Category: Animal Testing

Introduction

Science is doing several kinds of inventions to make the life of everyone easier. Animal testing is also a part of science as from where researchers do inventions in the field of biology. In animal testing different type of organisms are used for various purposes. Scientist makes many types of medicines, vaccine, skin and hair products after testing. Many masses are in against of the experimentation on animals as it is considered as the cruellest behaviour of human beings as they torture animals too much during testing and many animals die due to these tests. In some religions hurting animals is considered as sin like in Hindu religion people worship animals like lion, cow ,rats whereas, some masses think that to invent new drugs, cosmetics animal testing is the most important step. There is a several rights for animals which protects them in many ways and many people are working for the welfare of the animals from many years . So, I believe that animals testing shows unkindness of humans, wastage of money as well as time. It also contains many other alternatives such as cell culture, tissue culture, computer models which can easily replace testing on animals.

There is a several reasons which shows that animal testing should be banned. First and the foremost reason is that animal suffers a lot from these experimentation as scientist give them injuries without animal’s fault. For instance, scientist sometimes cut the tail of rats to show that is it hereditary? Or to find what is the reason behind having a tail. So, these test does not make any sense for a normal person. In this type of test just to enhance the knowledge about animal’s body, scientist hurt animals by cutting their body parts. It is not about inventing any drug , they do these tests to maintain their records. But these experiments are very painful as sometimes they do trials on pregnant organism which is not expected from a human being. Also, they do not give them a pain reliever injection. As a study shows that “Many times, the animals surviving the clinical testing are euthanized at the end of an experiment to avoid the later pain and distress. In some cases, animals die as a result of the experiment” (Doke 224).These experiments gives them a feeling that someone is trying to kill them without any reason. If we imagine that someone is cutting our hand just to find anything new in our body, then it does not make us happy and as a human we will not agree to have this type of trail on us.

Secondly, scientist do huge amount of investment of money on doing these trails on animals . It is not proven that they always get proper results for the first time because they have to try these things many times to come on a conclusion or to prove their point. Because nobody is going to accept their result if they do not verify them properly and for passing that other scientist also does trails on animals. Also, those scientists which do not agree or have any doubt on their saying, they will try to make them wrong by repeating those experiments. One observation shows that, “Animal testing statistics reveal that thousands of dollars are spent every year on animal testing and the activities cost the lives of millions of animals”(Nakate).So, it is considered as the misuse of cash of normal people. As, the money that they are using come from the taxes that people have given to the government. In some countries, majority of people are in against of animal testing like in New Zealand. As an evidence shows that, “To the best of our knowledge there never has been any animal testing for cosmetics in New Zealand, but this amendment will send an important message that this kind of testing is unacceptable to New Zealand and will never happen here”(Cronin). This shows that masses do not want animals to have experiments on them as it wastes a lot of time of scientist to get outcomes and those researchers are very skilled and highly educated as well. So, the cost of hiring an expert and to perform experiment is also too much. In this way companies and government waste country’s money on this kind of things which can be better use on other social issues.

In addition to that there are a several alternatives to animal experimentation. For instance, we have many other techniques like cell culture, tissue culture, cloning, computer models, 3 Rs(replacement, reduction and refinement) etcetera. So, if we have many other ways to invent medicines, vaccines against viruses, bacteria then why we should give pain to animals? Only because they are the soft target of humans as they can not speak and are not able to express their pain. There are many techniques which can replace animal experimentation. Such as, “Bathes of vaccine against yellow fever used to be tested for efficacy on animals in lethal dose tests, but these tests were replaced by a cell culture test, a plaque- reduction neutralization test, in the 1970s”(Taylor 586).This shows that if we want to change something then we can adapt other techniques or we can search other methods to save the life of animals. So, if scientist choose these techniques over animal testing then we can save thousands of animals, millions of dollars as well as time .However, scientist believe that animal that they use for experimentation have same physiology as humans and they are able to get the results that they are expecting. Also, they think that there is a surety of saving life of people. While, folks which are against of animal testing claim that if there is accuracy of result then, they are supposed to get vaccine and medicines of every disease without any failure of experiment. Because we know that animal’s body functions are not totally the same as human beings. So, the medicines which are discovered after testing might fail on humans and can also gives them several side effects. It is better to use cell culture like methods as these cells are directly taken from the body of humans such as liver, kidney, brain , skin cells. Also, these techniques are very fast which can save time and are easy to follow.

To conclude, there are a various other method which can save the life of animals. The need is that to change the techniques with new adaptive methods because as a human being we have no right to hurt any creature for our benefit. As, it is an unacceptable behaviour of humans, wastage of nation’s money on these test, wastage of a lot of precious time despite of having many other alternatives which are easier to follow and can save money and time. So, government should consider the views of those which are against of animal testing as they also have a valid reason for the favour of banning. Animal also have a life and they always love humans if we treat them properly. So, as a good person it is our responsibility to make a safe place for animals by banning the animal testing .

Works Cited

1. Cronin, Melissa. “New Zealand Bans Cosmetics Testing On Animals”. The dodo,31 March 2015, https://www.thedodo.com/cosmetic-testing-ban-new-zealand-1068482258.html. Accessed on 23 November 2019
2. Doke, Sonali K. “Alternative to animal testing :A review”. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal,vol.23,July 2015,pp.223-229. ScienceDirect, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319016413001096. Accessed on 25 November 2019
3. Nakate, Shashank. Why Should Animal Testing Be Banned? Is Cruelty The Only Reason? Opinion Front, 12 March 2018, https://opinionfront.com/why-should-animal-testing-be-banned. Accessed on 26 November 2019.
4. “Need for alternative to animals in experimentation :An Indian perspective.” Indian Journal of Medical Research ,vol.149,no.5,May 2019,pp584-592.EBSCOhost, web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=10&sid=bd71626d-1713-4f45-bf8e-35cc71e53862%40pdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=138126109&db=a9. Accessed 29 November 2019.
5. Taylor, Katy. “Recent Developments in Alternatives to Animal Testing.” Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change, edited by Kathrin Herrmann and Kimberley Jayne, vol. 22, Brill, LEIDEN, BOSTON, 2019, pp. 585–609. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctvjhzq0f.31. Accessed on 30 November 2019.
6. Whyte, Chelsea. “The animal-testing Paradox.” New Scientist,vol.244,no.3251,oct 2019,pp18.EBSCOhost, http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=22&sid=bd71626d-1713-4f45-bf8e-35cc71e53862%40pdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=139035675&db=a9h.acessed . Accessed 30 November 2019.

