ktmeng/mec huggingface dataset:
Topic: animal-testing

Many people stand against animal testing because they feel that it is unfair treatment to animals since animals do not have a say in the matter. On the other side of the argument, people fight for animal testing because it allows for prescription drugs and medicines to be tested. Both sides have their valid points, animal testing can be seen as cruel, especially when there are alternatives that can be used, but also, even with alternatives, testing on animals is still sometimes necessary in order to get the needed results.
Topic: animal-testing

In a debate between Laurie Pycroft, one of the founders of Pro-Test, and Helen Marston, head of Humane Research Australia, the two go back and forth about animal testing and its potential alternatives. Pycroft starts out the debate by explaining the complexity of the human body and how no investigative tool can “fully replicate the intricacy of a living organism” (Pycroft). Marston returns fire by talking about why animals are not good models for human medicine. She makes the point that animals are “anatomically, genetically, and metabolically” different from humans (Pycroft).
Topic: animal-testing

Pycroft continues to bring up different examples of how using animals for research has helped make medical advances for humans, while Marston seems to continue to revolve around the same idea of there being alternatives, but she does not really expand on any one topic, just that there are alternatives. Thomas Hartung talks about the alternatives to animal testing. One of the things Hartung mentions is an experiment done in 2006, “when the TeGenero anti-CD28 antibody, after testing safe at 500-times higher concentrations in monkeys, [it still] led to multiple organ failure within hours in six human volunteers” (Hartung).
Topic: animal-testing

Thus, providing an argument against animal testing because sometimes, even when animal testing provides positive results, it does not mean that the same result will be present when human trials are done. Many people believe that animal testing is only about testing cosmetics or new drug therapies, however, there are many different uses for animal testing, and Timothy Musch et al discuss some of those uses. “Animal studies play a part in the initial development of candidate drugs, and the development and testing of medical devices and surgical procedures.
Topic: animal-testing

Even more crucial, animal research informs clinical research by building the foundation of biological knowledge” (Musch et al). There are so many things that the testing of animals can help to improve. Some things, such as the development of insulin, antibiotics, vaccines, and drugs with high mortality rates, are all because of high contribution from animal testing (Murnaghan). On the flip side though, Alison Abbott points out, “Every time you reach for an eye drop or reapply a lip salve, you do so confident that the chemicals they contain are safe to use.
Topic: animal-testing

But the toxicology test on which regulators rely to gather this information are stuck in a time warp, and are largely based on wasteful and often poorly predictive animal experiments” (Abbott). Abbott talks about a legislation called REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals) and how it planned to “make registration mandatory for both future and existing chemicals – even those that have been on the market for decades” (Abbott). As a result of reach, it was expected that millions more animals would be used in order to meet the necessary requirements. 5,000 animals – that is up to how many test subjects could be used for each chemical; if it is a pesticide that number jumps to 12,000. The estimated cost of running these tests on the unregistered (approximately 30,000) chemicals is between €5 billion (US$6 billion) and €10 billion (US$13 billion) (Abbott). In order to test one single chemical for cancer causing potential, it takes five years, involves 400 rats (each of which is treated with the maximum tolerated dose), and more than 50% of the results are positive, even worse, of that 50%, 90% are false positives (Abbott).
Topic: animal-testing

In looking more at the argumentative side, there are two general views: in favor of animal testing or against animal testing. Many people lean towards being against animal testing because they feel it is cruel, inhumane, and unfair to the animals. Now on the other hand, a lot of people are in favor of animal testing because it helps to test medicines, medical procedures and other necessities. Animals do not have a voice of their own; they need people to speak for them, to fight for them, and to protect them.
Topic: animal-testing

Many companies, while attempting to verify their products are safe for humans, will perform various tests on animals. Animals are used for testing a wide variety of chemicals and products such as drugs, vaccines, cosmetics, household cleaners, and pesticides. As written by Delmas Luedke, “Animals are exposed to too much suffering; especially when there are many alternatives to testing on animals” (Animals and Research). If there are alternatives for research, why test on animals? There are new alternatives being created, such as realistic software models. The first realistic software models of human and animal organs are starting to emerge – potentially replacing some of the 50 to 100 million animals used each year for scientific research” (Biever). With different types of software emerging, it is very possible for other software to be produced in future years and animal tests could be completely replaced. When doing medical, cosmetic, or any other type of research, animals should not be used or abused because it is cruel and harmful to the animals being used for testing.
Topic: animal-testing

