In this blog post, we explore whether the countless animal experiments conducted for the sake of human life are truly justified, and consider the ethical issues hidden behind the justification of protecting life.
Recent advances in biotechnology have led to the development of various new drugs, greatly aiding in the treatment of human diseases and extending life expectancy. However, we often overlook the fact that animal testing lies behind these biotechnological advancements. We tend to think it’s simply beneficial if it helps us and have become accustomed to using the results. Yet, globally, animal testing is rapidly increasing alongside the advancement of biotechnology. In South Korea alone, it is said that over 4 million animals are sacrificed annually in experiments. This figure represents approximately 10% of the country’s population. So, is it truly natural and justified that such a large number of animals are experimented on and killed for humans?
An ancient saying states, ‘Humans are the rulers of all creatures.’ Article 10 of our Constitution also emphasizes the guarantee of citizens’ dignity and the right to pursue happiness. The Bible states that God created humans in His own image. In this context, humans are perceived as more dignified, superior, and noble than any other being on Earth.
Humans have distinguished themselves from animals. Animals literally mean ‘moving creatures’. Although humans are also moving creatures, they define themselves as independent beings not belonging to the animal kingdom and consider themselves in a superior position. Based on uniquely human traits like reason, creativity, language, and culture, humans have set themselves apart from animals, granting themselves superior rights and the legitimacy of domination over them.
However, upon careful reflection, the superior rights humans grant themselves are grounded in their high intelligence. This intelligence enables the reason to judge right from wrong, facilitates creative thought, and allows the development of language to accumulate knowledge and culture.
So, what if animals possessed higher intelligence than humans? Would humans still acknowledge animals as superior? Or would they continue to assert, as they do now, that human status is exclusive, superior, and noble? The 1968 film Planet of the Apes depicts a situation where the status of humans and apes is reversed. In the film, humans are bred by apes and reduced to subjects for biological experiments. Humans possess only primitive-level intelligence and culture, unable even to speak. In contrast, the apes use language, lead a brilliant culture, and dominate humans. Here, human rights are not guaranteed at all. If superior intelligence is the criterion justifying superior rights, then it would seem natural for the more intelligent apes to dominate the less intelligent humans and hold a superior position. Yet viewers of this film feel pity for the plight of humans and a sense of dread at the fact that apes occupy a superior position.
Can high intelligence truly possess such absolute legitimacy that it grants one side superior rights? If high intelligence were the basis for claiming human superiority, then mentally disabled individuals with lower intelligence should not have their rights guaranteed. Yet we guarantee human rights to them as well. Conversely, we do not guarantee rights to monkeys possessing intelligence at a child’s level, nor do we regard even highly intelligent monkeys as beings equal to humans. This reveals a significant contradiction in the justification for human superiority. In reality, humans do not grant rights and dignity based on high intelligence; they simply believe themselves superior to animals solely because they are human.
Since the industrial era, humans have failed to escape anthropocentric thinking. Humans have viewed nature as a tool for their own happiness and treated animals as beings inferior to themselves. Chickens in factory farms live in spaces barely large enough for their bodies, eating feed with only their necks protruding, laying eggs, and ultimately becoming chicken meat for human consumption. Dogs raised for consumption spend their entire lives confined within narrow cages, ultimately ending their days as ingredients for bosintang. Laboratory monkeys are painfully sacrificed as subjects for drugs and brain bioexperiments conducted for humans. They often meet painful deaths due to various side effects arising during this process. Humans assign meaning to monkeys used in experiments, claiming they contribute to human progress, yet they would not attempt the same actions on humans.
Can humans truly claim superiority over animals and the right to treat them as they please, solely because they are human? It is time to move beyond anthropocentric thinking. We must recognize and acknowledge that humans are part of nature, one member among many. Now is the time to protect and respect not only human rights, but the rights of all life. There is no absolute basis to declare that animals, plants, or nature are inferior to humans. The value of existence is noble not only for human life but for all life.
Recently, a global movement to move beyond this human-centered thinking and protect and respect animals is spreading worldwide. As animal abuse becomes a major issue, many countries are enacting laws to protect animal rights, such as animal protection laws, animal cruelty prevention laws, and animal testing ethics laws. The European Union has banned the sale of cosmetics developed through animal testing. South Korea also enacted the Act on the Use of Laboratory Animals in 2010 and the Animal Protection Act in 2011. However, enforcement remains inadequate, making it difficult to verify compliance within laboratories. Even when laws are violated, penalties are limited to advisory levels. Thus, legal protections for laboratory animals still appear insufficient.
In South Korea alone, approximately 4 million mice, rabbits, dogs, monkeys, and other animals are used annually in animal testing for human purposes. The use of laboratory animals continues to increase with advances in biotechnology, and these animals are still utilized for drugs to protect human health, cosmetics for beauty, and in biological experiments.
Humans should not conduct animal experiments solely for human benefit. Some equate animal testing with meat consumption, arguing that just as killing animals for meat is unavoidable, so is animal testing. However, while meat consumption aligns with natural order and ecological balance, animal testing merely sacrifices innocent animals to satisfy human greed and assert superiority.
Is such sacrifice truly essential for human progress and the protection of life? Animal testing has already reached its limits. Animals and humans possess fundamental differences in physiology, anatomy, and genetics, meaning results from animal testing do not translate identically to humans. Many new drugs deemed safe through animal testing later cause adverse effects in humans, leading to their prohibition. For example, the anti-nausea drug ‘Thalidomide,’ developed in the 1960s, showed no problems in test animals. However, pregnant women who took it gave birth to babies with limb defects, leading to its withdrawal from the market in 1962. This demonstrates that animal testing is not an essential step in new drug development and, in fact, carries the risk of causing adverse effects.
If animal testing truly serves human progress, stronger legislation than currently exists is necessary. Efforts are needed to raise the standards for animal testing, guarantee animal rights, and reduce the use of animals in experiments. We must deeply consider the ethical aspects of animal testing and move towards a life-centered mindset, not a human-centered one. It is time to create a world where humans and animals can coexist with mutual respect.
During high school, I was deeply shocked upon encountering videos and records of animal testing. Years later, I still witness animal testing being perpetrated under the guise of human progress. Though one person’s strength may be small, I will urge the strengthening of animal protection laws and strive to widely promote alternative testing methods instead of animal testing.
