Genetic Testing Doesn T Equal To Animals

According to Cruelty Free International, 95% of drugs fail in human trials despite promising results in animal tests, because they do not work. Using dogs, rats, mice and rabbits to test whether or not a drug will be harmless for humans offers slight statistically useful understanding.

First of all, animal testing is unethical even if we are more evolved than the animals being tested on. Scientist force animals into cages and put them through hours, days, or weeks of testing. Testing can include such things as brutal as water and sleep deprivation, pain infliction, and force feeding food that the animal is not supposed to eat. The worst part seems to be that the animals have no choice to be tested on, and after they are most of them are “put down,” or killed because the human race has used them and does not need them any more. A good example of the brutal treatment the helpless animals get is The Draize Eye Test, in this test bunnies are used to test many soaps and cleaners to see if they are toxic to human eyes. The Draize Eye test is still common despite the fact that there are alternative methods.

          With today’s advances in technology and knowledge using animals to test on is unnecessary. Alternatives have been found

Granted, despite the extremely low success rate of passing drugs, the few that do end up succeeding save and improve human lives all around. However, this practice is hurting animals at our expense, and we don’t even have to experiment on these animals to get the results being strived for. There are many alternatives to animal testing, some even more productive and accurate than the current, inhumane tests. Artificial skin is one of these. Artificial skin is large sheets of lab made skin cells. This would be very useful for cosmetic testing because if the substance being tested was toxic, animals would not get rashes or being injured. Also, this would be a limitless source of testing material, and provide more accurate results because the skin is much more similar to a human's than an animal's. Another possible solution is in vitro testing. This is when scientists extract human cells and do tests on them in petri dishes. Once again, this too is more effective than animal testing because there are real human cells instead of animal cells. But, the cells are not entirely effective because they are not in the body and are not responding they way they would in their natural environment. An even better solution is body chips. These miracle workers are chips with organ cells in them. It acts as the cells “environment” and makes it respond normally to drugs and disease. The

Animal testing has been a controversial topic for many generations throughout the world. People against animal testing say that animal testing is cruel and inhumane and

Millions of animals suffer due to effects of testing they must endure. This testing is usually done unethically and causes major harm. It’s wrong to harm animals for the sake of testing products for society. Furthermore, animals are living creatures just like humans and should not be treated differently. While testing animals may be cheaper, it is morally wrong and causes many harmful side effects in animals.

Animal testing has been bad of the years and it can even be dated back to the ancient times of the greek. Physicians would dissect animals with the pure interest to obtain knowledge. But even then, one such physician stated that he would rather use a pig as his subject because he wanted to.The ethics of animal testing has always been questioned. Humans do not want to think of animals as on the same level of us. The similarity is terrifying and makes the cruelness obvious. In the 16 century it has been recorded that early vivisectionists, scientists who perform experiments and operations on live animals, did not consider animals to be of the same lineage of us and barely cared for them.The remaining are used as test dummies for products.

In conclusion, animal testing, is cruel to animals and very dangerous because of its unreliability. It also i just morally wrong these poor animals live in stress, fear, and pain and is forced upon them without their consent. It is largely inconclusive because animal anatomy is different from human anatomy; results of testing cannot be said to mimic the results in

The animal testing debate is centered on animal rights and moral status of animals. Some people believe that animals have a moral status, and it is unethical to subject them to unnecessary pain and abuse. Some people have kept animals such as dogs and cats and look upon them as part of their family. Ethicists feel that humans have no right to kill animals, subjecting them to human services or using them as means to achieve their selfish goals. I concur that animals have some moral status and rights, but people are more important than animals. It is morally right to use

Can you imagine what it’s like to live in a cage your whole life? What if every single day your body was poked with needles that injected either deadly diseases or possibly lethal doses of drugs into your system? In addition to that, what if you were force fed, not only food but, chemicals and drugs or you had to have your organs removed and skin be chemically burned? Most of us, thankfully, can’t imagine the horror of being mistreated like this. In the animal kingdom, humans are at the top. We hold superiority over all other living things which give us a substantial amount of power. However, we don’t always use this power for good. This is the reality of animal testing. According to Humane Society International,

In Vitro (in glass) testing, such as studding cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used. There is also the option to use Micro testing, the administration of small doses, too small to cause and adverse reactions, can be used in human volunteers, whose blood can then be analyzed. Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and

Animal Testing: Torturing animals by testing medicine on them… If you were sick would you really rely on a medication that worked on animals? Do you think it would work on you? Animal Testing is a way for doctors to ensure medication, but animals and humans are different. Some reasons is, tests that have passed animals can affect human population. Another reason is not many tests work. According to Some Facts animal testing 92% of tests don’t work. Also if you were sick and ready for treatment then you would not want medication that passed animals and can skew your outcome. Some people say that animal testing is good because it helps find cures, but side effects can be different and hurt you further.

Animal testing is cruel and inhumane to the animals. We are force feeding them. Forced inhalation. And also, we sometimes are depriving them of food and/or water. This is unfair to the animals who don’t even know what is happening to them.

“Animals and humans biologically differ from each other. So results from animal experiments can’t be applied accurately to humans. Humane alternatives to much of animal research, such as tissue samples and computer models, already exist. Animals have rights. When scientists engage in animal research, ‘they violate the rights of an animal to be free from unnatural diseases, injuries, or mental and behavior problems,’ says John McArdle, a biologist with the American AntiVivisection Society (AAVS)...” (2). Opponents of animal testing have pushed their movement internationally. Cosmetic brands have stopped testing their products on animals (referring to themselves as cruelty-free). These include high-end brands like Urban Decay, drugstore brands like NYX, and natural and green brands such as Everyday Minerals. The ‘cruelty-free’ label is a successful marketing tool for those who do not support animal testing, since those people refuse to give their money to brands that do test on animals. These brands are moving away from animal testing and more into testing their products in other ways to ensure it is not harmful to consumers. “Instead of testing a drug on a whole animal, for instance, researchers now experiment on vitro--on sample human or animal cells growing in a petri dish. Until a few years ago, the National Cancer Institute used to test 1.5 million rodents yearly with thousands of compounds to determine the effects of anticancer drugs. Now researchers use in vitro screening and test the compounds cancer cells taken from human… Computer models also provide a humane alternative [REST OF QUOTE],” (Chang

Animal testing has caused a hindrance on the animals, however these creatures are not identical to humans, so they do not provide accurate results for human products. In the article, “Animal Experimentation,” the author states, “Animal experimentation has been instrumental in many medical and pharmaceutical advances that have benefited humans”(Driscoll).While this may be true, there are studies that prove that this does not always occur. In a multi-institution study, scientists tested how certain abrasive skin illnesses affected mice versus humans. Some of the results were similar, however most of the outcomes were not. This is because animals and humans do not share the exact same genetics (Guillermo). Since animals are such inadequate models for human research, some drugs can pass an animal test, but be