Animal Testing: Negative Response In Today's Society

Arden’s article “Come Clean About Animal Testing” are evidences and examples of alternative testing methods that can replace animal testing. She summarizes that cellular methods are cheaper and faster than animal testing, thus ensuring safer cosmetics for all. She states “Organ chips and virtual embryos are the future of chemical toxicity testing,” this allows scientist to move on from animal testing to a more accurate type of testing that can ensure positive results (Arden 11). Arden also points out the different types of groups that support her decision in replacing animal testing such as Physicians Committee, ASCCT, and the Environmental Protection Agency to use as evidence to support her claim. She concludes her article by stating what

Throughout history, beginning as early as 500 BC, animals have been used to test out products that will later be utilized by humans (“Animal Testing” 4), what isn’t publicly discussed about is the way it will leave the animals after the process is done. Many innocent rabbits, monkeys, mice, and even popular pets such as dogs are harmed during the testing application of cosmetics, medicine, perfumes, and many other consumer products (Donaldson 2). Nevertheless, there are many people whom support the scandal because "it is a legal requirement to carry out animal testing to ensure they are safe and effective” for human benefit (Drayson). The overall question here is should it even be an authorized form of experimentation in the United States, or anywhere else? The fact of the matter is that there are alternatives to remove animals out of the equation for good (“Alternatives to Animal Testing” 1). They are cheaper, and less invasive than the maltreatment of the 26 million innocent animals that are subjected to the heartlessness of testing each year (“Animal Testing” 4). With all things considered, animal testing should be looked upon as animal cruelty due to the harsh effects from the many products tested on the innocent.

Animal testing is a secret most companies don’t like to share. It is a global problem that needs to be put to an end. The use of animal testing is used in medicine, cosmetics and for educational purposes and it is immoral and unnecessary when we have advanced technologies that can replace these harmful methods.

More than six million animals are used annually in research and teaching in Australia and New Zealand. Many (but not all) of those animal are subjected to some degree of pain and/or stress during the experimental procedure or as a result of the environment in which they are kept prior to

Much progress has been made to end this testing, gearing the world into the right direction of animal testing free procedures, though, not everyone is on board. The United States have yet to hop onto the train toward a free animal testing future. The United States continues to test on animals for cosmetics even though there are numerous ways to test, without using animals, that are more efficient and effective than animal testing. (3D tissue samples of corneas made from human cells can be used instead of using an animal organ when testing for cosmetics side effects.) What is worse than the United States still testing on animals, is that there is continued demand for even more animal

This reluctance to change is especially unforgivable considering the current wide availability of superior non-animal tests. Instead of measuring how long it takes a chemical to burn away the cornea of a rabbit’s eye, manufacturers can now drop that chemical onto donated human corneas. Human skin cultures can be grown and ordered for irritancy testing. These and dozens more tests now in use today are cheaper, faster, and more accurate at predicting human reactions to a product than the old animal tests ever were.” With other alternatives available to test for irritation and chemical exposure, there is no explanation for the United States to still be using live animals for cosmetic testing. With some countries banning the use of cosmetic testing on animals, there is hope that other countries will begin to as well. The countries who still use animal testing as a way of testing products might recognize why the countries have banned such an act. When the cruelty of animal testing is recognized, countries who still testing with

There are hundreds of people who are against the testing of laboratory animals for any type of research, whether it is beneficial to human lives or not. They do not support the abuse and neglect that the animals tolerate while in the laboratory. People want companies to find alternatives to testing products on animals. There has been a group formed called the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) who has begun proposing that companies who are testing vertebrate animals should follow a system. This system would help to cause no more than momentary or slight pain to the animals (Virginia 1). “Alternatives are procedures that follow ‘the three R’s’: Refine existing test methods, Reduce animal usage, or Replace animals as test systems” (Virginia 1). Other steps have been taken by companies to help reduce the usage of animals for testing purposes. In 1979, Revlon Cosmetics was one of the first large companies to fund research alternatives with a $750,000 contribution to Rockefeller University (Stevens). “Several organizations such as the John Hopkins Center for the Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), the International Foundation for Ethical Research, the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association followed suit and started their own programs to validate alternatives”

Throughout the years, animal testing has played an essential role in leading to breakthrough discoveries in medicine, products, and cosmetics. Animal testing has been around since the fifth century in order to aid in studying the human body. Ever since, it has become the primary method for medical and scientific research; however, animal testing also raises several concerns. When it comes specifically to testing on animals, there is a chance the test results could be unreliable since they are inaccurate, which can not only waste money, but can delay the process for important cures and products. Each year across the United States hundreds of animals die from undergoing painful experiments to better improve the medical field. Although many great discoveries have come out of animal experimentation, alternative methods should be regulated due to the lack of results, high costs, and moral judgement.

