Is the use of animals to test new products and/or medications essential? While some would answer yes, the majority opposes it. In one survey, which asked whether or not cosmetics should be tested on animals, the mass sixty-seven percent answered no. Why? Animal testing is inhumane, cruel, and actually provides insignificant results.
Animals are not humans. The test results from animal experimentation do not accurately provide details on how humans would react to the product. Although chimpanzees and mice are ninety-eight to ninety-nine percent genetically similar to humans, that one to two percent evidently changes the entire organism. There are anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences present, making animals weak human models.
A scale-breaking ninety-four percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail human clinical trials. For instance, thalidomide, a sleeping pill that was effective on animals, caused severe birth defects on ten thousand babies. Furthermore, the arthritis drug Vioxx, which was also effective on animals, caused about thirty thousand heart attacks and other cardiac deaths. On the other hand, there are drugs that are harmful to animals, yet effective on humans.
…show more content…
Human cells can be used in “in vitro” testing, which provides more accurate results. Also, the blood of humans who volunteer for microdosing, where doses too small to cause reactions are administered, is analyzed. Artificial human skin is available, as well, and produces more accurate results than animal testing. In addition, mircrofluid chips, which recreate the functions of human organs, and computer models are also more accurate. Furthermore, these tests are far less expensive than their animal testing counterparts. For example, while an animal test may cost thirty-two thousand dollars, an in vito test costs eleven thousand dollars. That is a twenty-one thousand dollar