Healthy Dog's Eye Removal... Is Animal Testing Really Necessary? [Hello? Animal]

Number of Animals Used in Domestic Animal Testing Exceeds 4 Million Annually
Over 70% of Animals Exposed to Highest Pain Grades D and E
Animal Testing Used for Drug and Cosmetic Approvals
Experts Say "Replacement Efforts Needed Even If Immediate Elimination Is Impossible"
Advanced Scientific Countries Like the US and UK Actively Research Alternative Testing Methods

A domestic research team reportedly conducted an experiment in which they enucleated a dog's eyeball and implanted a custom-made prosthetic eye produced with a 3D printer, sparking controversy in the academic community. / Photo by PLOS ONE, an international academic journal

[Asia Economy Reporter Lim Juhyung] In early last year, a scientific paper from a national university in South Korea sparked controversy over 'animal testing ethics' after being criticized for treating experimental animals excessively cruelly. According to government data, more than 4 million animals are used annually for animal testing in South Korea, many of which endure severe pain and stress. Although animal testing is deemed necessary for the advancement of science and industry, calls for urgent ethical regulations to reduce unnecessary suffering are growing louder.

The controversial paper was published in November 2020 in the international journal PLOS ONE, submitted by a research team led by a professor from the veterinary medicine department of a national university in South Korea.

In this paper, the team implanted a 3D-printed artificial eye into a beagle whose one eye had been removed to test the safety of a custom-made artificial eye for companion dogs, observing the progress over six months.

However, months later, the study faced criticism from the international academic community for being 'unethical.' In January last year, the PLOS ONE editorial board published a commentary expressing their concerns directly.

The editors pointed out that the paper faced criticism for △ the research motivation being unjustifiable if it was merely for cosmetic purposes rather than solving canine health issues, and △ the lack of information on whether appropriate pain management plans, such as analgesics for post-surgical pain and inflammation, were in place. Subsequently, PLOS ONE decided to reassess whether the study met ethical standards before taking further action.

Some citizens filed a petition on the Blue House National Petition Board condemning the research team, claiming that the research methods are excessively cruel. / Photo by Blue House National Petition Board screenshot

The ethical controversy over the paper was later reported in South Korean media, prompting immediate public backlash.

On January 5 last year, a petition titled "Condemn the veterinary research team that performed animal testing by removing the eye of a healthy beagle and implanting an artificial eye" was posted on the Blue House (Cheong Wa Dae) petition board, garnering over 30,000 signatures.

Animal rights groups also voiced criticism. The 'Beagle Rescue Network' stated at the time, "There was no sign of humane consideration for the two beagles used as experimental animals," and questioned, "What is the difference in the 'value of life' between companion animals and laboratory animals?"

Ethical controversies surrounding animal testing conducted in South Korea are not new. According to data compiled by the Animal Experiment Ethics Committee of the Animal and Plant Quarantine Agency, approximately 4.14 million animals were used in domestic animal experiments in 2020 alone. This is the highest annual figure since related statistics began being recorded in 2008.

A researcher injecting a laboratory rat called 'Labrat'. The photo is not related to any specific expression in the article. Photo by Yonhap News.

The problem does not end there. The Ethics Committee evaluates the 'pain grade' based on the level of pain and stress experienced by the experimental animals. This grading system ranges from A (studies using dead organisms, plants, or invertebrates) to E (extreme pain, oppression, or stress), totaling five levels.

Of the 4.14 million animals used in experiments in South Korea in 2020, about 1.757 million (42%) were involved in E-grade experiments. D-grade experiments, which involve 'pain suppression above moderate severity,' accounted for approximately 1.309 million animals, about 31%. Thus, over 70% of the animals were subjected to the highest pain grades, D and E.

Today, animal testing is widely used to observe the efficacy and safety of products used by humans, such as pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and food. Especially for pharmaceuticals, where direct administration to humans is involved, animal testing is known to be a crucial procedure. In fact, of all animals used in 2020, about 43.4%, or 1,795,709 animals, were used for regulatory tests to meet legal requirements such as drug approval.

Although animal testing plays an essential role in industrial and scientific advancement, the fact that 7 out of 10 experimental animals are exposed to extreme pain has led to increasing demands for more cautious ethical regulations.

Inside view of the animal laboratory at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, the world's largest genomics research institution in the UK. / Photo by Sanger Institute website capture

In scientifically advanced countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, various alternatives to animal testing are being researched. In 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced plans to ban all mammalian testing by 2035. Instead, the EPA plans to support related research institutions such as Johns Hopkins University and Vanderbilt Medical Center with $4.25 million (approximately 510 million KRW) to develop alternative testing methods like computer predictive modeling and in vitro experiments.

According to the British media outlet The Guardian, the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, known as the world's largest genomics research center in the UK, plans to close all animal laboratories by 2022. The Sanger Institute intends to replace traditional experimental animals with advanced technologies such as artificial cell cultures.

Experts urge efforts in South Korea to reduce animal testing and explore alternative methods. The 'Animal Freedom Coalition' stated, "While it is not possible to eliminate animal testing immediately, efforts should be made to minimize animal use as much as possible," emphasizing, "Artificial skin, tissue cultures, and computer-based experiments should replace animal testing, and the number of experimental animals should be reduced."

They added, "For animal testing that cannot be replaced, inhumane treatment of experimental animals must be minimized, appropriate analgesics and anesthetics should be used, humane euthanasia should be performed if necessary, and hygienic environments, sufficient food, space, and exercise conditions must be guaranteed."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.