On the opposing side, some people believe that it is okay to harm animals in order to discover cures and generate medicines, although animal testing can lead to antibiotics, vaccines, and other treatments being produced, there are other ways that those same products could be produced – without harming animals. According to Cynthia Pekow, “Although polls say that most Americans accept that research animals are needed to advance medical science, many people feel squeamish thinking about animals used in experimentation”(“Animals in Research”).
Topic: animal-testing

People do not feel squeamish because their medicines are being tested on animals; they are squeamish because animals are being harmed in the process. While good things have come from testing on animals, it is just not worth the pain and torture that they are put through. One reason why testing on animals should be illegal is because it is a cruel and inhumane way to do research, and it is unfair because animals have no voice of their own. Jackie Powder states that, “It was a furor over the alleged mistreatment of rabbits by a cosmetics giant that set the stage for the creation of the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing” (Powder).
Topic: animal-testing

CAAT works with scientists, government regulators, and other advocates to identify alternatives to the use of animals in testing thousands of chemicals. Humans are capable of giving their consent in order to be tested on, while animals are not. Animals have no voice of their own to speak with. They cannot tell anyone when something hurts; they cannot tell anyone when something does not feel right; they cannot tell anyone if they do not want to participate in the testing anymore. A second reason for not testing on animals is because there is no moral reason to test on animals when the results may not even be accurate.
Topic: animal-testing

There have also been many alternatives that have proven to be more accurate than using animals. “Using animals is unreliable and inaccurate because of great differences between animals and humans. Non-animal tests take less time to complete, cost only a fraction of what the animal experiments the non-animal tests replace costs, and are not overwhelmed with species diversity that make inferring results difficult or impossible” (Stop the use, ). Virtual models, such as the ones at Insilicomed in Lo Jolla, California, are being created. At Insilicomed they are using a virtual heart to simulate the interaction between the organ and a pacemaker, on behalf of a manufacturer. The device is initially tested in both animals and software to ensure that the models accurately replicating what happens in real life, but subsequent test to refine the properties the pacemaker’s leads are done in software alone” (Biever). With these models being produced, fewer animals will be used in experiments. Whenever there is a chance to replace animal tests, those chances should be pursued so that fewer animals will be used.
Topic: animal-testing

On the alternative side of the argument, there are multiple reasons why animal testing is a good thing. For starters, animal testing has helped to create many of the medicines in our world. The kinds of benefits from animal research that researchers have made in understanding and treating diseases would not have been possible without animal research. Many people argue about how it is cruel and inhumane to animals; well would they rather it was humans being tested? Maybe they would like to send their brother or sister in for experimental testing? While animal testing may seem cruel, the hypothetical alternative is even worse.
Topic: animal-testing

Scientists are attempting to develop worthy alternatives to testing on animals, but some things are not quite as easy to come up with an alternative. Both sides of the argument have very good points, however, despite the fact that it can be seen as cruel and inhumane to the animals (from a person’s perspective), animal testing is, at this point in time, a necessity. There are many drugs and medical procedures that may not be here today if it were not for animal testing. Testing on animals may be inhumane to them, but it is better to be inhumane to an animal than to a human.
Topic: animal-testing

Inaccurate Results The results obtained from animal testing are used to check whether a particular medicine or cosmetic would have any side-effects on human beings. The body systems of animals are different from those of human beings. Aspirin is widely used for the treatment of fever, pain, inflammation, etc. in human beings. However, this very medicine proves to be toxic for mice. Most experiments are conducted on animals which cannot be reliable sources for predicting results on human beings. That is, mice or rats are not the correct means to speculate reactions in human beings, while only monkeys and chimpanzees are; they being closely related to humans. Many of us don’t know that drug companies are not held responsible for illnesses or the side-effects of their medicines or vaccines, but it is a fact that many newly tested medicines they proudly sell, actually fail to give positive results. The side-effects of drugs like thalidomide and clioquinol are testimony to the claim that medicines tested on animals cannot be considered safe for human use. Therefore, it is not correct to fully rely on results of tests conducted on animals.
Topic: animal-testing