Imagine being trapped in a cage that is about the same size as you, being burned, poisoned, drowned, shaved, and ejected several times a day. Animals have foreign chemicals poured onto shaved skin and into eyes. This causes them a lot of pain, suffering, and distress. These experiments can cause animals to become permanently brain damaged, blind, deaf, and ruins their ability to live normally. Although they are not humans, they have rights too. They have the right to be treated fairly and they deserve to be respected and cared for. Scientists put these animals through a lot of pain without getting much in return. There are two popular tests used in these labs, the Draize and the LD50 tests.

The Draize is a test for harmfulness of chemicals to the human eye that involves dropping the test substance into one eye of a rabbit without anesthesia using the other eye as a control. “The rabbits are kept in these restraints for up to three weeks so that their eye tissue can be monitored every twenty-hour hours This is cruel because unlike humans, rabbits have a third eyelid, the acidity in human eyes and rabbit eyes are completely different, and the tissue structure of the rabbit and human cornea are different causing these experiments to be unreliable. The LD50 test is defined as the animal research procedure in which any material or substance is administered to animals for the purpose of determining the concentration or dose of the material or substance which will achieve any predetermined death. This causes animals to suffer for long periods of time until they die.

Animals testing has been used for years, and it has helped discover medicines our society needs. “Animals supplied nutrition to humans and transmitted diseases to them.” Such as, we have had great benefits from these testing, however, our technology has evolved in many ways so we should not have to keep relying on old habits that are not always reliable. Many of the experiments we do on these animals end up being wrong. According to PETA “More than 90 percent of basic scientific discoveries, most of which are from experiments on animals, fail to lead to human treatments.”

Meaning, most of the trauma scientist put the animals through is not always reliable. Every species is different in some way. Although monkeys and humans have similar biological make up, we are also completely different. All animals will most likely react differently to each experiment. “According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), animal tests “often fail to provide good ways to mimic disease or predict how drugs will work in humans, resulting in much wasted time and money.”” This causes roughly 100 million animals to die for no good cause.

Introduction

Imagine watching scientists insert various needles into you while you are sitting there, wide awake, in excruciating pain, knowing very well that there is nothing you can possibly do to remove yourself from this situation. Well guess what? That is exactly what animals such as mice, rats, hamsters and monkeys frequently go through. Therefore, I strongly believe that animal testing should be banned. This is due to the fact that animal testing is extremely cruel and unethical, that animals are unreliable to test on because animals are very different to humans and because there are several other alternatives to animal testing.

I strongly believe that animal testing should be banned due how extremely cruel and unethical it is. These experiments cause not only physical harm to the animals, but also psychological harm and long-term damage to them. Research shows these animals may experience physical harm such as getting burned, starved, drowned, electrocuted and poisoned. While, psychological harm they may experience is developing various fears and becoming permanently distressed. This is supported by an experiment that took place in 1958, which is known as Harlow’s Monkey Experiment. The experiment consisted of a scientist named Harry Harlow, who wanted to see why the bond between mothers and their babies is so strong. He conducted this experiment using various baby monkeys and placing them in a nursery with two ‘surrogates’. One surrogate was made out of heavy wire mesh while the other was made out of wood and was covered in a cloth. The surrogate made out of wood covered in a cloth was the baby monkey’s preferred surrogate as it provided it with comfort. However, this experiment was extremely unethical as Harlow separated the baby monkey from its mother within six hours of being born causing the baby monkey to feel permanently distressed. Therefore, it is crucial that there is an immediate ban to animal testing due to how cruel and unethical it is.

In my opinion, all Federal Governments need to ban animal testing due to how unreliable it is. This is because there are significant differences between animals and humans and therefore, it is unreliable to assume that if a certain medication works effectively on an animal, that it will automatically work effectively on a human. According to Dr. Richard Klausner, former director of the US National Cancer Institute, “The history of cancer research has been the history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades and it simply did not work in human beings.” Due to this, further research was conducted to determine why mice could be cured from cancer and why humans could not. It was discovered “[using] 100 mouse cell types, that only 50% of the DNA responsible for regulating genes in mice, could be matched with human DNA.” While, concerning the use of testing on monkeys, it was discovered that monkeys and humans have a very different brain structure and function. Additionally, the data collected from monkeys used in neuroscience research, is evidently deceptive and has little relevance to humans. This therefore supports the fact that all Federal Governments need to ban animal testing due to how unreliable it is.

I personally believe it is crucial that there is an immediate ban to animal testing, as there are many other alternatives available, rather than using animals as a test subject. Therefore, these alternative methods can replace the need for animals. An example of an alternative method is the use of vitro testing. Vitro testing consists of a scientist studying cells in a petri dish, which will produce more accurate and relevant results in comparison to animal testing, as human cells are used for this certain method. Another alternative method that can replace animal testing, is the use of artificial human skin. Scientists can use products such as ThinCert and EpiDerm, which are made from the sheets of human skin cells, to produce more accurate results, rather than inserting poisonous chemicals into animal skin. Therefore, I strongly believe that animal testing should be banned as there are many other alternative methods available, rather than using animals as test subjects.

Conclusion

Considering these points made, it is evident, that I strongly believe there should be an immediate ban to animal testing. This is because, animal testing is extremely unethical and cruel as it causes not only physical harm, but also psychological trauma to the animals. I also believe animal testing should be banned due to how unreliable it is to assume that if a certain medication works effectively on an animal, that it will automatically work effectively on a human. Lastly is the fact that there are many other alternatives available, instead of using animals as a test subject. Therefore, more awareness of what we buy, will keep more of these animals alive.

Throughout the decades, the world has seen some significant advantages regarding animal rights. From ensuring that animals cannot be physically mistreated within a domestic household to the promulgation of conservation efforts throughout the world, humanity is slowly moving forward to a place where animals do not need to endure needless pain. However, there are certain industries wherein the exploitation of animals remains commonplace. Though one would not immediately venture to find similarities between the cosmetics industry and the realm of scientific exploration, both these industries are connected due to their reliance on animal testing. As the products they design and create can have a negative effect on the humans who use them, whether these are highly-sophisticated cancer medication or an ultra-glossy lipstick, they are usually tested on animals before they are released to the markets. The use of animals in laboratory tests is rather widespread, which is why the issue has become a source of controversy. On the one hand, animal experiments have allowed for the discovery of breakthrough medications or procedures that have saved countless lives; on the other hand, though, thousands of animals have been put through a torturous ordeal to allow it. A complicated issue, no doubt, animal testing remains one of the most important dilemmas of modernity. Should this approach to experimentation be prohibited fully, only when it comes to cosmetics, or not at all? While animal testing has certainly proved beneficial for humanity, there might just be enough objections for one to stand in opposition to the practice. From both a material and moral standpoint, the use of animal testing should be prescinded.

