Animal Testing, Unique to Modern Science?

Animal Testing, Unique to Modern Science?

Although animal testing may prove to be effective for determining whether a product is potentially dangerous or not, animal experimentation is an inhumane practice that is unnecessary through the alternatives modern technology has created in replacement of animal testing.  Using the scientific route to cell culture is able to prevent many animals from being used in experimentation by having “animal and human cells grown in a lab” (Jha) which “can allow scientists to test for toxicity” (Jha) without animals being involved.  Animal testing is inhumane and unnecessary in today’s world, however, there is still significant disparities as to whether or not using animals for testing should be happening and if so to what degree.

For years, scientists have tested new products such as shampoos, lotions, cosmetics products and new drugs on animals to test for safety.  The testing of these animals sometimes involve harming the animals through use of lethal chemicals leading to the deaths of these animals.  “Controversy surrounding animal testing first started in the 17th century, when physiologist Edmund O’Meara and his supporters argued, the benefit to humans does not justify the harm to animals.”  (Sun)  However, Claude Bernard, argued, “experiments on animals are conclusive for he toxicology and hygiene of man and there has been a lot of medical knowledge gained from these experiments.” (Sun)

During the testing of new products, hundreds of thousands of animals endure inhumane tests for the betterment of society. In the article “19,000 Animals Killed in Automotive Crash Tests,” “about 19,000 dogs, rabbits, pigs, ferrets, rats and mice have been killed during the last decade in automobile safety tests performed by the General Motors Corporation” (The New York Times). Animals are similarly used as experimentation on how cosmetics may irritate the skin.  Given today’s technology we can drastically reduce the number of animals being harmed or killed from experimentation. Investigators noted that in their medical specialism of inflammatory disease, including diabetes, asthma and arthritis, drugs developed using mice have to date had a 100% failure rate in almost 150 clinical trials on humans. (Dutt and Latham)  “According to Kristie Sullivan, Director of Regulatory Testing Issues at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine  this is not unusual “about 90% of all pharmaceuticals tested for safety in animals fail to reach the market, or are quickly pulled from the market”. (Dutt and Latham)

 “Toxicology in the twenty-first Century", as proposed by the US-National Research Council, aims at using human cells and tissues for toxicity testing in vitro rather than live animals. (Liesbch)  Additionally, there have been a multitude of alternatives developed to replace animal testing.  “Organs on Chips” contain human cells that can be used for disease research or tissue models can be used to replicate human skin, replacing mice, who would have been injected with a substance to detect an allergic response. (PETA)  Researchers have also developed five different tests using human blood cells to detect contaminants in drugs that could cause dangers fevers leading to death.  This process replaced the use of rabbits. (PETA)  Computer models can simulate human biology and predict how a new drug might react.  (PETA)  The development of human patient simulator has resulted in 97% of medical schools completely replacing animal labs.  (PETA)  Even though dozens of methods have been developed to reduce or replace animal tests, most agencies are willing to accept substitutes only on a case-by-case basis. (Kaiser)  In many instances, “chips” or “human blood cells” used for testing are just not as good as using a whole creature.