What´s Animal Testing The Most Dynamic Alternative?

It is completely illogical to believe that humans will end up having the same defects because of the product as that animal did. Animals bodies and humans bodies are very different and to believe that testing these animals to see the results that it may end up causing for humans is something that makes no sense. The animal legal defense fund states, “these tests have been done already, for years—and none of these cosmetic tests are required by law”( “aldf” par.3). This demonstrates that these companies have been testing these animals for years and they have all had the same results and none of it is required. They keep on harming these animals for no reason because they have been doing it for many years and yet there has been no change to the products. Obviously animal testing needs to be stopped due to the fact that it is a useless way to test products because over 98 percent of the illness are not seen in animals, difference between animals and humans, and because these animal testings are not required by

Introduction, animals that are being tested safety of their products that’s been a subject of an intense debate for over 10 years. While, a lot of people that alleged animals, the remained animals are being subjugated by the research cosmetics companies all over the country/all over the world. Even though, the scientists frequently profit from animal research, I don’t think all the suffering, the pain, and the animals dying are worth just trying find out the human benefits from the products.

Picture being locked up in a cage, injured, alone, and in pain. Imagine being a prisoner without committing a crime. This scenario exposes the life of rabbits, mice, dogs, pigs, cats, and many other animals used in cosmetic product testing. The topic of whether animal cosmetic testing is necessary or not has been a topic that many have put-off, but something that should be thought about. The reason that specific animals like, rabbits, chimpanzees, and apes are used for experimenting is because their DNA almost exactly matches a human’s. Since these mammals’ DNA is almost identical, researchers are positive that they are a great tool for testing cleaning and cosmetic products. Though researchers don’t feel any remorse for how they treat

The usage of animals for developing new cosmetics and educational purposes has been going on for years. Most importantly, over 26 million animals each year are used for medical purposes: biomedical research and clinical research. Why is animal testing such an important factor in the medical field?

New beauty products require testing to determine the beneficial and harmful effects for the consumers. Beauty products initially tested in vitro using tissues and organs must be subjected to suitable animal models before human use. Animal models identify potential safety concern and determine the accurate doses which should be administered to volunteers during the first human trials. This serves to protect the consumers, environment, and the workers from harmful effects of chemicals.

A couple methods for replacing animal experimentation are in vitro technology which is based on human cell and tissue cultures and in silico technology, also known as computer modeling. In vitro testing uses only samples of blood, cells, or tissue donated from a patient and from there, researchers can find results, diagnostics, basically most of the information they would need. In silico technology, however, is a little different. In silico testing takes place on a computer model. These computer models simulate human biology and and the progression of developing diseases. Studies show that these models can accurately predict the ways that new drugs will react in the human body and replace the use of animals in many standard drug tests. Also, QSARs are computer-based

New animal testing alternatives are being tested and introduced every day. Some scientists still believe that inhumane animal practices are still the way to go when it comes to testing medicines and cosmetics. As to most things, controversy crowds around the topic of alternatives to non-animal testing; opinions fly when scientists talk about the topic as well. As the trendy world of cruelty-free everything opens up, one can only question their actions and morals.

Animal testing has played a vital role in nearly every major medical advance over the last decade. Animal testing was accountable for the development of asthma inhalers the reason why smallpox has been eliminated from Earth. But there are also nearly over 100 alternative methods that are already proven to be highly effective. Human cells, for example have been used to create devices called ‘organs-on-chips’ that can be used instead of animals to study biological and disease processes, as well as drug metabolism since this device can accurately mimic the lung, heart, kidney and gut. Those in favor of animal testing claim that testing on animals is an essential to development more effective methods for diagnosing and treating diseases that affect

A third reason is because Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals In vitro testing, such as studying cells in a petri dish, can produce more results than animal testing because human cells can be used. Artificial human skin, such as 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. Microfluidic chips 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 could be used in experiments where they are force fed, could be burned, physically restrained... Unfortunately, 95% of the animals that are being tested on do not get to be protected by the Animal Welfare Act. Animals also have a different biology than humans which could affect the accuracy of the data. The experiments and tests could potentially have a different result with humans. Also, using animals to test products is much more expensive than some other alternatives. A skin sensitization test costs $6,000 dollars if using an animal. It is only $3,000 dollars if using local lymph node assay. In addition, cosmetics are not a necessity, so harming an animal may seem unjust. There are some downsides to testing on

It may be true that animals helped the emergence of some medicine, yet the cake is not worth the candle. As it is suggested by Akhtar (2013), there are significant differences between animals and human beings in terms of disease development. This is the first reason why animals should not be used for scientific experiments. It is because of the fact that creating diseases artificially cannot occur properly in an environment that is not natural. For example, natural diseases in humans such as stroke need a complex physiology that animals do not have (Akhtar, 2013). Therefore, using human beings in scientific experiments instead of animals can be a suitable solution. Although it is claimed that there is no satisfactory alternative to testing (Mercury, 2012), as it is suggested by Vijay (2013), there are alternative testing methods to animal testing such as using human tissue culture and donated human cornea instead of living creatures like rabbits in a digital environment

Yet, what are the alternatives to animal testing besides humans and why are they not as accountable? These alternatives can supplement work with live animals in some cases. “A tissue cultures for example, can help identify the potential toxicity or medical benefits of chemical compounds in the early stages of investigation. But compounds must also be tested on living systems-made up of interrelated organs and organ systems before they can be tried on human beings(3).” Tissue cultures allow for the study of nerves or establishing how many chromosomes are in the human cell. They can not simulate

These alternatives, once studied enough to be credible, could change the face of animal testing. Unfortunately “according to the John Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, scientists say we simply do not yet understand the complexities of the human body well enough to be able to design suitable non-animal alternatives”(Shany 85). This means millions of animals will be killed in the years to come, but hopefully we take the time to find a safe alternative. Once an alternative becomes available, we will be able to reduce the number of animals killed each year during testing.

Some people do believe that animal testing is the best and only way to find new treatments. Animals species used for preclinical

Cosmetics and household products can be tested on these rather than the skin of live rabbits.” This is a huge development in human kind where the need for testing can slowly be eliminated. When people go into surgery and have skin removed or parts of their body, with permission, they can be used in such testing’s. We do not have to use live animals for testing procedures with so many different alternatives coming into place.