Should We Replace Animal Testing Necessary?

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 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

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

Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. In vitro (in glass) testing, such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used. [15] Microdosing, the administering of doses too small to cause adverse reactions, can be used in human volunteers, whose blood is then analyzed. Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and ThinCert, is made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and can produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin. [15][50][51] Microfluidic chips ("organs on a chip"), which are lined with human cells and recreate the functions of human organs, are in advanced stages of development. Computer models, such as virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures, can predict the toxicity of substances without invasive experiments on animals. [50]

An estimated 100 million animals are used every year in the United States for scientific and commercial testing. Animals are used to develop medical treatments, determine how toxic medications are, check the safety of products for human use, and health care uses. Animal testing is unnecessary and should be banned because of how they treat the animals, Animal testing is pointless, and because of how they suffer and die.

Today, there are many non-animal methods which have replaced animal experimentation and have been accepted by some countries as replacements for an existing animal test. Generally, non-animal tests are faster and less expensive than animal tests because they can

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

Within these test tubes, scientists have been able to mimic the structure of human cells and tissue in order for the test to be precise and directed as a safety test for the human species. This method utilizes glass test tubes which can grow human cells and tissue from donated human cells. According to PETA, Harvard's Wyss Institute has created an organs on chip which is a chip containing human cells built in a system they have created. These chips have been and will continue to be a great alternative to animal testing and have the ability to replace some animals for experimental testing. Although the in vitro method may not be able to broadly replace animal testing, it does do the job of predicting more precise effects drugs will have on humans because these test tubes actually have replicas of human cells and tissues. Unlike testing on animals, the in vitro will directly have effects seen on the human species which makes the most sense as all the testing is towards the safety of humans anyway. This method of experimental testing will improve the understanding of just how certain drugs and chemicals will affect the human body. This method has potential to help animals be bred solely for testing, as does the in silico

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

Animals are different from humans therefore the results will be inaccurate. Just because a drug passes animal testing doesn't mean that

First, the reaction to drugs in animals bodies are different from the reaction in humans. When testing on animals it puts pressure on the animal and can give them a heart attack which leads

Knowing that in many cases animal tests have not produced stable or even capable results to put into effect on humans this allows for a large waste of money, time, and resources that could have been better well spent in furthering technological advances made for human relevant testing. Scientists have developed more modern and effective research methods that do not include animals. New technologies such as human-based micro dosing, or in vitro testing, act as human-patient simulators. These newly produced advancements along with sophisticated computer modeling allow for much faster and cheaper tests. Human-based micro dosing allows for more accurate results than animal testing. These experiments using in vitro or human-based micro dosing allows for experiments to be performed in non-unethical or inhumane manners.

In vitro testing is one of alternatives to animal testing; this method has generally spent much more costly than small or medium scales of animal testing. In addition, with the current level of technology levels, in vitro testing is too limited to test the amount of experiments. Another alternative is research with human volunteers. This method has called “Microdosing”. This method is actual medical and scientific research with a human. However, this method is spent many times to get results and it spent the amount of budget to the test. Since there are many problems with these alternatives animal testing is the best way of doing biological

Using helpless animals for the benefit of human beings goes back thousands of years. A common theme has been present: the use of these animals has been necessary for survival. Of late, these essential sacrifices have metamorphosed into yield-less speculations. Animal testing is wrong based on these premises: there are available alternatives to direct testing on live animals, the results acquired rom the tests are inaccurate and repetitive, and ultimately it is speciesism, which is comparable to racism and sexism. Today’s society has progressed in other aspects, it is time for in-obligatory animal testing to be abolished. Cruelty to animals is inexcusable, avoidable and thoroughly repelling.

(Animals Are Not Ours To Experiment On.) Which means that 3 tests performed on animals are ineffective, at showing whether or not the drug would be safe for humans. Knowing this, we are STILL neglecting, torturing, and mutilating these helpless animals.