Animals In Vitro Animal Testing

Product scientists have a disregard for the nature of testing animals. Products should not be tested on animals because animals are not the same as humans, and the tests are cruel and inhumane with unreliable test results.

Product scientists commonly take action of ill nature in testing animals. According to the Humane Society International, animals are forced fed, permitted little water and food, given major burns to study healing, and die through decapitation, dioxide asphyxiation, and neck breaking. Makeup and shampoo companies such as Dana Perfumes and Cover Girl test their products on rabbits known as The Draize Eye Test. This test is used to evaluate irritation caused by shampoo and other products; rabbits are tested with their eyelids

In vitro testing (a test using real human cells) is becoming advanced and can now be used to test products. This test will give companies more accurate results because animals are not completely the same as humans. Micro -dosing (doses too small to cause adverse reactions) can be tested on human volunteers for more useful results. An artificial skin as well can replace animals in testing, thus these sheets of genuine human skin cells are grown in test tubes or plastic walls giving more accurate results than testing the chemicals on an animal skin. Companies including Epiderm and Thin Cert produce these kinds of results. Organs on chips or Micro- fluidic chips are lined with human cells and recreate functions of human organs to help companies get realistic results. Computer models can give virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures and can predict the toxicity of substances without invasive experiments on animals. These alternatives are cheaper. Humane Society International made a variety of tests with in vitro counterparts. An “unscheduled DNA synthesis” animal test costs 32,000 dollars while the in vitro alternative costs 11,000 dollars. Animals are not the same as humans, therefore, they make poor test

Paul Furlong, Professor of Clinical Neuroimaging says “it’s very hard to create a model that even equates closely to what we’re trying to achieve in the human”. Thomas Hartung, Professor of evidence-based toxicology at John Hopkins University, says, “we are not 70kg rats”. Drugs that pass the animal tests are not necessarily safe. A 1950s sleeping pill caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities. Upon testing it on pregnant rats after this issue, no side effects were encountered. Arthritis tests on animals were made and had a positive effect on mice, however, when shelved, it gave more than 2,000 heart attacks and cardiac arrests. On June 1st,2006 a report on slate.com claimed, “The source of human suffering may be the dozens of promising drugs that get shelved when they cause problems in animals that may not be relevant to humans”. 94 percent of products that pass animal tests, fail in human clinical trials, therefore, animal test results are not reliable. Neurologist, Aysha Akhtar, MD, MPH, has found that over 100 stroke drugs and 85 HIV vaccines have worked on animals but failed in humans. A 2013 study published in “Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, found that 150 products used in human trials to reduce inflammation in critically ill patients failed. In 2013, a study in the “Archives of Toxicology” stated, “the low