Though one might not expect it, animal testing is a very prevalent practice in the world. For both cosmetic and medical products, a wide array of animals can be used to attempt and measure the safety of a chemical. Recent years have brought with them alternatives to animal testing and a growing societal apprehension towards the use of animals for experiments that has not really helped decrease the number of animals that are used in experiments – more than 100 million animals are used, every year, in some kind of experiment (Mayir, et al., 2016). This is bound to decrease, as global initiatives to minimize the use of animals in testing are put forward. Canada, for example, is currently debating whether to prohibit, across the nation, the use of animals for cosmetic testing (Lake, 2019). Likewise, the Cosmetic Directory in Europe finalized the use of animal tests in high-toxicity settings by 2009 (Abbott, 2005). The REACH initiative in Europe sought to minimize the use of animals in these settings but not its elimination (Abbott, 2005). Scientific testing, on the other hand, does not generally see as much blowback. Yet, the arguments for and against these practices can be rather similar, because they infringe on similar notions. There are two main objections to the use of animals in laboratory test: practical concerns and moral objections (Hester & Harrison, 2006). The former relates to the issues that arise with the use of animals for these tests, or the issues that are failed to be resolved from their incorporation. The latter, on the contrary, refers to the moral or ethical objections that one might pose to the use of animals in scientific practices. The issue, though, can also be defended based on this framework, as these two positions are vital for having any stance on this matter.

From a pragmatic standpoint, animal testing is meant to reduce the risk that humans would face when using a product or ingesting a medication or undergoing a procedure. Testing in humans is not always possible, so animals are used. However, because there are differences between the animal model and the human body, it is possible that these experiments might lead to the incorrect label of ‘safe’ for a drug that might not be entirely safe for human consumption (Berkoff, 2010). Likewise, the way in which these experiments are carried out – despite the wide array of regulations that exist for the use of animal subjects – can be methodological flawed. Because of this, some of their results can be disregarded for certain products – for example, during the clinical trials of nimodipine – effectively rendering the studies worthless (Pound, et al., 2004). Then, there is the concern that these experiments lack the same thorough consideration that other chemical trials might undergo; for instance, there is no blind-testing in animal experiments, despite the usefulness of this tool (Pound, et al., 2010). In the world of cosmetics, too, it is possible to see some flaws in the use of animal testing, including the use of animals for skin-penetration tests that are not quite necessary (Hester & Harrison, 2006). Likewise, companies can sometimes move straight to animal testing, preferring them over in-vivo or in-vitro testing, because of the perceived confidence that these tests provide (Hester & Harrison, 2006). With the advancements that have been made on in-vitro testing, particularly when relating to toxicity, that makes it possible to opt out of using animals (May, et al., 2009). Still, the overwhelming understanding is that these tests work, even if they might come with some flaws (Berkof, 2010), which is why they remain in use.

From an ethical standpoint, the use of humans in experiments is more than just questionable, it breaches upon some of the most basic understandings of human rights (Hester & Harrison, 2006). Using animals, though, is not exempt from its own set of ethical troubles. One could either look at the matter from a utilitarian or deontological perspective and find ethical concerns with the use of animals in testing. From a utilitarian perspective, for example, most animal experiments are perceived as unjustifiable, because of the amount of harm that is caused by their implementation. As they might not always be necessary, as they might be unnecessarily painful, these studies can bring about a level of suffering that is not outweighed by the advantages that it provides (Alexander & Botzler, 2016). A deontological approach, or right-based approach, posits that animals possess the same qualities that gives humans rights (Alexander & Botzler, 2016). Though animals might not have the same intellectual capacities of human beings, they do possess other characteristics that bring them closer to the characteristics of human beings. Sure, it is preferred that these processes are chosen over those that might involve humans – because of the species’ unique capabilities, there are some extra ethical considerations to keep in mind when considering testing on humans – but that does not mean that they are good when seen in isolation. Instead, depending on the way one might perceive animals in general, they might can be seen as equally problematic.

Animal testing has long been regarded as a necessary evil – a set of procedures that need to be fulfilled to guarantee the safety of potential human users – but it might be time to consider whether it is necessary as one may believe. Those who oppose the use of animals in laboratory tests bring about two different sets of arguments against the procedures. From a pragmatic standpoint, animal tests can be considered unreliable due to the inherent biological differences between the animal model and the human, the flaws in design to these experiments, and the refusal of certain institutions for seeking alternatives before moving towards animal testing. Furthermore, with the modern processes that have become available in recent years, it might be possible to avoid using animal testing for certain procedures and still attain desirable results. From an ethical standing, the suffering that is caused to the majority of the animals that are subjected to this process might not necessarily be outweighed by the alleged benefits it provides; when there are no benefits yielded, then the pain of the animal is brought about in vain. Then, from a deontological approach, one can see that the use of animals in experiments might be a transgression on their inherent right as animals. Certainly, these procedures provide some benefit for human consumers and users, but these benefits might not be worth the suffering and death that they cause. Instead of investing the millionaire sums that go into animal research, a focus should be placed on the development of new and improved techniques to wage the safety of a product without needing the use of animals.

Works Cited

1. Armstrong, Susan Jean, and Richard George Botzler. The Animal Ethics Reader. Routledge, 2016. (Berkof, Mark. Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare: Second Edition, Volume 1, 2nd Edition. 2010. 2nd ed., vol. 1. (Encyclopedia)
2. Hester, R E, and Roy M. Harrison. Alternatives to Animal Testing. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry, 2006. Print. (Book)
3. Lake, Holly. “Cosmetic Animal Testing Bill to Land in House after Break.” Thestar.com, Toronto Star, 6 Mar. 2019. Print. (Canadian Author)
4. May, J. E., et al. “Toxicity Testing: the Search for an in Vitro Alternative to Animal Testing.” British Journal of Biomedical Science, vol. 66, no. 3, 2009, pp. 160–165., doi:10.1080/09674845.2009.11730265. (Online Resource)
5. Mayir, Burhan et al. “Why scientists perform animal experiments, scientific or personal aim?” Ulusal cerrahi dergisi vol. 32,4 256-260. 27 Oct. 2016, doi:10.5152/UCD.2016.3196 (Journal Article)
6. Pound, Pandora et al. “Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?” BMJ (Clinical research ed.) vol. 328,7438 (2004): 514-7. (Journal Article)

For many people, cosmetics are a part of everyday life; from shampoo and toothpaste, to a full face of makeup. These products make us feel beautiful and confident, but the truth behind them is extraordinarily gruesome. Animal testing is a process that has existed for thousands of years, and unfortunately, it is something we’ve come to accept. In the article, Guilt Free Beauty, Karyn Siegel-Maier writes about the history of animal testing when she says, “As early as the third century B.C., Erasistratus of Alexandria recorded the mutilation of live animals to study the body humors.” The inhumane harming of animals for human gain is an idea that has existed for too long.The pain endured by various innocent creatures is more than inhumane. Rodents are the animals of choice for testing. They can be bought from breeders, or purposefully bred by researchers. It can be difficult to evaluate the pain of a rodent, such as a rat or mouse. Karyn Siegel-Maier describes how, “Descartes, the 16th century French philosopher, maintained that animals were incapable of emotional response, of feeling distress or pain,” which is still an opinion held by some. Science today tells an opposite story. Ariel from the website, Psychology in Action wrote, “The interpretation of suffering cannot be based solely on whether or not an animal outwardly shows emotion or seems to possess more cognitive capabilities than another species,” which means that some animals could be in agonizing pain without clearly expressing it.

