Animal Testing Vs Non Animal Testing

"Over 100 million animals are burned, crippled, poisoned, and abused in United States labs every year."(Do Something np) Medical testing on animals has always been a heated argument due to its equal pros and cons. Testing on animals is needed to assure the safety of cosmetics, food, medicine and other products. Testing on animals may have its benefits for humans, but it's cruel for us to torture something that feels pain like us. Many animals possess internal systems and organs that are identical to the structures and functions of human internal organs. Rats and mice exhibit many of the same responses to chemicals as humans. (Zurlo np)

Throughout the years the use of animals in medical research has been a hot debate around the world. Although animal testing may be cruel and inhumane, thousands of humans are saved thanks to the research that animals supply researchers with. Animals testing have taken over our knowledge of medicine and treatments to a whole different level. Animal testing also does this in a cheap and effective way. Without animals testing out knowledge wouldn’t be up to date, in other words animals’ testing is good.

Animals may be the closest thing to humans other than actual humans, however they are not the exact same. The results of the tests done on animals might have a different outcome when the test is done on humans. These tests happening on innocent animals will not have the same results as they would on humans. “The FDA reports that 92 percent of drugs approved for testing in humans fail to receive approval for human use”

The harmful use of animals in experiments is not only cruel and inhumane but also often ineffective. Animals do not get many of the human diseases that people do, such as major types of heart disease, many types of cancer, HIV, Parkinson’s disease, or schizophrenia. There have been past occasions where drugs passed on animals weren’t even safe. There is no excuse for animal testing in today’s techy world, there are now many alternatives for animal testing that would put an end to the pain and suffering endured by these innocent animals during human testing.

The structural differences between animals and humans sometimes lead to inaccurate result. Not only have that, the harsh and brutal experiment on the experimental animals caused them to go through dreadful, painful emotions. Since alternative tests like in vitro continue to improve and evolve in the research community, animal testing can slowly be replaced. According to Gregory Mone “In vitro and in silico testing will play a much larger part in how we assess chemicals in the future” (Mone). The advancement in science is encouraging but at cost of the animal’s suffering and lives is inhumane and should be done away

An alternative to animal testing that is humane and effective is, using human skin for precise results. In vitro test, test performed in test tubes using human cells, has proved it’s effectiveness instead of animal testing by testing chemicals on the human skin which proved its accuracy in testing chemical irritation as compared to animal testing done on rabbits which has a 40 percent error (Alternatives to Animals in Science). Additionally, human cells are a more adequate alternative to animal testing due to lack of pain and heartbreak animals endure, but not only is alternative testing harmless to animals, it also is environmental friendly and cost efficient, while improving the lives of humans. DakDak —an alternative test used to measure the effectiveness of sunscreen— reported promising results in days as compared to what animal test can do in months (Neavs ), less time means less money, more time means more money. These test are environment friendly because scientists are not constantly disposing toxic injected animals as waste, or disposing of thousands of carcasses. Alternative testing creates reassurance in science, humans, animals, and the environment as compared to animal

It was proven by the Humane Society of the U.S that healthy and diseased tissues isolated from human volunteers can provide a more relevant way of studying human biology and disease that animal testing. Crude skin allergy tests in guinea pigs only predict human reactions 72% of the rime. A combination of chemisty and a cell based alternative have been shown to predict human reactions 90% of the time. Artificial skin is another great way to test products which produce more useful results than testing. Computer modeling can replace testing by making accurate estimates on a substance likelihood of being dangerous. Human patient simulators are also being used in research worldwide. These are life-like computerized human simulators that can talk, bleed, move around, and even “die”. Not to mention, there are millions of cell-based alternatives that are at our hands to use on testing instead of torturing billions of innocent animals. Replacing animal testing will improve the quality as well as the humanesness of our science! Using other options would make some products more effective and less hazardous, and best of all put all the animals out of their

