Testing on humans, specifically, death row inmates would be better than testing on animals when it comes to medical research. Both scientists and doctors have scientifically proven that even though animals are biologically similar to humans, they are not identical. Stacy Vale Karron, the author of Death Row Inmates in Clinical Trials: The Benefits of Human vs. Non-Human Subjects stated " There is empirical evidence showing that animal "models" are not accurate and cannot be relied upon for safety testing and disease research, therefore medical experimentation on humans is more effective in clinical trials toward the discovery of cures for human diseases than medical experimentation on animals " ( Karron 1 ). Scientists and doctors say that …show more content…
Showing that not only are animals being tortured with the different types of tests; testing on humans is better than testing on animals. No only is it safer for the animals but more accurate conclusions from medical treatment when tested on the body that it would be put into. So by saying that, even though animals have been tested on, it is safer, more accurate, and cheaper to test on Death Row Inmates, than on animals. Even though testing on humans are more accurate and safer for animals, for death row inmates, medical histories of the inmates are more limited, genetic research would almost be impossible to conduct in prison populations, and are there even enough death row inmates to experiment on? From testing on animals they could be controlled, researchers say "From this, the researcher can see the benefits (if any) of the intervention, and begin to make conclusions knowing that the only thing that differed between the control group and the main group was the intervention." ( Tom Holder 4 ) The animals that are being tested on are made sure that food, temperature, liquid intake and their prior health are in positive affect. Tom compared the animals to humans, and stated, "This same is not possible with prisoners, whose medical history will be more