Animal Testing Is Necessary

Many individuals believe that animal testing produces the equivalent results in humans; others want animals to be tested on instead of humans, but these are common misconceptions. Alternatives, such as cell-based testing, are scientifically proven to be more effective at catching harmful toxins from experimental medicines. Even though animals can be beneficial, animal testing does not always predict reliable results in humans since most experiments involving animals are flawed and waste animal lives, while alternative testing methods are more accurate. Corporations, such as the The Humane Society and Cruelty Free International, believe that animal testing is unethical and unnecessary since scientists and researchers have discovered medical

For starters, 94% of drug tests that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials and Paul Furlong, Professor of Clinical Neuroimaging at Aston University, states that “It is very hard to create an animal subject that even equates closely to what we are trying to achieve in a human body” (Neavs). This is to say, Thomas Hartung, Professor of evidence-based toxicology at Johns Hopkins University, argues for alternatives to animal testing because "we are not 70 kg rats” and our bodies compared to rats or mice are distinctly unique (Jeffery). In 2013, a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America or (PNAS), found that nearly 150 clinical trials (human tests) of treatments to reduce inflammation in critically ill patients have been undertaken, and all of them failed, despite being successful in animal testing (Junhee). Additionally, a test on pregnant rats and human cells was performed to determine if a specific drug would harm a developing baby; rats only detected 60% of toxic chemicals, while a cell-based alternative detected 100% of toxic chemicals (Ray). The results are shocking to see that when using animal test subjects they are almost completely incompatible compared to being tested with human cells or tissue. Instead of hoping that an animal will respond positively to a specific drug like a human would,

When using vitro (tube) testing researchers can get healthy cells and coax them to grow into 3D structures and when working with diseases, scientists can see where the problem lies at a microscopic level (In Defense of Animals). In addition, “Human on a Chip” or microfluidic chips is now a scientific breakthrough where the tissue chip devices are designed as accurate models to display the structure and function of human organs, such as the lung, liver, and heart which provides a faster and more efficient way to see how experimental medicines react (Neavs). Surprisingly, Vitro International’s Corrositex or (synthetic skin) can provide a chemical corrosivity determination in as little as three minutes to four hours, unlike animal testing that often takes two to four weeks. The traditional testing of chemicals using animals can take up to five years per substance and cost millions of dollars, while non-animal alternatives can test hundreds of chemicals in a week for a fraction of the cost (In Defense of Animals). With this new technology and information animals are no longer needed for testing, which saves animals from the horrors of animal cruelty, and gives our researchers more accurate data. Since most animal experiments are flawed, research labs are wasting the animals lives along with government dollars, which could be put into more useful categories for