Over one hundred million animals every year die from animal testing, in the medical and cosmetic fields alone (“Experiments on Animals: Overview”). Animal testing is as big of a problem today as it has been in the past. Most people do not agree with animal testing today but years ago it was one of the only ways of testing. It was considered, if not the only, effective and efficient ways of testing a product’s toxicity. To date, animal testing is not warranted because of the development of new technology and past discoveries. Many organizations and brands publicly oppose animal testing. The companies that stand against animal testing are broad and diverse, ranging from medical to cosmetic testing, advocating that at its core, this issue is

In today's world, scientists have discovered alternative tests like a stem cell, genetic testing methods, and computer models, which is more reliable than animal testing. “ Almost every type of human and animal cell is grown in the laboratory. Scientists have even managed to coax cells to grow into 3D structures” (Cruelty-Free International). In another word, almost every kind of human organs is created in the laboratory. “Tissue Engineering is the science of growing replacement organs and tissue in the lab to replace damaged or diseased tissue” (Wake Forest School of

Picture yourself applying your favorite make-up or taking medicine prescribed to you by your doctor, and ask yourself, how do you know its safe? Have you ever wondered what goes in to make sure that makeup or medicine isn’t lethal? A majority of making sure if things like drugs and make-up are safe is done by testing the drugs and cosmetics on different kinds of animals (Abbott 1). Animal testing once saved many lives (“Animal”, par.7) but as science progressed new methods, much like in vitro which uses human cells cultivated in a lab, were found that had the potential to replace animal testing (Abbott 1). Whether or not one is more effective than the other has been a hot topic for years, and multiple studies have been done to compare the two to each other. I believe that animal testing is a method that is no longer needed, because there are alternatives to animal testing that can achieve the same results without causing harm to animals.

For those who are animal lovers and have pets at home, are they your best friend? Your pet could be tested on with products that we use, before the product is on the shelfs. Currentaly doctors are testing on animals to see if the products are safe for us humans to use. The Animal Rights Organization has issued that there is still defaults after testing on animals. These testing is not only hurting the animals but some have still harmed humans, we should find another way to test out the products, all these animal lovers and we are still hurting them, we all should not rely on animals to test on.

Animals are the safest way to research the effect of experimental situations. Experiments have been using animal testing since the 16th century. Animal testing has saved billions and billions of human lives from harmful sickness and dangerous surgeries. Most people have only ever heard the negative stories surrounding animal testing but there are thousands of positive stories that should be taken into account.

Around the world, animal testing has been a controversy for many years. In the cosmetic and medical industry, doctors claim that animal testing is essential for life and solves many issues. Although animal testing may have helped the cosmetics industry and has provided opportunities, this form of experimenting has not been imperative to humanity. Even though animal testing has been helpful, it is no longer necessary due to the development of science, which provides humans with accurate and safer forms of testing that exclude cruelty.

The opposing side argues that there is not a safe alternative to animal testing. According to the California Biomedical Research Association, studying cells in a petri dish does not produce an opportunity to study different reactions that can occur in the circulatory, nervous, endocrine, and immune systems. (source) By using petri dishes, a result of higher relevancy emerges because they are actual human cells. There are also methods such as microdosing. Microdosing is the distribution of the chemicals, doses far too miniscule to be harmful, to living volunteers. This procedure allows scientists to study how the body reacts and stores the chemicals without any damage or pain done to the volunteer. Others argue that computer models are only reliable if there has already been information gathered from animal testing. Due to recent technological advances, sheets of artificial human skin that is made from authentic human skin cells can be used to test for skin irritants. Microfluidic chips, human cells designed to function as accurately as human organs, are in