Many animals clearly express their pain as well. Images have surfaced over time of some horrific side effects of animal testing. Karyn Siegel-Maier says, “There are 13 standard types of safety tests routinely conducted on a cosmetic product, geared to evaluate the potential for eye irritation, oral acute toxicity, photosensitivity and skin irritation. The public is most familiar with the more archaic and brutal of these tests — the Draize and LD50, tests that cruelly blind animals and kill half of the test group.” These tests permanently harm

For many people, cosmetics are a part of everyday life; from shampoo and toothpaste, to a full face of makeup. These products make us feel beautiful and confident, but the truth behind them is extraordinarily gruesome. Animal testing is a process that has existed for thousands of years, and unfortunately, it is something we’ve come to accept. In the article, Guilt Free Beauty, Karyn Siegel-Maier writes about the history of animal testing when she says, “As early as the third century B.C., Erasistratus of Alexandria recorded the mutilation of live animals to study the body humors.” The inhumane harming of animals for human gain is an idea that has existed for too long.

The pain endured by various innocent creatures is more than inhumane. Rodents are the animals of choice for testing. They can be bought from breeders, or purposefully bred by researchers. It can be difficult to evaluate the pain of a rodent, such as a rat or mouse. Karyn Siegel-Maier describes how, “Descartes, the 16th century French philosopher, maintained that animals were incapable of emotional response, of feeling distress or pain,” which is still an opinion held by some. Science today tells an opposite story. Ariel from the website, Psychology in Action wrote, “The interpretation of suffering cannot be based solely on whether or not an animal outwardly shows emotion or seems to possess more cognitive capabilities than another species,” which means that some animals could be in agonizing pain without clearly expressing it.

Many animals clearly express their pain as well. Images have surfaced over time of some horrific side effects of animal testing. Karyn Siegel-Maier says, “There are 13 standard types of safety tests routinely conducted on a cosmetic product, geared to evaluate the potential for eye irritation, oral acute toxicity, photosensitivity and skin irritation. The public is most familiar with the more archaic and brutal of these tests — the Draize and LD50, tests that cruelly blind animals and kill half of the test group.” These tests permanently harm animals, and often leave them with little to no quality of life. Natacha Cole, author of the article Cruelty-free cosmetics 101 writes, “Many cosmetic companies test their new products and ingredients by forcing rabbits, hamsters, and mice among others, to endure horrific practices such as breathing in poisonous fumes or having lethal chemicals poured into their eyes and rubbed into their skin.” This testing of products result in very gruesome side effects or results. These lasting effects are not deserved by vulnerable, guiltless animals.

One considerable argument for animal testing is its potential benefit to humans. Peter Singer, author of Experiments on animals; scientists should be looking for alternatives, writes, “The real basis of objection to the experimental use of animals is that pain and suffering of animals is of no less concern than the pain and suffering of humans.” Historically, humans have accepted this viewpoint, but does it need to be this way? Karyn Siegel-Maier writes, “Based on historical record, it’s a foregone conclusion that other species have been exploited to ‘better’ mankind.” However, there are many flaws with animal testing. Many argue not to buy for ethical reasons, but research also suggests that it might not be as effective as once thought. For many tesys, the side effects from animal to human can be different and varying. Kathi Keville, author of the article Compassionate cosmetics: once an accepted part of the beauty industry, animal testing is becoming a thing of the past writes, “the skin, hair and eyes of an animal can react quite differently from those of a human–especially in tests where animals receive extremely large doses applied over a long duration. And several studies conducted during the past 30 years have indicated that animal testing simply does not accurately predict human responses.” This new research and data has compelled many companies to change their ways. Products available using animal testing have effective counterparts that were not tested on animals. Companies like BareMinerals Cosmetics and Bath & Body Works are certified by PETA’s, (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), Beauty Without Bunnies Program, as businesses that don’t test on animals.

Another flaw with animal testing is where to draw the line. One viewpoint claims there is a ‘grey area’ when animal testing, and that testing just needs to be monitored. This theory doesn’t account for the legal challenge it is to define what exactly is and isn’t okay for testers. Many say that science is a reasonable excuse to use animals. Andrew N. Rowan, author of Why Scientists Should Seek Alternatives to Animal Use, says, “Public concern seems to focus on the extent of animal suffering, the manner in which research is conducted, and the purpose of the research. For example, most people would probably not favor the use of animals to produce a new shampoo. At the same time, many people seemed willing to countenance the killing of a baboon (if painless) to provide a surrogate heart for Baby Fae,” which means that some people can support the research aspect of testing but not the cosmetic aspect. Research and cosmetics are different things. The cosmetic industry is not testing animals in a painless and directly beneficial way. The alternatives to products tested on animals hold many effective counterparts.

Today, it can be challenging to identify what products have been tested on animals and which have not. In the article, These Beauty Brands Are Still Tested on Animals, the PETA, states that, “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration doesn’t regulate “cruelty-free” or “not tested on animals” packaging labels, so companies can put this on their packaging even if the product or ingredients have been tested on animals,” which means that some companies, such as L’Oréal, have not been completely honest with consumers. L’Oréal doesn’t test on animals in America, but instead pays for deadly animal testing in China. Other companies such as Avon, Clinique, Maybellene, and Victoria’s Secret have avoided testing in america also, to instead test in countries like China where it is required. Researching products before purchasing is a smart idea for caring consumers.

A new wave of consumers are pushing for change in the cosmetics industry. Kim Bartel Sheehan and Joonghwa Lee, the authors of What’s cruel about cruelty free: An exploration of consumers, moral heuristics, and public policy write, “Ethical consumers base these positive buying decisions on their presumed ethical obligations and their personal beliefs about what is right or wrong (Kurland, 1995). These consumers want to create meaning through their purchases, since ethical issues often are an important part of their self-identity (Shaw, Grehan, & Hassan, 2005). As a result, these consumers may hold very strong (or sacred) values that are hard to alter.” This means that many consumers are purchasing based not just on what is available, but instead on what is right and wrong.

