ipl-logo

The Pros And Cons Of Animal Testing

797 Words4 Pages

implementing laws such as Australia. The very laws meant to protect the innocent lives of these animals is being treated like an option over an actual law.
In addition to it being unsafe for humans and morally wrong to use animal testing, there are new discovered alternatives to animal testing. Meredith Cohn, writer of Alternatives to animal testing gaining grounds says, “ Many mainstream researchers are now more strictly adhering to a concept called the Three Rs: reduction in use of animals, refinement of the tests and replacement with new technology when possible” (Cohn 2010). Changing to these methods should be more widely used because in time we could save the lives of the animals being experimented on. Reducing the use of animals will …show more content…

Scientist have the ability to take human and animal cells into the lab and test the cells for allergies, toxicity, and other occuring problems. Writer of Animal Testing comes alive in the US, Eli Dolgin says, “The research found that the more cellular pathways perturbed by a chemical as observed in a lab dish, the lower the dose at which the chemical causes toxicity in animals” (Dolgin 2010, p.1348). These in lab studies Scientists are able avoid the use of animals and as a result of this lease of the product is used for these smaller samples. In the end, these companies are able to spend less money. Advancements in the twentieth century have give the ability to switch to these methods and do not take long to make …show more content…

Scientists have been able to make studies with virtual tissues and computer modeling. This takes already known cells and know information about a product’s toxicity and gives the ability to come up with safer outcomes before the testing process is to actually occur. In Eli Dolgins studies, he later quotes the US National Institutes of Health by saying, “The Us National Institutes of Health, aim to determine an experiments compound’s safety earlier in the drug discovery process by comparing its molecular characteristics to a database of around 3,000 pharmaceutical compounds and 7,000 environmental chemicals with known toxicity profiles” (Dolgin 2010, p. 1348). Toxicity is usually checked with this before the Scientists move to the next step and use sheets made of skin cells called EpiDerm and ThinCert. Very valuable in these experiments and avoids the possible harming and death of humans and

Show More
Related
404 Words | 2 Pages

KBR Inc. is a global company that provides Technology & Consulting, Engineering & Construction, and Government Services. They agreed to provide logistics support services during Operation Iraqi Freedom. They are to provide, install, operate, and maintain the dining facility services in Iraq. KBR Inc. argues that the U.S. Government was required to reimburse disputed costs despite its failure to establish that those costs were reasonable. The contract is primarily a cost-plus-award-fee arrangement.

Read More
189 Words | 1 Pages

The publisher’s intended audience are people who advocate for the rights of animals and are searching for different methods of testing products. The purpose is to inform the people that animal testing is “old school” compared to the new innovative ideas. They want the people to be aware that these experimentations are not successful with the animals nor when they are tested on humans.

Read More
800 Words | 4 Pages

The Humane Society International stated, “Some animal tests take months or years to conduct and analyze (e.g., 4-5 years, in the case of rodent cancer studies), at a cost of hundreds of thousands—and sometimes millions—of dollars per substance examined (e.g., $2 to $4 million per two-species lifetime cancer study).” The New England Anti-Vivisection Society also stated, “The traditional testing of chemicals using animals can take up to five years per substance and cost millions of dollars, while non-animal alternatives can test hundreds of chemicals in a week for a fraction of the cost.” Scientists waste millions of dollars on animal studies that are not relevant to humans. There are alternative, cheaper methods that can benefit human research more than animal testing can and further the advancement of science and medicine in months instead of years. By using animals for research, scientists are putting America’s money and animals at

Read More
1186 Words | 5 Pages

For example, in vitro cell culture is a good way to screen the compounds at early stages. Utilization of the human hepatocyte culture gives the information about how a drug would be metabolized and eliminated from the body. Inclusion of such method in study design avails to eliminate unsuitable compounds in preliminary stages only and minimizes the utilization of animals in further tastings (Kimber et al., 2001). Live animals and embryos are utilized to study effects of some compounds on embryo development. In vitro embryonic stem cell culture test avails to reduce the number of live embryo used and the compounds which are toxic toward developing

Read More
1058 Words | 5 Pages

-Scientists have a specific responsibility to evade unnecessarily and minimize the pain in the treatments (replacement reduction refinement 3Rs). (Gannon,2007,p.519,para.4). Source 3 The ethics of animal research (Simon festing and Robin Wilkinson) -Implementation of laws that enables people to know more about the researches -The conducted regulated and controlled animal researches in addition to the implementation of the 3Rs and the use of compute models, human cell lines helped to lower our reliance on animals ” Approximately 2.7 million regulated animal procedures were conducted in 2003 in the UK—half the number performed 30 years ago”(Festing &Wilkinson,2007,p.528,para.3). -There exist solution to reduce animal testing like the use of cell culture based tests and Microdosing techniques , the inherent limitation of some non animal tests, and good experimental design and many others techniques like cooling and magnetic resonance thathelps to reduce the use of animals.

