"What Crime Did the Animal Commit?" Is It Okay to Continue Animal Testing Like 'Extracting Eyes from Healthy Dogs'?

"Condemnation of Research Team for Enucleation of Healthy Dog's Eye" 청원 to Blue House
Animal Groups "Cruel Experiments Conducted... Deep Regret Over Serious Bioethics Awareness"
Experts "Animal Testing Ultimately for Human Convenience"

A research team from the Department of Veterinary Medicine at Chungbuk National University has sparked controversy by conducting an experiment in which they removed dogs' eyeballs and implanted artificial eyes made using 3D printing technology. Photo by Plos One, an international academic journal.

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Midam] A domestic research team has come under criticism for conducting an experiment in which they extracted the eyeballs of healthy dogs to implant artificial eyes. The team has been accused of violating animal testing ethics by deliberately removing the eyeballs of healthy dogs as experimental subjects.

Animal protection organizations have condemned this as abuse and called for measures such as strengthening ethics education for researchers. Experts also pointed out that the experiment was unethical and emphasized the need to avoid animal testing altogether.

On the 25th, a petition titled "Please condemn the veterinary professor team that extracted the eyes of healthy Beagles, implanted artificial eyes, and then euthanized the Beagles after the animal experiment" was posted on the Blue House National Petition Board.

The petitioner stated, "A veterinary professor team at a university conducted a cruel animal experiment in which they extracted one eye from each of two Beagles to publish a paper, then implanted artificial eyes and orbital implants (implants to fill the empty space after extraction) developed using 3D printing technology," adding, "All the Beagles exploited in the experiment were euthanized."

They continued, "We strongly condemn the outdated unethical and cruel behavior of the veterinary research team that extracted the eyes of two healthy Beagles and euthanized them after the experiment, driven by the desire for new technology using '3D printer technology.' We also strongly condemn the incompetence of the 'Animal Experiment Ethics Committee' that has come to light through this incident." As of 10:15 AM on the 26th, the petition had received over 12,100 signatures.

On the 25th, a petition condemning animal testing was posted on the Cheongwadae National Petition Board. Photo by Cheongwadae National Petition Board capture.

The controversial paper was published in November last year by Professor Park Kyung-mi's research team from the Department of Veterinary Medicine at Chungbuk National University in the international journal 'PLOS ONE,' titled "Custom-made artificial eyes using 3D printing for dogs: A preliminary study."

The study investigated whether artificial eyes made with a 3D printer could replace the eyeballs of animals that had been removed due to intractable eye diseases.

During the process, the research team extracted one eye from each of two Beagles, implanted artificial eyes developed using 3D printing technology, and observed the progress for six months. It is reported that all dogs used in the experiment were subsequently euthanized.

Animal protection organizations have raised their voices in criticism of the experiment. They pointed out issues such as forcibly removing the eyes of healthy dogs rather than using dogs whose eyes had already been removed due to related diseases, and the lack of appropriate measures to address the pain the dogs would have experienced after surgery.

Animal protection group 'Life' also issued a statement on the day, saying, "We strongly condemn the Chungbuk National University veterinary research team for conducting unnecessary and unethical experiments that sacrificed two Beagles for purely cosmetic purposes, not for experiments unavoidably conducted to improve the health of animals or humans."

They added, "There is no doubt that the research team carried out a cruel experiment by extracting the eyes of two healthy Beagles for purely cosmetic purposes, and we express deep regret over the research team's serious lack of bioethical awareness."

Currently, 'PLOS ONE,' where the paper was published, is re-evaluating the paper due to concerns about the research team's ethics.

The photo is unrelated to specific expressions in the article. Photo by Pixabay.

This is not the first time unethical animal testing practices have been brought to light. In 2019, the College of Veterinary Medicine at Kyungpook National University forcibly bred practice dogs in the 'Veterinary Obstetrics Practice' course and later handed over the puppies born to students.

These cases can be seen as violations of the 3R principles set forth in Article 23 of the Animal Protection Act, which are the basic principles of animal testing: Reduction (reducing the number of animals used), Replacement (replacing animal testing with non-animal methods), and Refinement (minimizing pain and distress).

However, because the management and standards for supplying laboratory animals within universities are unclear, unethical experiments on laboratory animals continue to be repeated.

In other countries, the placement of veterinarians is mandatory. In the United States, each animal testing facility must formally employ veterinarians and submit veterinary care plans and regular visit schedules.

Additionally, the European Union requires that producers, suppliers, and researchers involved with laboratory animals all have specialized laboratory animal veterinarians assigned.

An expert criticized unethical animal testing. Lee Won-bok, president of the Korea Animal Protection Alliance, said, "Animal testing itself is fundamentally unethical because it is done for human convenience," adding, "Especially in this case, it is impossible not to consider it unethical since the eyeballs of healthy animals were extracted."

He continued, "Other countries are already moving away from animal testing. South Korea also needs to avoid animal testing in the future," emphasizing, "Our society needs to seriously reflect and contemplate on animal testing ethics."