Today, you can create change by being an ethical consumer. By purchasing PETA certified cruelty free products, or products that have not been tested using animals, you can help bring change. Animal testing is a practice that has existed for far too long. We can all help end the inhumane animal testing process by doing research and buying our products with purpose.

“Each year, more than 100 million animals- including mice, rats, frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, monkeys, fish, and birds -are killed in the U.S laboratories for biology lessons, medical training, curiosity-driven experimentation, and chemical, drug, food, and cosmetic testing.” But some people don’t care about that. Some people say “ Animals do not have rights, therefore it is acceptable to experiment on them.” Just because Animals don’t have legal rights doesn’t mean they don’t have Legal duties.

Another controversial topic in animal testing is religion. Religion is a controversial subject in almost everything but a lot of people have an opinion about it concerning animals. On the pro-animal testing side, people say “Religions allow for human dominion over animals.” But on the flip side people who are against animal testing say “Religious traditions tell us to be merciful to animals, so we should not cause them suffering by experimenting on them.” Which looking at both standpoints I agree with not causing them suffering by experimenting on them.

Another topic people disagree on is, just because drugs can pass animal tests are not necessarily safe. In the 1950’s a sleeping pill came out called thalidomide. Thalidomide cause 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities. Thalidomide prior to its release was tested on animals. Later tests on pregnant mice, rats, guinea pigs, cats, and hamsters did not result in birth defects unless the drug was administered at extremely high doses. Another example is the arthritis drug Vioxx. Vioxx showed that it had protective effects on the hearts of mice. Weirdly there were 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths caused by the drug before being pulled off the shelves of supermarkets.“Animal tests are more expensive than other methods, They are also a waste of government research dollars.” This is one point in a lot of debates use. The use of government research dollars is very important to know for a lot of people so they can keep up with what else the government was

“Each year, more than 100 million animals- including mice, rats, frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, monkeys, fish, and birds -are killed in the U.S laboratories for biology lessons, medical training, curiosity-driven experimentation, and chemical, drug, food, and cosmetic testing.” But some people don’t care about that. Some people say “ Animals do not have rights, therefore it is acceptable to experiment on them.” Just because Animals don’t have legal rights doesn’t mean they don’t have Legal duties.

Another controversial topic in animal testing is religion. Religion is a controversial subject in almost everything but a lot of people have an opinion about it concerning animals. On the pro-animal testing side, people say “Religions allow for human dominion over animals.” But on the flip side people who are against animal testing say “Religious traditions tell us to be merciful to animals, so we should not cause them suffering by experimenting on them.” Which looking at both standpoints I agree with not causing them suffering by experimenting on them.

Another topic people disagree on is, just because drugs can pass animal tests are not necessarily safe. In the 1950’s a sleeping pill came out called thalidomide. Thalidomide cause 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities. Thalidomide prior to its release was tested on animals. Later tests on pregnant mice, rats, guinea pigs, cats, and hamsters did not result in birth defects unless the drug was administered at extremely high doses. Another example is the arthritis drug Vioxx. Vioxx showed that it had protective effects on the hearts of mice. Weirdly there were 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths caused by the drug before being pulled off the shelves of supermarkets.

“Animal tests are more expensive than other methods, They are also a waste of government research dollars.” This is one point in a lot of debates use. The use of government research dollars is very important to know for a lot of people so they can keep up with what else the government was doing. Another important point is that testing on animals can hurt them. We don’t know how they feel and if what we are doing hurts them, so why do it then.

In conclusion, Animal testing is wrong because we are hurting them for our own personal needs. We use animals for drugs, finding a cure for diseases, cosmetics, and so much more. Don’t get me wrong finding cures for diseases and developing drugs to help people is fantastic, But with the technology we have today, we should be able to find cures another way. Animal testing shouldn’t be a thing and animals should be protected. That is my view on Animal Testing.

In today’s world, this topic is very controversial, in comparison to the past. In addition, it keeps growing daily. Animal testing is any type of procedure in which requires forcing live animals for purposes of research that is likely going to cause them harm, distress, and pain. In animal experiments, scientists can inject the animals with substances that could be very harmful, inhaling toxic gases or make the animals go through bad experiences to produce anxiety and depression. Most animals are killed at the end of the experiment. While animal testing can have its opportunities and drawbacks, in the end, it is to produce some type of safe product for humans.

Albert Sabin, who produced the vaccine for Polio once said, “Without animal research, polio would still be claiming thousands of lives each year.’ This is just one example of literally many cases in which animal testing has been successful and the outcome has been positive. Polio is a deadly infectious disease. It is caused by a virus called poliovirus. The virus spreads from person to person and can invade an infected person´s brain and spinal cord, causing paralysis to the people infected. (CDC Global Health, 2017). According to the Vaccine Knowledge Project the number of Polio cases before the vaccine was introduced in the 1950s was up to 7760 cases of paralytic polio in the UK each year, with up to 750 deaths, after the vaccine was introduced this numbers fell really quickly, since 2002 Europe has been certified as ´polio-free´ the risk of contracting this disease is very low. (Vaccine Knowledge, 2018). Looking at this information the use of animal testing has provided this successful outcome, and there are many more vaccines, cosmetic products, medications, etc developed this way. Animals themselves also benefit from the results of animal testing, because, millions of animals would have died of diseases like tetanus, bird flu, Ebola, etc if vaccines were not tested on them, many species would be endangered/extinct this present day. Ebola, which killed thousands of people, but not only humans were affected, the disease has wiped out populations of apes. Ebola killed over 5000 critically endangered western gorillas. It kills about 95% of those it infects. There was a research in 2014, scientists tested a vaccine to treat Ebola on a group of chimpanzees, and it proved to be safe and effective. (Dasgupta, S., 2015). Therefore, animal testing also takes into account the prosperity of the species being used as a tester as well as benefiting humans, with the production of cures to diseases, that can ultimately improve the quality of life for the animals and humans.

The other side of animal testing is that millions of animals are currently suffering or about to suffer due to an experiment that might not be successful or products that won’t ever reach the market. In 2004, the FDA estimated that 92% of drugs that pass preclinical tests, including “pivotal” animal tests, fail to proceed to the market. (Akhtar A., 2015). That’s why it is argued that animal testing is inhumane and barbaric, the animals used, live a low quality of life, force-feeding, long periods of physical restraint and on top of that they will be killed, in addition, they had no contribution to the advancement of the research, wasting many lives. A study looked at how an experiment to tackle Alzheimer´s disease failed, the drug Dimebon, which failed during the human trials, however, it succeeded in animal tests. (Cummings, J. L., Morstorf T., Zhong K., 2014), it is just another example of how even though the drug succeeded the animal testing it was not useful for humans, due to their differences. This leads to the fact that animals and human beings are very different from each other therefore they are poor models to be tested on. There were other several studies in which this occurred as well, which lead to a loss of valuable lives, time and financial investment that could have been used in a different sector. In addition, research and testing can be done without the involvement of animals, by using human cells and tissues (in vitro methods), advanced computer-modelling techniques (silico models), and studies using human volunteers instead of using animals against their will. (PETA,2019). These methods mean that the same outcome can be reached without the need for testing on animals, as they cannot be obstructed by species differences, which is the main reason that some medicines do not react on animals but do on human beings. This way takes less time and money to complete therefore it can go towards other researches.