Read More
1018 Words | 5 Pages

For instance, The Associated Press said that the Animal Welfare Act, which has the indirect purpose of protecting animals in laboratories from torture and suffering, fails to protect all animals in experiments, such as mice and rats, and allows U.S. laboratories to use these unregulated animals to evade the Act and not be brought to justice for their horrible treatment of these animals (USATODAY.com). This is important because the law that is supposed to regulate animal testing actually allows scientists to get away with treating their animal experiments as badly as they want. Furthermore, Stephen Latham, the Director of the Yale Interdisciplinary Center for bioethics, and graduate of Harvard Law School; regarding animal testing he admitted that the U.S. system for regulating animal testing leaves gaps (Latham). This is an important statement because an expert in law is telling us that our regulation does not protect the animals in our laboratories from suffering. Although the regulation system is shown to be a failure to keep animals out of harm’s way, many people argue that the Animal Welfare Act is a well enough way to protect animals in testing.

Read More
1585 Words | 7 Pages

"The term 'animal testing' refers to procedures performed on living animals for purposes of research into basic biology and disease. Asserting the effectiveness of new medicinal products, and testing the human health and/or environmental safety of consumer and industry products such as cosmetics, household cleaners, food additives, pharmaceuticals and industrial/Argo-chemicals (“About Animal Testing”)”. 3. Till this day, animal testing is considered justified because scientists believe any type of animal is obligated to sacrifice itself in order to make new products safer for human use and consumption (“Save the Animals”).

Read More
1174 Words | 5 Pages

To determine whether a product is toxic, scientists do a test called the “Lethal Dose 50”. “LD” stands for “lethal dose”; the “50” means that half the animals, or 50 percent of the animals forced to endure testing the product, will die at that dose” (www.thoughtco.com). The LD50 test usually averages sixty to sixty-five percent accuracy. Whenever in vitro testing is used, it measures eighty-five percent accuracy. Not only will the information gathered show how a human would react to a new product, but it also shows a higher accuracy in

Read More
649 Words | 3 Pages

Testing a company’s product on an animal does not necessarily mean it is safe for humans because there is a vast difference between the genetic makeup of the tested animals and humans. These test results determine the effectiveness for animals, not for humans. For example, rabbits have more sensitive and thinner corneas than humans, but each year many are still tortured and blinded for eye medication tests. Other animals undergo skin tests for beauty products, which hold very little credibility because the skin and hair of an animal are very different from humans. In fact, many products on the market today caused irritation or death to an animal, but the product still made to a shelf safely for

Read More
604 Words | 3 Pages

Noah Berlatsky. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2015. Current Controversies. Rpt. from "Animal Testing Is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint."

Read More
747 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
642 Words | 3 Pages

It may be true that it is safer for the product to be tested on something before it is distributed out into stores. However, animals do not have the same reactions as us, and there body's work different. To wrap up, this demonstrates how it is inhumane to use animals for

Read More
1456 Words | 6 Pages

We have physical evidence that these methods work just as well and are more efficient. Why should animals be getting the short end of the stick when half the things they’re being tested for they don’t even get to use nor do half these have to do with

Read More
1523 Words | 7 Pages

Unfortunately, many companies remain resistant to changing their testing techniques and U.S. agencies, like the FDA, continue to endorse animal testing methods as the gold standard. (American Anti-Vivisection Society, 2015) In contrast to animal testing required by law to guarantee minimum safety standards for the licensing of drugs and chemicals, there are no regulations in basic research forcing scientists to perform animal tests. By (usually) free choice, questions are posed and hypotheses are examined which, in many cases, can only be answered by means of animal tests. Just as easily, different questions could be asked or different hypotheses could be examined which do not require animal tests.

Read More
1013 Words | 5 Pages

In order to improve the lives of millions of people from around the world, scientists need to eradicate animal testing and new, more effective methods need to be put in

Read More

More about The Pros And Cons Of Animal Testing

Related Topics

Open Document