Non Animal Testing Essay

The second reason is that animals testing is much expensive than conducting non-animal testing. An organization called Humane Society International compared the cost of using animal testing and non- animal testing and it clearly shows the gap in the cost of these two experiments. For example, in the test of genetic toxicity, average cost gap between the animal testing and non-animal testing is about $45,000. Also in the test of non-genotoxic cancer risk, the gap between the two experiments is about $678,000. There is these huge gap between the experiments. However, according to the website of Cancer Researh UK, remedies for cancer have been developed thanks to animal testing but even though governments are paying much money to conduct animal

There are many alternatives to examine products whether they are safe for human body or not. the alternatives are in vitro testing using human cells, computer models and simulations, stem cells and genetic testing methods, and etc. Such experiments are conducted by not harming human body and animals. According to “The Principle of Humane Experimental Techniques” written by William Russell and Rex Burch, by using alternatives in animal testing, 3Rs can be achieved and the 3Rs are “reduces animal use decreases the number of animals required for testing while still achieving testing objectives”, “refines animal use lessens or eliminates pain or distress in animals, or enhances animal well-being”, and “replaces animals substitutes traditional animal models with no animal systems such as computer models or biochemical or cell-based systems, or replaces one animal species with a less highly developed one (for example, replacing a mouse with a worm)”. As stated in the principle, by using alternatives in experiments, lots of animals are saved and do not have to be sacrifice of human. Therefore, animal testing cost much more than non-animal testing and these alternatives can save our money. There is no benefits to human and animals continue conducting animal