Pros And Cons Of Animal Testing

545 Words3 Pages

Animal testing is not necessary due to available alternative methods, and using Russell and Burch's 3 R's of animal testing, animal testing can be diminished. The roots of animal testing lie in early Greek research (Ross-Fichtner and Noble 16-19). Scientists including Aristotle and Galen performed experiments on animals to advance anatomy, physiology, and pharmacology (Ross-Fichtner and Noble 16-19). Since then, animal testing has become the main route to supply greater understanding in medical research, chemical toxicity, and cosmetic safety. Berggren says that "Safety assessment for repeated dose toxicity is one of the largest challenges in the process to replace animal testing." Burden states that "The development and application of alternative methods, and the questioning of traditional approaches, has potential to drive better scientific practices." There are many alternative methods that are either available for use at this time or, with more research, will be available for use in the future; these methods can be used to eliminate animal testing. New methods and research studies rely less on …show more content…

Some of these non-animal methods have already contributed towards our understanding of the relationships between dose and biological response (Burden, Sewell, and Chapman 1-8). "In vitro" studies are studies conducted on animal or human cells (Zurlo 31-34). The term "in vitro" literally means "in glass" and refers to testis carried out on components of living material cultured in petri dishes or test tubes (Zurlo 31-34). In vitro cultures of bacteria are much cheaper than whole-animal tests (Russell and Burch n. pag.). Vivo studies are studies on whole, living animals (Zurlo 31-34). The focus on animal testing is shifting from vivo studies to in vitro studies (Zurlo