The Controversy of Animal Testing in Scientific Research

The controversy of animals use in scientific research has given birth to diverse methods of action throughout the years. Various organizations have been formed to find a solution to this animal cruelty issue. The American Anti-Vivisection Society is a national organization that supports healthy and fair animal-human life relationships and strives to abolish animal vivisection (harmful surgical practices) in the United States by “advocating legislation, education and public awareness, and alternative research methods” (aavs.org). AAVS has gained large support through its many campaigns and programs, due to their sophisticated and educational methods of communicating their messages. Plus, with the organization’s knowledge of the policies and laws concerning this issue they have had great success in reforming many legal policies concerning animal abuse. Similarly, other organizations against animal suffering like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have also been successful through methods involving “cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and protest campaigns” (peta.org).

Although PETA’s areas of involvement are similar to those of AAVS, the way they approach them is clearly contrasting to the American Anti-Vivisection Society’s approach. PETA is widely known for their large funds and numerous campaigns and methods of action: they always tend to appeal to strong emotions with their gruesome and graphic content in advertisements, protests and commercials. Although both stakeholders strive to make cruelty-free methods the most predominantly used in scientific research, their individual approaches of action entail different strategies; using logic and reason versus appealing to strong emotions. These differences have prevented AAVS and PETA from working together in the past. Nevertheless, if the organizations combine their unique strengths in terms of PETA’s funds and AAVS’s campaign and legal experience, they would be able to create better programs and campaigns to eradicate the use of animals in scientific research.

Contrary to PETA’s approach, AAVS’s campaigns and programs have succeeded over time because of their strong focus on the education of the public and legislative movement, instead of strong negative emotions. The organization exposes information that is not usually known by many people and explains how it affects the public. For example, one of their campaign ads exposes how legislative laws in many states allow for pounds and animal shelters to sell lost pets to research laboratories. By using logical facts and information to appeal to the audience, AAVS gains supporters who have made their own conclusions through their education and knowledge about the issue. Furthermore, through people’s education and awareness, the organization generates supporters that are willing to take action towards legislative change for this particular issue, and most likely other similar problems. In the past, AAVS has successfully collaborated with other organizations with similar campaign perspectives like the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing. Through their exchange of views and ideas, both organizations worked together to form education programs and investigation projects, which lead to an important policy change to “end the use of mice in producing monoclonal antibodies” (Howard). This shows that if AAVS has been able to successfully work with other organizations, it is more than likely that they can join forces with PETA.

Although their methods have helped reach many of their objectives, AAVS’s weakness comes from their lack of proactivity. The stakeholder may have great ideas, but if they are not constantly active for their cause, their argument becomes weak and they lose supporters and credibility. This is where PETA succeeds immensely. The majority of PETA’s accomplishments have come from their wide involvement and persistent activity in the public community through campaigns, protests, and more. Plus, with the addition of their emotional appeal, they have also gained supporters who are morally conscious of the animal’s pain and suffering and use those feelings to fuel the urge for action towards ending animal testing in laboratory research. The only flaw in this approach is that by presenting extremist, graphic content and information, the credibility of their facts and research is weakened.

Additionally, by relying on their supporter’s strong emotions instead of their knowledge, they are faced with potential empty arguments and misleading information, once again weakening the organizations credibility and argument validity. Thousands of people, celebrities and other organizations have already pointed out PETA’s extreme approach and questionable credibility. Thoughts and messages like, “the ASPCA has been around for a century, and they don’t use extreme tactics or try to get everyone to go vegetarian”, where an Ohio State University student points out the organization’s extreme approach in comparison with another organization similar to AAVS (Crisan). As is it natural, just like AAVS, PETA has its own flaws and weaknesses which could be improved. Luckily, both organizations can complement each other greatly, as one’s strength is the other’s weakness. It would be only beneficial to come together to work towards their already set objectives.

Despite AAVS and PETA’s tactic differences, there are feasible solutions available for both organizations, especially since they both already share the same goal – to end animal suffering in scientific research. The most effective and affordable plan would be to use each organization’s strengths to obtain a larger impact for their cause. By using AAVS’s legislative focus, campaigns and program methods in combination with PETA’s pronounced activity, vast funds and involvement, they can significantly increase the effectiveness of their efforts. The organizations can fund better educational programs and campaigns that will reach an enormous amount of people due to their combined pool of supporters, also boosting their campaigns’ credibility. Furthermore, it would not be the first time two different, large organizations come together for a common cause. According to Alter and Hage, by having organizations join in a collaborative network, they are able to adjust and evolve to the changing society and market conditions more efficiently (13). In fact, both organizations have already worked together and shared resources with other organizations. Therefore, it would be only beneficial to strive to work together to enhance their chances at reaching their objectives.

When dealing with a world-wide controversial issue such as animal testing in scientific research, having a strong networking system and partnership is crucial for the progress of the organizations’ goal. Especially since to succeed in this controversial aspect one must have as much exposure and support as possible. That is why through AAVS and PETA’s mutual cooperation and therefore their combined followers, budgets, program success, etc, can only yield positive results down the line. Both organizations have already demonstrated great passion and achievements in the past, both individually, and in collaboration with other organizations through the share of strategies, funds and other resources. So regardless of AAVS and PETA’s different tactics to end animal suffering in research, they can always integrate each other’s strengths to be able to refine the quality of their tactics. Incorporating AAVS’s legal experience, clever advertisement approach and past success with PETA’s active engagement and vast funds, both organizations can expand and bring more attention to new projects with a wider network and support.

Cite this page