Costly Affair Rearing animals for the purpose of testing requires a lot of investment on feeding and fulfilling their needs. Animals used for testing require to be fed certain amounts and types of food, depending on what they are being tested for. They require to be provided with shelter for the period for which they are experimented on. Plus, there are huge expenses incurred in creating artificial environment for the experiments and in conducting the tests on animals. John McCain, a politician from USA has deemed the practice of animal testing as ethically, scientifically and financially unsound. Animal testing statistics show that thousands of dollars are spent every year on animal testing and the activities cost the lives of millions of animals.
Topic: animal-testing

There are Alternatives… In today’s world, there are many alternatives to animal testing, which is one logical reason why animal testing should be banned. Tissue culture methods, for example can be used as alternatives to animal testing. Crash test dummies (test devices which mimic humans) have internal sensors, and can be used for experimentation instead of torturing living animals. Monoclonal antibodies can be created with the help of cultured cells. Tissue engineering techniques can be used for culturing these cells. It is also possible to make a model of the human immune system in order to check whether a particular vaccine is effective or not. Such models are referred to as Modular Immune In Vitro Constructs (MIMIC).
Topic: animal-testing

The practice of animal testing should be banned, considering that it is harmful from the ethical, environmental as well as the economical point of view. Making use of alternatives that are available for animal experimentation is therefore, a better choice. It is only by means of a responsible and compassionate behavior towards animals that we can be called true ‘human’ beings. Progress in medicine is essential, but not at the cost of innocent lives. As Mahatma Gandhi rightly said, “You can judge a nation’s moral progress by how it treats its animals.”
Topic: animal-testing

For many years, animals have been used in research both in the scientific and medical fields. In order to introduce new drugs into the market, they have to be tested first on animals in order to ascertain whether they are effective or not. Animal experimentation in this context defines the use of non-humans, mostly animals, to test new drugs and consumer goods such as cosmetics, pesticides, herbicides, food additives, among others (Taylor 120). Pharmaceutical companies and research institutions have been active in animal experiments because these institutions are charged with coming up with new drugs.
Topic: animal-testing

When the benefits of animal experimentation are weighed against the drawbacks, it is evident that the procedure is beneficial. Accordingly, animal experimentation should not be banned. First, animal experiments should not be banned based on the fact that it has been beneficial to humans and animals. With the recent technological advancement, substantive accomplishment has been made in the field of human medicine and science. In this regard, the use of animal testing cannot be underestimated.
Topic: animal-testing

Taylor (132) maintains that animal experimentation has helped in unearthing new drugs that have helped to ease the suffering of humans from disease that was once witnessed in the past. Blakemore support Taylors point by indicating that vaccines for polio and cervical cancer, insulin, antibiotics, heart-bypass surgery, among others were all advances that were achieved through animal testing. For a patient to receive therapy or treatment, it has to be known that this originated from an arduous medical research involving animals.
Topic: animal-testing

Group also supports animal experiments because it helps to improve medicines and treatments (Campbell). Some countries like the UK have even realized the benefits of animal testing in advancing the medical field (University of Bradford). However, UK has banned the use of animal testing for consumer goods such as for cosmetics production (University of Bradford). Critics have however been instrumental in indicating a number of ethical implications linked with animal testing. As the critics point out, animal testing is a procedure that does not take into consideration the rights of animals.
Topic: animal-testing