In conclusion, many experiments involving animals are cruel, painful and in some cases unnecessary, although many of them have been helpful to human beings and to the animals itself. I believe that research can be undergone without the involvement of animals, and using other alternatives. However, animals are still needed but, in fewer quantities, after doing the tests on the animal alternatives, if there are no human volunteers’ animals should be used instead to view how the drug will act, as having a whole complex organism testing it, is not the same as a single cell, as there are other variables taking place, but scientists should be able to justify the use of animals for their research and also the number needed, so animals are not wasted and used insensitively, having in mind that they will suffer and possibly end up dead by the end of the experiment. The key is possibly a better regulation of animal testing and imposing better regulations which favourite animals more.

The outcome of scientific studies that involved animal is not eternally trustworthy. This is due to the reason that in the year 2004, there are 92 % of the medication that successfully gets through the preclinical trials include the use of nonhuman animals in experiment has come to nothing as the medication that had been created failed to appear into the market and are not always safe to be consume. To give you an idea, in the late 1950s and early 1960s, thalidomide which had already pass through extensive animal testing has been honoured as a wonder drug after it has been released to the market. It is often used to treat a number of cancer and diseases including leprosy, anxiety as well as trouble in sleeping. Nevertheless, when this medication is prescribed to pregnant women, it turned out to become a hazardous substance as it will destroy the normal growth of embryonic and causes birth defects in newborn babies. According to the investigation, nearly 10,000 to 20,000 malformed infants were born after their mother had consumed thalidomide. Therefore, based on the investigation, the study has obviously proved that it is not indispensable to involve animals in scientific studies as the test may work on animal but probably not on humans. In another word, certain medical research that required animals are completely meaningless.

The action of scientists that carry out scientific studies which involve animals is brutal and remorseless. This is because all animals have emotions and are able to sense sorrow, anguish and pain in the same way that a human do. In other words, their response towards the discomfort throughout the investigation is similar to the reaction of the human towards the misery. To show you what I mean, the poor creatures such as mice and rabbits are normally be governed as they will be latched into a small cage so they are not able to move around throughout the whole investigation. Besides, animal testing yet endorses the animal to be poisoned, burnt as well as brain damaged which is extremely hurtful to the poor creatures. Nonetheless, most of the poor creatures that are utilized during the experiment are then killed after completing the experiment, as they are worthless. Therefore , animals deserved the same deference and honor that a human is given even though they do no have the rights and liberties.

To wrap it all up, it is illogical to kill millions of animals just for the sake of creating new medication. Animal experimentation is a remorseless way to plague the poor creature for mankind’s own advantage. Thus, it may be said that the use of poor creatures in an experiment is not ethical, cruel and injustice. In fact, animals are born to be wild as well as free and are not to be controlled by humans. Although, we are not qualified to completely ban the usage of animals in scientific investigations until the scientists successfully discovered a new method that can fully displace the usage of animals. But, the scientist should at least try to lessen the amount of poor creature being used and the misery that they may encounter throughout the test. All in all, protecting the poor creature from these scientific investigation is vital for well-being of the animal kingdom.

According to Aysha Akhtar, certified neurologist and preventive medicine/public health specialist, “Annually, more than 115 million animals are used worldwide in experimentation or to supply the biomedical industry.” Animal experimentation is an animal experiment or test where live animals are forced to undergo something that will most likely cause them pain and suffering. This type of experiment usually leads to distress or lasting harm. According to the Cruelty-Free International program, “Animals used in experiments are usually bred for this purpose by the laboratory or in breeding facilities. It’s a cruel, multi-million dollar industry.” This tells us that many laboratories are not focused on the animals’ safety and are more focused on money. While experimentation is defended by arguments that it is reliable and that its use provides major human health benefits. People need to find an alternative to test products and put a stop to harming animals because it is unreliable, unethical and, often harms humans through misleading safety procedures.

The reliability of an experiment is always important. Reliability is the quality of being trustworthy. This is important to an experiment because it tests if the study fulfills its predicted goals. Since animal tests are so unreliable, they make those human trials all the riskier. According to Theadora Capaldo, the president of the New England Anti-vivisection society “A 2004 study from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found that 92 percent of drugs entering clinical trials following animal testing fail to be approved. Of those approved, half are withdrawn or relabeled due to severe or lethal adverse effects not detected during animal tests.” This information proves to us that animal tests are unreliable and therefore should not be used as a source of research. This is a major issue for the future. If this continues it could produce false research for a study that might have a negative impact on humans. From this information, this tells us that many drugs that appear safe and effective in animals, fail to cause them to get harmed or even death. Capaldo also found that “According to a 2004 study in the journal Stroke, more than 4,000 studies report efficacy of more than 700 treatments of stroke in animal models. Yet none of the approximately 150 of these treatments tested in humans showed clinical benefit, as reported in a 2005 paper in the International Journal of Neuroprotection and Neuroregeneration.”

Most of the studies that are being done are showing negative results. These are not reliable and not beneficial to humans.

Animal experimentation wastes both animals and humans’ lives by trying to infect animals with diseases that would never normally happen. Mice and other animals in the labs are not little people. Animals that have no relation to humans are a waste of time. The whole point of animal experimentation is to test animals instead of humans. The data collected from the experiments are for humans benefit but it is useful if it is not a reliable procedure. The idea of helping humans create safe products is a reasonable argument but why test certain products on animals when its nothing that an animal would not normally use or need, that is just irrational. Capaldo also found that “In 2011, the Institute of Medicine concluded there was no current need for chimpanzees in biomedical research. The NIH responded by retiring 90 percent of its chimpanzees. If humans’ closest relative humans and chimpanzees share up to 98 percent of their genes is not useful for human research, why would any other species be? There are too many variables in anatomy, gene expression, metabolism, immune functioning, etc. among species to safely and predictably extrapolate data.” Regarding the previous information that was stated, chimpanzees are the closest relative to humans and they are not needed, then any other species would just not be sensible or worthy of use for our own benefit. Due to the differences in the other species, they do not share many characteristics with humans. Therefore making this another reason why this is just unreliable or untrustworthy.

