Laurie Pycroft On Animal Testing

All drugs have dangers due to certain chemicals and substances. Because of animal testing, researchers have found another alternative to testing on humans.

To begin with, navs.org tells us that humans differ from animals in various ways, animal models will never be able to accurately recapitulate what happens in the human condition. Due to humans differing animals in various ways, the results aren't always effective. Animals being tested on things that humans and animals differ from in basically just killing animals for no reason. Besides, articles.baltimoresun.com states that 90 percent of medications approved for human use after animal testing were later proved ineffective or harmful to humans in clinical trials. As a result, 90 percent of the tests done are ineffective and harmful to humans so there’s no point of doing animal tests. You could save thousands of animals by not doing tests on them. Since animal tests aren’t always effective, people should stop doing them and save the

“Lots of people talk to animals…Not very many listen, though…That’s the problem”(Ben Hoffman). The controversy of animal testing is phenomenal; it always has been. I remember dissecting animals throughout my years of school in the "name of science". It was only until recently that I started questioning the government 's methods to teach us. We dissected a dog shark in my oceanography class last year. There had to been at least 80 dead sharks in about four different buckets; that was when it crossed the line. I understood a lamb eye or something, but breeding sharks in captivity just so they can be killed? Animal testing is wrong in every way to me.

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”

Animal Testing is uncertain and hard. Animals go through a series of tests are very painful, most of the time they are not even given anything for pain. Some product tests require the same painful procedure on a daily basis over a weeks' time. Most tests on animals cause permanent injury or even death. The tests performed on animals are not always reliable. A medicine that may be safe with animals may not be for human beings. For example, aspirin is toxic to cats, so if we were to test this medication on cats, it would not help to determine if this was a safe product for human beings. One alternative to animal testing is human testing, if we are looking to find out if the product works on humans, we should test them on humans. That case "No

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.

Animal tests do not reliably predict results in human beings. A study from ProCon.org stated that, “94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials.” This shows that testing on animals may not be as helpful as it may seem. It is not useful to test on animals when there still must be even more tests to make sure that the medical treatments are safe since the animal tests are not accurate. The tests need to be accurate to know that the medical treatment works well

First, animal testing has not been proven accurate for converting drugs to human use. According to an article

95% of drugs fail in human trials despite promising results in animal tests. This is because of the different genes between a human and an animal. The failure of the drugs can also be caused due to the fact that out of 93 dangerous drug side effects, only 19% could have been predicated by animal tests. Another piece of evidence that has been brought to the attention of many is that the testing of animals is a waste. Only 6% of 4,300 international companies involved in drug development have registered a new drug with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration since 1950. Even those drugs that are approved are not universally effective due to individual reactions, the top ten highest-grossing drugs in the U.S. only help between 1 in 4 and 1 in 25 people who take them. The last reason why animal testing should be reconsidered is common sense but overlooked. Animals are much more different from humans than imagined. Animals are incapable of being diagnosed of the same diseases that humans are. Their bodies do not allow them to have illnesses such as Parkinson’s disease, major types of heart disease, many types of cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, HIV or schizophrenia. A simple drug like aspirin is toxic to many animals, including cats, mice and rats and would not be on our pharmacy shelves if it had been tested according to current animal testing

Scientists say animal testing helps scientists advance in more scientific understanding, by using animals as models and mimicking the complexity of a human. This is exactly why we shouldn't use animals to mock a human. Because a human is extremely complex, the complexity and intricacy is precisely why animals are not good models for human medicine. We differ from animals genetically and metabolically, so data we obtain from animals cannot be assumed to work for humans. For example, cancer was cured for mice, but when tried on humans, it failed - because of the fact that we differ from

First, animal experimentation should not be used because nine times out of ten, it doesn’t work. For example, an article “Animal Testing Needs to Go” by Campus Times, explains that research increasingly shows that animals that were tested on do not correspond to humans. Meaning that experimental drugs tested on animals fail on human trials 9 out of 10 times.

Animals are very different than humans and therefore they make poor test subjects. They make poor test subjects because of the cellular, metabolic, and anatomic differences. Animals act, look, and are made very differently compared to humans. How will you be sure the product will not be harmful just because it didn’t hurt an animal? Approximately 92% of experimental drugs are dangerous of humans even though it did not affect the animal. [Cruelty]

Each year in America 100 million animals die from animal testing. Many animals suffer the pain through animal testing, even though they have found more accurate testing without using animals. Sometimes the drugs that pass animals do not always have the same effect on humans. Some of the new methods even mimic parts of the human body. Testing drugs on animals is not an acceptable way to test because drugs passing animal tests are not always safe, what they do to animals is cruel and inhumane, and because they have found other safer ways to run the tests.

Humans are animals, and as such it is morally wrong to use them to test pharmaceuticals intended for use by humans. Those who support animal experimentation believe it is a necessary evil, in part due to the false information put out by the media. The so-called benefits of animal testing have not helped humans for years, yet in many countries the law still requires researchers use animals to test their medications. In fact, although alternatives have been found, few steps have been taken to put an end to animal experimentation. Unfortunately, the way the activists present their argument that is one main reason they are not taken seriously, even though their points are valid. Animal testing is morally wrong and has not benefited humans as the media has claimed, but there are alternatives, such as new technology, if only humans would take the first step.