As a matter of fact, animals are just like humans who require to be treated the way humans are treated. While supporting animal research, Taylor (120) however cites some commentators who argue that the experiment that involved testing cosmetics and other hazardous products on rabbits in order to know how long the rabbits would die was unethical. This experiment fundamentally was meant to test the level of toxicity of certain substances. As Taylor (128) echoes the sentiments of critics, this is an inhumane way of treating animals because “… the suffering of any being ought to count equally with the like suffering of any other being.” These among other critical arguments have formed the basis of the opposing side of animal testing. It may be justified to talk in terms of animal ethics when there is justification that animals have actually been mistreated. Considering that few cases have been reported regarding inhumane treatment of animals, it should not however justify the lifting of a ban on animal testing. As a matter of fact, animals have helped a great deal in the scientific and medical field which has equally improved the quality of human life.
Topic: animal-testing

From a practical perspective, the use of animal experiments guarantees the safety of humans. In order to ascertain whether drugs and other consumer goods are safe for humans, the use of animals becomes justified. Taylor (132) even supports this idea by indicating that very few animals are sacrificed during such experiments which help to not only save millions of people, but also animals. Opponents of this claim have however cited cases of animal suffering and deaths because of ineffective experimental procedures. Taylor (120) highlights a critical perspective regarding this issue by indicating that “Of course, Jennie was not human; she was a squirrel monkey. To do such a research on a human being would be immoral. The question then is, what justifies using a monkey?” Other commentators have also indicated the idea of injecting animals with toxins in the name of scientific advancement.
Topic: animal-testing

Although these arguments may seem plausible, it is however important to note that humans are practically more important than animals. It would thus be justified to assert that animal testing should not be banned. It has also been found that technological advancement has enabled results from animal testing to be more accurate with minimal harm inflicted on animals. Blakemore highlights the biological relationship that humans have with animals. According to the author, chimpanzees and some rodents like mice and rats share similar genes with humans. The way these animals respond to disease treatments is just the same as humans. Because there is no other alternative to test the effectiveness of drugs and consumer goods, the use of animals in experiments becomes justified. Blakemore reiterates that there are many incurable diseases such as Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia, and multiple sclerosis which require quick research in order to find new treatment.
Topic: animal-testing

Because researchers and scientists have the ability to achieve this objective, they need to use every tool available at their disposal in order to ensure that cures for such diseases are found. Critics of this argument have however maintained their stand regarding the futility of such efforts. As critics claim, some drugs have not been as effective as claimed. Indeed, some of the consumer products and drugs have had to be recalled because of ineffective experimental procedures which resulted in drugs not serving their intended purposes. It can be justified to agree to this assertion considering that animal experiments are products of human making which are subject to errors and flaws. However, with the recent advancement in technology, such cases have become rare.
Topic: animal-testing

Taylor (134-136) posits that there are new methods such as computer simulation which allows existing information and data to be used by researchers and scientists to further improve on what had earlier been done. Banning animal testing would in this case amount to deteriorating health standards of people within societies. Definitely, animal testing has been a controversial issue considering that there are ethical implications associated with it. While this may be true, the benefits of this procedure however outweigh the drawbacks.
Topic: animal-testing

For those who want a ban on animal testing to be lifted, the procedure is not ethical but only serves to infringe on the rights of animals. The arguments made by critics however are shortsighted because history clearly indicates that the drugs that people are using nowadays came as a result of animal testing. Fundamentally, animal testing should not be banned because there are possibilities of future cures being unearthed, the procedure is safe for humans, and the results have been more precise.
Topic: animal-testing

– approximately 5 billion animals are consumed as food annually – compared to that, only 17-22 million animals are used for in research annually – anesthesia is used today to numb the body during operations because it was successfully tested on animals => 6 % of animals do however experience pain, but this has to do with the research itself – the alleviation of pain would compromise the results => 61 % of animals used suffer no pain
Topic: animal-testing

=> 31 % of animals have pain relieved with anesthesia – AIDs research relies heavily on animal testing; other testing techniques aren’t optimized yet stem cells (SC) are a relative new way to perform testing. This will decrease the use of animals in the testing process. Furthermore, SC can show a specific organ’s reaction to a substance. The housing of the animals, feeding, carrying, treatments, controlling the environment, is very expensive oFinding drugs and treatments to improve health and medicine. There are already some lifesaving medical breakthroughs that are the result of animal testing, like open heart surgery, organ transplants, effective insulin, vaccines for deadly diseases, …
Topic: animal-testing

