Animal testing is a cruel, archaic means of testing for medicines, cosmetics, or any other platform to be then used on humans. There is a single U.S. law that governs the use of the millions of animals captive in laboratories. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA), allows hundreds of innocent animals, across dozens of species, to be burned, electrocuted, poisoned, starved, and killed, every day. Because the AWA does not include rats, mice, birds, and cold-blooded reptiles, over 95 percent of the animals being tested are not even covered by the bare minimum protection, provided by this law. Though many argue that animal testing is a necessary means by which to make sure products are up to code, this is refuted by many scientific journals and professionals. The AWA needs to be amended to better appreciate the lives of animals, and in turn, increasing scientific development..
More and more modern research has proven that animals rarely, if ever, serve as good models for the human body. Human clinical and epidemiological studies, cadavers, sophisticated human-patient simulators, and computational models, all have the potential to be more reliable, more precise, less expensive, and more humane alternatives to experiments on animals. “In-vitro tests and the prediction of properties based on chemical structure,” are also being used instead of animal testing. (Alternatives to animal testing in the safety evaluation of products.)
Animal testing should be left in the past. With new developments in research and technology, there are at least eleven new methods published to review skin sensitization hazards, according to the journal, “State of the Art in Non-Animal Approaches for Skin Sensitization Testing: from Individual Test Methods towards Testing Strategies.” A great deal of these approaches are mechanism-based, and are continuing to be researched and developed, combining results from multiple test methods and/or computational tools.
When considering current animal testing in cosmetics, health-industry, and other areas of animal testing. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, citing “the three r’s,” suggests that experimentation should replace the animals; reduce the total number of animals; and refine living conditions and experimental procedures for animals.
This journal cites an opposing viewpoint from the sources prior. Being that, animal testing is actually more ethical than simply giving the drugs to humans without testing them in an organic body first. Being from an internal medicine journal, this carries a heavy deal of credibility. Unfortunately, this claim doesn’t entirely encompass the use of single-cell organelles as testable methods. In addition, it completely refutes any mention of newer technologies used in to test medication without use of animals, such as ones mentioned in reputed journal, Ethical and Scientific Considerations Regarding Animal Testing and Research.
This work describes various phytotesting methods which contributes to the development of alternative approaches to studying the toxicity of chemicals through non-animal testing. Using both inorganic and organic matter to test chemical toxicity is a large step against animal testing. Under the umbrella of environmental testing, frequently done on animals such as rats and mice, scientists have been able to conduct similarly apt tests done on plants and various other mediums, not simply animals.
Akhtar, Aysha.
This promoted human based testing methods as opposed to animal based ones. Being from a prestigious university, this article carries much weight in its basis. Citing various failures of animal experimentation, this work properly supports the claim that animal testing is not necessary for advancement in medicine and other fields in which it is wrongly used. This supports the necessity of human-based testing, since the products tested are eventually used on human beings. Therefore, testing on animals is null and void in the context of any material tested. Since the tests are conducted on animals, which have significantly different reactions than humans, this journal argues that testing on animals not only harms the animals, but harms the humans in a great way. Since animal testing is unreliable, there is no need for it at all.
McKie, Robin.
This article describes animal testing as a waste of animal life and against animal welfare. Citing research agencies in the United Kingdom and the scientists partnering with them, it shows that only 8% of animals being tested are tested for veternarity reasons. Out of over four million animals tested, this number is pathetic. However, with new guidelines placed on animals being tested, the number should go down significantly. Scientists using animals for testing will lose their funding if they cannot prove physiological insights but also prove that they generate statistically full and accurate data.