2019 | The End of Animal Testing
Category: Bio-Printing
Industry: Animal Testing
Location: International
Related to: Sustainability, future of technology, Bio Printing, sustainable systems, animal testing
Reviewer: Troy Droussiotis / Parsons School of Design
Wake Forest Researchers Successfully Implant Living, Functional, 3D Tissue Into Animals” 2016
Abstract: The cosmetics industry is one of the most wasteful industries in the world, surrounded by controversies regarding ethics and sustainability, such as packaging waste, toxic dyes, cheap labor, and water usage and contamination. One issue, however, stretches beyond cosmetics into medicine and has become an infamous and incredibly controversial topic in the last few years as a response to growing technology: animal testing. Not only is animal testing inhumane, but it is a massive sustainability issue, abusing resources and energy, all while damaging the biodiversity of habitats around the world; Not to mention, the massive amounts of toxic waste created from the disposal of animal carcasses and various chemicals used in toxicity testing, laboratory sanitation, and the upkeep of animal quarters. It is estimated that millions of animals are used in research per year that goes unreported to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This is because the USDA does not require research facilities to report their animal usage. Though the morality of animal testing is generally not in question, the necessity of it is.
Some believe that animal testing is a necessity to any product being released for public usage; The suffering and deaths of animals are outweighed by that of humans. Some countries, such as China, even require animal testing before they allow any products to be released to the public, making it virtually impossible for cruelty-free companies to reach international recognition. The new development of bioprinting, spearheaded by Organovo, suggests an alternative method of study that is more humane, efficient, and sustainable, and could possibly bring an end to the controversy surrounding animal testing. Being in its early stages of development, many companies are apprehensive to invest in this new technology, fearing that it would be a waste of time and money. This monetary fixation invalidates the remarkable potential this technology possesses. The objective of this analysis is to (1) highlight the negative environmental impact of animal testing, (2) introduce the process of bioprinting, and (3) discuss the potential of bioprinting to further prove the validity of this innovative technology.
Research: In a 2000 survey, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimated that 31-156 million animals were actually used in the United States that year. This number has more than
likely grown since then along with the country’s population and industrialization. With further research, however, it can be found that animal research facilities are not required to report their animal usage to the USDA. In turn, the wastefulness of the animal research industry is seemingly inconclusive. It is estimated that in 2005, about 100 million mice alone were used annually for research, and that upwards of 6000 to 12,000 other vertebrate animals are used for research annually. These animals require ample space, as well as ventilation, air, heating, food, bedding, and wire cages. The upkeep of animals in laboratories release various chemicals into the air through the act of cleaning and sanitizing spaces. These necessities use a great deal of energy, not even bringing into account lighting, facilities, and the massive amounts of energy required to fuel complex medical equipment. All of this adds up to equal about ten times the amount of energy that a typical office would use. This abuse of resources hardly touches upon the aftermath of animal experimentation. The amount of waste created at these facilities alone is detrimental to the environment. Not only do research facilities dispose of typical laboratory waste, like syringes, needles, and gauges, but also animal products, such as bedding, animal excrement (that could be toxic or radioactive), excess food, wire cages, and animal carcasses that have undergone years of toxicity testing.
