We discuss the limitations of animal testing, including the thalidomide scandal, and explain why human testing provides more accurate and reliable results, as well as the economic and ethical reasons why human testing is necessary.

The thalidomide case and the limitations of animal testing

In 1957, a drug called thalidomide was developed to prevent morning sickness in pregnant women. After clinical trials on rats, the drug was marketed as a miracle pill that was unprecedentedly safe. Soon after, however, tragedy struck, with more than 10,000 deformed babies called “thalidomide babies” being born in 46 countries around the world. Further tests on dogs, chickens, cats, and hamsters failed to show any toxic reactions, but it was eventually discovered that the drug caused fatal harm only in humans.

Defining and spreading animal testing

This case clearly illustrates the limitations of animal testing. Animal testing is any experiment or scientific procedure performed on laboratory animals for scientific purposes, such as education, testing, research, and the production of biologics. Animal testing has permeated our daily lives and is widely used to determine whether chemicals in cosmetics and other products we use every day are harmful to humans. However, these tests for human safety have also become a tool for scientists’ curiosity and pleasure, raising questions about whether animal testing alone can fully detect substances that are harmful to humans.

Additional examples of animal testing limitations

The thalidomide case is not the only example of the limitations of animal testing. For example, the medical community knew as early as the 1960s that smoking causes lung cancer, but for 50 years, animal testing did not clearly establish a link between smoking and lung cancer. As a result, the harms of smoking remained unknown to people for a long time, and many people died of lung cancer in the meantime. In another example, as early as the 1940s, clinical trials on humans had already shown that asbestos causes cancer, but all subsequent animal studies failed to prove a relationship between asbestos and cancer, which delayed warnings about the dangers of asbestos for decades. In other cases, polio studies on monkeys provided misleading information about polio, leading to incorrect preventive measures being implemented.

Counterexample: Tylenol and aspirin

There are also opposite cases. There are drugs that cause adrenal failure in cats with fatal consequences after just one dose, cause birth defects in rats, and cause severe blood pressure abnormalities in cats at just 20% of the human dose. No one would take these drugs, but surprisingly, the former is Tylenol and the latter is aspirin.

The need and benefits of human trials

These examples show that animal testing, as it is currently practiced, is not enough to accurately predict what might happen when administered to humans. Perhaps a substance currently discarded in the lab as harmful to animals could actually have the potential to cure an incurable disease in humans. This is where human testing becomes indispensable.
The need for human testing can be demonstrated in several ways. First, because humans and animals are not exactly the same, human testing can provide much more accurate and reliable information than animal testing. For example, only 1.16% of diseases are shared by humans and animals, so a substance that passes muster in animal testing may be harmful to humans, and conversely, a substance that is beneficial to humans may be harmful to animals and fail to manifest.
Second, the history of medicine shows that major discoveries have been made through human testing. Important medical discoveries in many fields, including heart disease, cancer, immunology, anesthesiology, psychiatry, and more, have been made through observations of patients and dissection of human cadavers. Without these human experiments, the medical advances we enjoy today would be unimaginable.
Third, human experimentation can also contribute to economic development. In human experimentation, subjects must be paid a certain amount of compensation, most often in the form of money. This compensation gives poor people the opportunity to participate in economic activities, which can increase the amount of money in circulation. This money can also give them the opportunity to improve their skills and become successful.

Ethical considerations and technological advancements in human experimentation

The most important thing to remember when conducting human experiments is that human life must be valued. Things like the horrific vivisection experiments conducted by the Nazis on Jews are never acceptable, and experiments should never be conducted without human rights. Advances in computer technology can help minimize side effects in all stages of human experimentation. For example, computer simulations can be used to predict how certain molecular structures will behave in vivo, and advanced cell culture techniques have been developed to infect human cells with disease bacteria or viruses.

The Nuremberg Code and rulemaking

For human experimentation to be safe, it requires well-tested rules and ethical standards. The Nuremberg Code, created after World War II in response to reflection and criticism of the brutal experiments conducted by Nazi doctors, provides the basis for these rules. According to this code, human experimentation must be done with the voluntary consent of the subject, they must be fully informed about the experiment, and they have the right to stop the experiment at any time during the experiment.

Changing perceptions and conclusions

With these rules in place and adhered to, awareness of the safety and reliability of human experimentation has increased. A 2013 survey conducted by the Center for Information and Study of Clinical Research Participation (CISCRP) in Boston, USA, found that safety concerns about human experimentation have decreased, and there has been a positive shift in perceptions of human experimentation among subjects.
In this article, we’ve discussed the need for human testing to overcome the limitations of animal testing, breaking down the reasons for this into safety, rationality, and affordability. We’ve also suggested using technologies such as computer simulation to minimize side effects in all stages of human testing. If rules are established to ensure the human rights of the subjects, human experimentation will become an essential element for the medical advancement of mankind. I am in favor of human experimentation for these reasons.