under strict regulations.