These carcasses most likely are contaminated with chemical substances such as mercury, methane, cyanide, and other carcinogens, as well as viruses and infectious diseases. In some facilities, the animal’s bodies are incinerated, but that only serves to contribute to the ever-growing issue of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the livestock and agriculture industry is only responsible for about 9 percent of fossil fuel emissions. Considering the fact that research facilities go unchecked by government organizations such as the USDA, this information may be inaccurate as it only considers farm animals and not laboratory animals. The massive amounts of waste also pollute the soil and drinking. The United States Geological Survey conducted a study in 2002 to test the contamination of water supply, where 80% of the tested water contained one or more pharmaceuticals. As quoted directly from the study, “the most frequently detected compounds were coprostanol (fecal steroid), cholesterol (plant and animal steroid), N, N-diethyltoluamide (insect repellant), caffeine (stimulant), triclosan (antimicrobial disinfectant), tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate (fire retardant), and 4-nonylphenol (nonionic detergent metabolite).” All of these chemicals found in the surveyed waters could have originated from an animal research facility as they are used during toxicity tests, the upkeep of animal quarters, and the sanitation and sterilization of the laboratory environment. To add greater, personal context to the pollution of water, water treatment facilities often are unable to filter out drugs, hormones, and chemical solvents from water while it is being prepared for public consumption. Not only are these research facilities damaging the environment on a long-term scale, with greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to gradual climate change, but they also could very well have detrimental short term effects, contaminating the water that one may be drinking at this very moment. Why, then, does the cosmetic and pharmaceutical industry depend on this method of product testing that it is both incredibly inhumane and detrimental to the environment when there is a viable alternative?
Bioprinting, also known as biofabrication or bioengineering, can be defined as the artificial creation of human organs, such as skin, tissue, bones, and internal organs. It can even create parts as small as blood vessels and molecules. The current process of bioprinting is somewhat unclear, but according to Organovo, a leading bioprinting organization, organs can be created from cells of any source. They insert these cells into the 96-well bioprinter plate and allow the cell to grow into functional human tissue from there. This complex tissue is referred to as “bio-ink,” and can be studied in these wells much like animals would be studied on, but on a microscopic scale. The tissue has the exact architecture of functioning human tissue and reacts to drugs and diseases the way that human tissue would. Organovo aims to
eventually be able to create full organs with their printers. Although this is already possible, it is very expensive and requires a period of time to allow the tissue to grow. With enough investment, bioprinting could become a mainstream research and treatment tool, making it accessible to anyone who may be in need. Besides the medical miracles that bioprinting could make possible, it would also be a much more sustainable alternative to animal testing. The cell cultures are far more contained than animals in cages are. They do require close moderation and must be tended to, but would require nowhere near the amount of energy that animals require. There would be no excretion, or any need for food, cages, or constant upkeep and sanitation. Overall, bioprinting is a more affordable alternative while also requiring less upkeep, and remaining more sustainable and humane. L’Oreal is a massive supporter of the bioprinting industry, supporting the need for tissue engineering for nearly 30 years and partnering with the French company, Poietis, in 2016. With this partnership, the company has started printing human hair and skin to test on and bring an end to animal testing. It is time that other companies have faith in this growing industry that is estimated to be worth $2.6 billion by 2024.
Typical Bioprinter- 96-well 3-D Cell Culture
Analysis: The topic of animal testing has been of great interest to me for years, I wrote a thesis paper on it my junior year of high school, when I was planning to pursue fragrance marketing and manufacturing. Reading about various experiments on animals is horrifying, like Topsy the elephant who got fried by Thomas Edison just so he could prove a point, or the study conducted on mice to see if they wince at the pain. Researchers inflicted various forms of intense pain to a mouse to see if it would wince and it did.
There should be no question on whether or not animal experimentation is humane, it just flat out is not, but I do understand why it has been a necessity. It’s important that companies test their products on living creatures before selling it to consumers, but now we have the technology to use other methods that are more humane and sustainable. The population is constantly growing and so is the consumer market.
This means that more products are pressured to be released in less time, especially in the cosmetics and fashion industry. Why would they rely then on something that is not sustainable, inhumane, and not as accurate as printing human tissue and testing it directly? It seems counteractive to still support animal experimentation and still use it when this new technology is growing and forever changing the industry. The bioprinting industry has incredible estimations for those who choose to invest in it; It’s predicted by many sources to become a multibillion-dollar industry. It is time, while the technology is still developing and cheap to invest in, to invest in it. Cruelty-free makeup is a necessity for many, especially the incoming younger consumers that have been raised to be environmentally aware.