As Albert Einstein once said ‘There will come a day when such men as myself will view slaughter of innocent creatures as horrible a crime as the murder of his fellow man- Our task must be to free ourselves- by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature and its beauty.’ Einstein is agreeing that animal testing is unethical. Imagine how the animals must feel having no control over any aspect of their life. They can not choose what they eat and when they eat. They might also wonder if they will have a family. Those animals are most likely taken from their family, lost and confused wondering if their lives will ever be normal again. Animal experiments are unethical, useless, and unnecessary. There are many moral and ethical issues that draw attention to whether animal health and life are worth losing to find the right treatment for humans. An ongoing conflict between the human species is animal cruelty, whether it be scientific experiments, tests, or research. I often wonder, do the individuals performing these atrocious tasks ask themselves if what he/she is doing is ethically correct? I believe that it is not right to treat animals in such an inhumane manner but to treat them as our own kind. These helpless animals cannot defend themselves against abuse. In my opinion, it is morally appropriate to grant the same rights to animals as we human beings acquire and to end, or to minimize, animal cruelty in laboratories. “Although there have been some benefits of animal testing for a medical prospect, and different fields of study like psychology” stated by Geraldine Woods 26. In psychology, Henry Harlow performed experiments on chimpanzees to test attachment theories. Harry Harlow, an American psychologist best known for his maternal-separation, dependency needs, and social isolation experiments on monkeys, which demonstrates the importance of caregiving and companionship to social and cognitive development.

Sometimes animals even have to go without pain medication. These living beings are either left there to suffer or put to sleep. I can’t even begin to imagine how gruesome it must be to look into a pair of terrified eyes, knowing that in a matter of minutes, those same eyes could be blank and lifeless due to an experiment that I had performed. If I were in that position, I would gather all of the animals that I could and smuggle them home to keep them out of harm’s way. I have many pets of my own, and knowing what some people have the audacity to do to those innocent, dependent creatures is disgusting to me. Tell me, can we always rely on the experiments of animals to give us accurate information? Sure, “testing has aided in the development of vaccines for life-threatening diseases, such as polio, rabies, malaria, etc.” stated by Karin Bulliard. However, there have been instances in which animal testing has been unsuccessful and resulted in harm for many people.

Misleading Safety Tests in animals directly hurt humans. According to Akhtar, “In March 2006, six human volunteers were injected with TGN 1412, an experimental therapy created by TeGenero.” She also found that “A highly touted gene therapy that cured dogs of hemophilia was discontinued because it caused liver damage and other problems in humans that were not seen in animal experiments.” We can be pretty confident that the victims of the TGN 1412 disaster will never risk their lives based on animal experiments again. This tells us that they discovered other problems in humans that were not seen in an experiment which is definitely misleading. This is very aggravating because the problems do not occur until you test it. That whole concept is just impossible to avoid. Maybe misleading experiments may cause us to throw away cures. It is hard to understand how many missed opportunities there may have been because of misleading animal experiments. However, there are plenty of examples that demonstrate how lucky we are that researchers did not believe the animal tests. For example, Akhtar found that “An editorial in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery describes how tamoxifen, one of our most effective drugs against certain types of breast cancer, would have been abandoned because it causes liver tumors in rats, a problem that does not carry over to humans.” Also found out about “The leukemia drug Gleevec was almost lost because it causes severe liver toxicity in dogs but not in humans. Fortunately, the manufacturers persisted with the development of this drug because it seemed so promising in human cell culture tests.” Both of these drugs were misleading and could have harmed many if it were not for the discovery of the harmful effects on humans that they have caused. Another interesting fact about misleading tests is that “Of every five to 10,000 potential drugs tested in the lab, only about five pass on to clinical trials. Many don’t pass animal tests because of species-specific results. Yet many of these agents would likely have worked spectacularly and been safe in humans.” The wide range of numbers really scares me but its a relief that on five passes so this means they are putting in the necessary critical observations.

Time and Money wasted on Animal Experiments could have been directed into more fruitful human-based tests. An invalid disease model can lead the industry in the wrong direction, wasting time and invested money. Repeatedly, researchers have been persuaded down the wrong path of investigation because of information collected from animal experiments that later prove to be inaccurate and irrelevant to human biology. On average, “it costs a company more than $1 billion to get one new drug to the market. NIH alone spends almost half of its funding up to 14.5 billion of our tax dollars yearly on animal experiments.” This statistic is very large and extremely sad. How many more people need to suffer and die before we realize that, if we really want to help ourselves, we need to cut out the animal experiments and focus on more effective human-based tests? If the focus is more geared towards effective human-based tests, hopefully, those statistics will lower and humans will have more verifiable results.

Some experiments require the animal to die as part of the test. For example, “regulatory tests for botox, vaccines and some tests for chemical safety are essentially variations of the cruel Lethal Dose 50 test in which 50% of the animals die or are killed very close to death.” Laboratories are no place for any animal. They are typically sterile, indoor environments in which the animals are forced to live in cages and denied complete freedom of movement or control over their lives. Some animals in laboratories are confined on their own, without the companionship of others.

Animal testing is unethical, inhumane and completely unnecessary. In the lives of others, we need to cut out the use of animals altogether. There needs to be a development of much more effective therapies if we use human-based tests instead. Quit focusing on the ‘who’, and focus on what makes more sense. Unlike failures in many other scientific tests, the failure of animal experimentation has a high cost and harms us in crucial ways. Hopefully, scientists will find an alternative experiment or test that will replace the use of animal testing. If scientists find an alternative for animal testing, the world of science will become more ethical.

Humans have been using animals for many uses like food, commotion from one place to another, games, and for many other purposes. One of the extended uses of animals is their use in research. With the advancement of medical technology, the count of animals being used in the experimental research has sky rocketed. Millions of experimental animals are used for the research purposes all over the world. For example, in UK, in the year 2011, the number of experimental animals used was 3.17 million (eee.rspca.org.uk); in USA, for the year 2009, the number of experimental animals was approximated to 1,131,076, while in Germany, it went as high as 2.13 million for the year 2001 (Rusche, 2003). For the purpose of research, the pathway of euthanasia is used for animals. Several times, if the animal survives the experiments, it is euthanized there after to prevent the later distress and pain. To top it all, animals, because of the experiments, die at the end, as in LD 50 analysis.

The dilemma is that, the animals reserve the right against pain and distress and therefore, we unethically use them for experimentation and thus, it should be stopped (Rollin, 2003). For the upbringing of this idea, in 1824, the Royal Society formed an organization which worked for the animal welfare and the circumvention of animal cruelty. On the other hand, we currently do not have better option for all the cases. In some research studies, we have developed computer applications and in others, in vitro techniques can be used; however, these modern techniques are not fully developed and in approach of everyone.