In addition to the hundreds of online alternatives to animal testing, testing on volunteers and inmates is efficient, as they are humans, and the most reliable source of testing. Volunteers directly state if they wish to be taken under testing procedures, whereas animals cannot input their decisions with words or understandable communication. Another way to test is the “in vitro alternative”, which costs $11,000. It is nearly three times cheaper than “an unscheduled DNA synthesis” animal test, with the price range of $32,000 (ProCon 2016). X rays, a vaccine against yellow fever, antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs, surgical procedures for cardiac aneurysms, appendicitis, brain tumors, and cataracts have all been obtained through research done without the use of vivisection (Hurley 52). More than 98 percent of U.S. medical schools—including

Animal testing is not accurate. According to the article, “How human biology can prevent drug deaths” it says, “On average, the extrapolated results from studies using tens of millions of animals fail to accurately predict human responses. And a recent study in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology (vol 64, p 345) shows that animal tests missed 81 percent of the serious side effects of 43 drugs that went on to harm patients” (Kathy Archibald and Robert Coleman). This comes to how that animal testing is not 100% accurate. Although, animals are similar to humans they are not the best to be used for testing products for humans. Animals are being killed for no reason because even if they are being tested on. The results show there is more than a 50% chance that a product tested on an animal is not accurate at all. Some may say, animal testing serves the better of humanity as it saves lives. However, there are better alternatives to animal testing such as using human like tissue. Everyday animal experiments are failing because some animals are not allergic or are harmed by some of the products humans use. Therefore, if the lab results show no indication of problems of the chemicals tested on the animals. Humans think the products or medications or harmless to humans.But in fact, there is higher chance the products are dangerous to humans. In brief, animals deserve to roam free in the wild and not be dominated by humans for their own

Ultimately, in spite of its proponent’s insistence that animal testing is necessary because animals make good models for the human body, and even if it is inaccurate scientist have addressed this with the way that testing data is gathered. Alas, animal testing is inaccurate because of invalidity of their very premise. Animal models are inexact. The costs of animals being used as models for humans are erroneous data, misleading information, and dangerous drugs. Those consequences are too

Opponents say that animal testing is crucial for advances in medical research. Many advances in medications and research in the medical field have only come to be through animal testing. However, studies have proven that there are many alternate ways for medical testing which do not require

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.

Instead of abusing animals while testing, there are many other methods such as computer modeling, human volunteers, cell-based tests and tissue models. “A variety of cell-based tests and tissue models can be used to assess the safety of drugs, chemicals, cosmetics, and consumer products.” (“Alternatives to Animal Testing”). Not all tests can be reliable, such as identifying chemicals that cause birth defects or allergic reaction, but scientists are trying to develop methods (Curren). The quality and humanness of testing will improve if animals are replaced by vitro methods. These tests will often be cheaper, quicker, and more effective (“Alternatives to Animal Testing”). The study of naturally occurring disease and the health in humans is called epidemiology. The results of this study has provided researchers and health practitioners with an understanding of causes, treatments, and preventions of a range of human illnesses and no animals were mistreated as a result (“Animals in Science/Alternatives”). Animals can stop suffering and dying from these experiments if these alternatives are used more

Animal Testing for any scientific or commercial use is a heinous action and should be banned because it harms innocent animals, it is an inaccurate representation of human’s response to products, and there are adequate non-animal alternatives that are readily available for use. About 100 million animals are being killed every year due to inhumane medical tests being performed on them. Mouse, rabbits, rats, guinea pigs, hamsters, dogs, cats, and many more are all animals that have been used in medical testing. These animals endure slow, painful deaths by

There many alternative ways of testing cosmetic products which are more reliable than animal testing. In Animals and Alternatives in Testing: History, Science, and Ethics, the chapter “Toxicology & Toxicity Testing,” Goldberg, Rudacille, and Zurlo had found that In Vitro testing are more reliable in the speed of results, and control in the environment. In Vitro testing is