Although I knew a lot about animal testing going into this assignment, I didn’t know much about bioprinting. In my thesis junior year, I only touched on bioprinting briefly, I didn’t study it in depth the way I did for this paper, and it truly is fascinating. The technology that exists today is amazing and I don’t understand those who are opposed to it, or those that claim it is “playing God.” There will always be individuals who will oppose new technology because change makes them uncomfortable. Researchers in animal research facilities may be opposed to it because they have become so accustomed to inflicting pain on animals and getting paid for it. With the news that we as a planet have 12 years to try to reverse climate change, it is time that we utilize all of the technology that we have that allows us to be more sustainable and take care of our planet.
Conclusion: Bioprinting is a growing industry with incredible potential of being a mainstream research tool that is sustainable, humane, and efficient. Rather than spending months or years attempting different tests on drugged animals, researchers can test directly on human skin, hair, tissue, and other organs. People in need of transplants and blood transfusions could have an organ printed to fit perfectly in their body. Companies are growing and creating partnerships to allow themselves to grow together as an industry, such as L’Oreal and Poietis; L’Oreal was one of the first companies to be cruelty-free and continues to set the example for a sustainable world. Other popular cosmetic companies have followed the example, such as Lush, Milk, and Urban Decay. Animal testing is retroactive and harmful in more ways than one. Various studies have shown that animal testing is detrimental to the environment, releasing toxins into the air, soil, and public drinking water. Animals should not be poached from their homes or raised in a laboratory cell to live each day with a different infectious disease. Most other world powers, such as Great Britain, the EU, and India, have outlawed animal testing because they understand the issues with it. Why has the United States not followed this example? It is vital that consumers stay educated and aware. Boycott companies that continue to stubbornly test on animals, ignoring the groundbreaking technology that is constantly being produced today. Major influencers should refuse to partner with companies that continue to use animal testing. Consumers hold the power and must demand that being cruelty-free is not a suggestion, it is a must. Action must be taken; For the sake of consumers, for the sake of the animals, for the sake of the Earth.
Work Cited:
- Cubitt, S.; Sharp, G. “Maintaining quality and reducing energy in research animal facilities” Animal Technology and Welfare, August 2011, pp. 91–97.
http://www.aircuity.com/wp-content/uploads/Maintaining-quality-and-reducing-energy-in-researc h-animal-facilities_2012.pdf
- Editors, Grand View Research. “3D Bioprinting Market Size Worth $2.6 Billion By 2024.”Grand View Research, March 2018
https://www.grandviewresearch.com/press-release/global-3d-bioprinting-market
- Editors, Organovo. “Bioprinting Process,” Organovo. April 16, 2013 https://organovo.com/science-technology/bioprinting-process/
- Groff, Katherine; Bachli, Eric; Lansdowne, Molly; Capaldo, Theodora. “Review of Evidence of Environmental Impacts of Animal Research and Testing.” New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS.org) June 6, 2014
https://www.neavs.org/docs/NEAVS-New_England_Anti-Vivisection_Society-Environments_20 14-Environmental_Impacts_and_Testing_of_Animal_Research.pdf
- Little, Melissa, and Wallace, Gordon, “Printing the future: 3D bioprinters and their uses,” Australian Academy of Science, February 29, 2016
https://www.science.org.au/curious/people-medicine/bioprinting
- Pineau, Patricia; Huard, Polina; Richard, Anne L. “L’Oreal and Poietis Sign an Exclusive Research Partnership to Develop Bioprinting of Hair.” L’Oreal September 28, 2016
https://www.loreal.com/media/press-releases/2016/sep/loreal-and-poietis-sign-an-exclusive-resea rch-partnership-to-develop-bioprinting-of-hair
- Taylor, K.;Gordon, N; Langley, G.; Higgins, W. “Estimates for Worldwide Laboratory Animal Use in 2005”. Altern Lab Anim. July 2008
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18662096
- United States Geological Survey. “Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and Other Organic Wastewater Contaminants in US Streams.” Environmental Science Technology 2002, 36, 1202–1211.