However, a huge portion of people believe animal experimentation is the best way to find new drugs and cures for patients. There are a few points that bring animal testing over other means of experimentation. First, it is not always a case that the drugs are more convenient for uptake for the cells in vivo than those in vitro. For example, an anticancer agent is more influenceable on invitro cells as compared to that in vivo. Second, several obstacles are encountered by the drug when administered in vivo, which are tough to replicate in vitro, and thus, the results may get hampered for the experiment. Third, when the intestines absorb the drug, it may get bonded with other proteins and move to other organs; hence, the effect of drugs on different organs is hard to study. Fourth, the in vitro methods do not under take some considerable factors like the influence of nerves, hormones, immune system and circulatory system. Adding to this, it has been realized that invitro test methods take longer than that in vivo methods in some cases, accompanying the fact that in vitro is more expensive than the later methods. Apart from these, there are many more reasons because of which many scientists believe that animal testing is the best way to examine a drug.

However, along with this, they also provide guidelines for the use of animals for experimentation. For instance, scientists gave a strategy of 3Rs. The strongly enforced that 3Rs, which are, Reduction, refinement and replacement should be incorporated in the laboratory research.

On the other hand, several people keep computer software and other non-animal experimental technologies at a higher edge than using live animals for the research. Charles Hume and William Russell developed the concept of animal replacement in experimentation at the universities federation for animal welfare (UFAW) in 1957 (Balls, 1994). Using animals for the experiments is not only a criminal act, no sane person will distress animals when successful non animal alternatives are already developed, and hence there is no need to make animals suffer. Apart from the major ethical concerns, there are several drawbacks of use of animals in research like the necessity of skilled manpower, time consuming protocols and high costs. It has been found that in the study of human pharmacology, physiology and toxicology, results from animal texting are as much misleading as they are helpful. For one of the most used toxicity tests, the six pack, 6 million animals are used every year in Europe, animal tests showed 81% balanced accuracy, while the non-animal testing methods which used computers and other methodologies showed 87% balanced accuracy. For testing the sensitivity, that is, identification of how toxic a drug is, 69% of cases were succeeded by the repeat animal tests, whereas, other alternatives succeeded in 89% of the cases. When testing the skin allergic reactions of drugs in humans, the invitro and in silico methods have shown better results (94% accuracy) than the traditional animal testing methods (83% accuracy). The cost and resource insensitivity of the animal testing methods is high. It is not an easy task to deploy financial considerations to all animal experiments (Bottini and Hartung, 2009, 2010; Bottini et al., 2007). There are 3 main reasons for toxicological studies to become source intensive:

1. Good laboratory standards are followed while undertaking animal experiments
2. Scientists spend long periods of time treating them.
3. To avoid skipping any important information on effect, many endpoints are accessed.

Most of the animal experimental results are not reported adequately. Important information like the objective of the study and the count and traits of the animals used was provided only by 59% of the studies. Statistical methods were used merely by 70% of the publications. There are a lot of evidences that standards for reporting the animal experiments are not high enough. We, the audience, will probably never get acquainted with about how many incorrect decisions are undertaken because of deceptive animal tests. If complete and correct information and stats are made accessible, is has a great probability that the necessity to test the maturation concern for other drugs will be decreased, thus, significantly decreasing the count of studies, and hence the number of animals. Adding to this, most of the evidences indicates that the reproducibility of animal experiments is not high enough. To study a cancer care for one species for one substance costs $1 million (Basketter et al., 2012), and a study on inhalation costs $2.5 million (Smirnova et al, 2014). Such budgets are hard to get sanctioned and attempting reproducibility will further increase the cost. There are many other reasons why animal testing set drawbacks in research. For instance, animal testing is incapable of prediction other animal species. As it is well said, “humans are not 70kg rats!” (Hartung, 2009). Animal experiments are incompetent to consider human diversity, exposure and treatment. Inbred mice are diverse from humans in many ways; our lifestyle, our weight, our diet, our history of diseases, our genetics, and the list is endless. Several researchers have discovered a technique called micro sampling in recent years, in which experiments are performed on blood samples taken from animals, hence reducing the stress on animals and enhancing the quality of data. Though it is not yet widely accepted, but many companies are striving to make this technique a standard practice.

Currently, several rules and laws are abided at the international levels, to safeguard animals from pain and distress. Several organizations like ICH (International Conference on Harmonization of Technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use) and other organizations like OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), CPCSEA (Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals), NIH ( National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases), and many others, state guidelines for animal use in transportation, feeding, pet keeping, and majorly for their use in research experiments (Rollin, 2003).

The use of animals in the experimental research has many merits and demerits, and the same goes with the use of other non-animal techniques including in vitro methods and computer software. Considering the basic ethical values, non-animal techniques seem to be better than the animal testing methods, but currently we do not have enough developed strategies to eliminate the animal distress. However, work is being done constantly to improve the research results considering the ethical concerns. Animals have been of great use to humans since the very beginning and are still being used for various purposes, and hence, they ought to be respected and treated with dignity. More funds should be allocated by the government on national and international levels so that more non animal methods could be discovered, and research projects could be carried out in an ethical way.

References

1. Baldrick, P. (2013). The evolution of juvenile animal testing for small and large molecules. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 67(2), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.07.009
2. Doke, & Dhawale. (2015). Alternatives to animal testing: A review. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, 23(3), 223–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsps.2013.11.002
3. Garattini, & Grignaschi. (2017). Animal testing is still the best way to find new treatments for patients. European Journal of Internal Medicine, 39, 32–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2016.11.013
4. Gilbert Schönfelder. (2015). Laboratory animals: German initiative opens animal data. Nature, 519(7541). https://doi.org/10.1038/519033d
5. Hartung, T. (2017). Opinion versus evidence for the need to move away from animal testing. ALTEX, 34(2), 193–200. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.1703291
6. Hartung, T. (2019). Predicting toxicity of chemicals: software beats animal testing. EFSA Journal, 17(S1), n/a–n/a. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.e170710
7. Mandal, J., & Parija, S. (2013). Ethics of involving animals in research. Tropical Parasitology, 3(1), 4–6. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-5070.113884
8. Marshall, L. J., & Rowan, A. N. (2018). Advances in alternative non-animal testing methods represent a way to find new treatments for patients. European Journal of Internal Medicine, 48, e31–e32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2017.05.010
9. Prior, Casey, Kimber, Whelan, & Sewell. (2019). Reflections on the progress towards non-animal methods for acute toxicity testing of chemicals. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 102, 30–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2018.12.008
10. Singh, J. (2012). The national centre for the replacement, refinement, and reduction of animals in research. Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics, 3(1), 87–89. Retrieved from http://www.jpharmacol.com/article.asp?issn=0976-500X;year=2012;volume=3;issue=1;spage=87;epage=89;aulast=Singh;type=0