In Greek myths, there existed a magnificent creature. With the fierce heads of both a lion and a goat, and a tail of a vicious dragon, the chimera wreaked great havoc across cities. Now, biology has developed a new type of chimera: a genetically engineered organism from the DNA of different species. Once myth, technological advances have allowed our society to develop things never thought possible. But not all advances are positive.

By testing transgenics on animals, scientists are inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering on sentient creatures.

According to the Federation of European Laboratory Animal Association, a transgenic animal is defined as, “an animal in which there has been a deliberate modification of its genome, the genetic makeup of an organism responsible for inherited characteristics.” Within the past few years, there have been increases in the genetic manipulation of animals which has led to a decrease in animals’ quality of life. The World Organization for Animal Health defines animal welfare as, “the state of the animal… how an animal is coping with the conditions in which it lives.” When considering the costs and benefits of genetic modification, we need to reflect on our moral obligation as an intelligent species to share this world and not take advantage of the species that contribute to this world with us.

Animals are not good models for human medicine.

The human body is incredibly complex -- an intricate maze that is not replicated by any other species. We cannot conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that any data derived from animal testing is accurate enough to be worth the damage scientists are causing. Humans and animals are genetically, metabolically, and anatomically different. Further, as pointed out by The Canadian Veterinary Journal, “Little data has been collected on the net welfare impacts to genetically engineered animals or to those animals required for their creation, and genetic engineering techniques have been described as both unpredictable and inefficient.”

When considering whether or not it is worth the investment to use transgenics on animals, we can see a very clear answer within past scientific discoveries that prove no form of animal tests can ever truly reflect what will occur during a human trial. A strong example of this fact is the thalidomide disaster that occurred across the world in the 1960s.

After the developers of the popular drug advertised their product as “completely safe... even during pregnancy,” as its developers “could not find a dose high enough to kill a rat,” thalidomide was widely used as a sedative and for the treatment of morning sickness -- a common term for nausea in pregnant women. However, “within a few years of the widespread use of thalidomide in Europe, Australia, and Japan, approximately 10,000 children were born with phocomelia,” a rare congenital skeletal disorder that characteristically affects the limbs.

Another example is the Opren incident in the 1980s. Opren safely passed animal testing, and was introduced to the public in 1980 as an arthritis drug. After just two years, it was found to be highly toxic in humans. There were 3,500 reports of harmful effects, including 61 deaths in Britain. Many argue that there are also cases where animal testing has worked, but this is simply not true. As Dr. John McArdle, Scientific Advisor to The American Anti-Vivisection Society -- which advocates against scientific or medical experiments on live animals -- points out that “Historically, vivisection has been much like a slot machine. If researchers pull the experimentation lever enough, eventually some benefits will result by pure chance”.

The above examples illustrate that transgenic testing on animals is not only unethical, but it is also ineffective because it cannot be proven to yield results that aren’t easily falsifiable.

Transgenic animal testing stunts true medical advances.

A well known example of a stunt in medical progress due to animal testing is that of blood transfusions. When they were initially tested in 1666, blood was successfully transferred from one dog to another. However, in 1667, a French physician transferred the blood of a lamb into a boy. Many lives were lost as the procedures continued which resulted in a halt in transfusion attempts for more than 100 years. Finally, in the 19th century, it was realized that blood could only be transferred from human to human. This discovery was made by mixing human blood in test tubes, not by subjecting animals to human perversion.

Transgenics have led to errors, with the United States Federal Drug Administration confirming that, “nine out of ten drugs proven successful in animal tests fail in human trials.” Because of this lack of true progress, continued experimentation and manipulation of animals should not continue. Much of the time, animals are left to suffer even when there are no scientific results. When scientists microinject genetic material into an animal it can lead to chromosomal translocations and other rearrangements that lead to developmental defects. These sentient beings are intentionally given genetic defects, creating a bad quality of life. Further, transgenic testing on animals also runs the risk of introducing diseases (ie. bovine spongiform encephalopathy, commonly known as mad cow disease) to the human population, which could result in devastating outbreak and panic.

According to Agrocampus, a European organization that is “designed to facilitate the teaching of bioethics in the life and environmental sciences,” animals are used in transgenics and testing because “it is unethical and immoral to use humans for testing... [therefore] disease model animals serve a strong benefit to society.” This is a flawed philosophy, especially considering there have been numerous studies proving that animals are capable of feeling emotion, pain, pleasure and suffering.

It is hypocritical for scientists to discriminate on the basis of species for a subject so morally and ethically exacting. By their very nature, transgenics and the manipulation of animals violate animal rights just as doing the same on a human would violate human rights. Manipulating animals for human ends will never be an ethically sound or morally acceptable way of collecting data because animals are not human property.