Those who disagree with animal testing claim that it is harmful, cruel and scientifically lacking practice. They also claim that the benefits are often misconstrued. In animal testing, countless animals are experimented on and then killed after their use. Others are injured and will still live the remainder of their lives in captivity. The unfortunate aspect is that many of these animals received tests for substances that will never actually see approval or public consumption and use. It is this aspect of animal testing that many view as a major negative against the practice. As it suggests that animals die in vain because often no direct benefit to humans occurred from animal testing. Those against animal testing believe that alternative such as cellular or computer models are sufficient enough to replace animal models.
Topic: animal-testing

On the other hand, some people believe that every day thousands of people are saved from painful diseases and death by powerful medical drugs and treatments. They state, “This incredible gift of medical would not be possible without animal testing.” According to a lot of the scientific community, and lots of universities where testing goes on, animal experimentation is necessary to help human beings. Some of the greatest scientific advances of all time are thanks to animal experimentation. Researchers argue that the things that humans and animals have in common make them invaluable test subjects. Untested products released on the market have led to the injury and death of humans in the past.
Topic: animal-testing

Some people stated that animal testing also essential for scientific inquiry and for pushing forward medical research and methods. Also the benefits to mankind from research on animals have been great, vaccines for chicken pox, cholera, influenza, measles, mumps, polio, Whooping Cough, TB and various other cures for diseases that were once life threatening were developed through testing on animals. Other medications, including insulin, penicillin, painkillers and chemotherapy, as well as medical devices such as pacemakers, artificial hearts and valves and artificial hips and knees, were also made possible by medical research involving animals.
Topic: animal-testing

One of the most famous examples when it comes to the dangers of animal experimentation would have to be the Thalidomide tragedy of the 60’s and 70’s. Thalidomide was a drug that came from the German market and was previously considered to be safe after it had been tested on thousands and thousands of animals. It was then marketed as a “wonder drug,” an amazing sedative for breastfeeding or pregnant mothers and it supposedly, “could cause no harm to either the mother or the child.”
Topic: animal-testing

Despite this, apparent ‘safety testing’, tens of thousands of children whose mothers had used this drug were born with severe deformities. This drug was slowly taken off the market and thousands of pounds were paid out in compensation, however, in many other countries the drug continued to be used because of the high profits made from its sale and the demand that it stimulated. The idea that it had been first tested on animals with no reported side effects was a safe guard that some say should not have been, and still should not be, relied upon.
Topic: animal-testing

Nevertheless, those who defend animal testing do so for its impact on medicine and health. The major pro for animal testing is that it aids researchers in finding drugs and treatments to improve health and medicine. Many medical treatments have been made possible by animal testing. Animal testing is held particularly important for its contribution to the development of insulin, antibiotics, vaccines and drugs with high mortality rates such as cancer. Antibiotics, HIV drugs, insulin and cancer treatments rely on animal testing. It is for this reason that animal testing is considered vital for improving human health and it is also why the scientific community and many members of the public support its use. In fact, there are also individuals who are against animal testing for cosmetics but still support animal testing for medicine and the development of new drugs for disease.
Topic: animal-testing

Some for animal testing, cite the suffering and loss of life of animals to be “worth it” when the loss of life or with the reduction of human suffering is involved. The argument is a fundamental conflict of values that humans are superior, more intelligent and ultimately more important than anything else on the planet, and that animals have no rights in comparison to human rights. At this time, scientists don’t believe that alternatives to animal testing are sufficient to be replaced in all cases.
Topic: animal-testing

I accept that Scientists typically have used animals for testing purposes because they are considered similar to humans and that in the past animal testing might have been the only possible method. I also acknowledge through the use of animal testing there has been great benefits, but I must also recognise the great mistakes to both humans and animals. Therefore, I feel that in today’s society where technology is so advanced alternatives must be sought. That money should be spent on developing other methods of testing drugs and medical procedures, so that the use of animals can be phased out altogether.
Topic: animal-testing

Each year, millions of animals suffer and die in the process of inhumane testing for the purposes of drug and chemical research, and medical experiments and training exercises. Animals including cats, dogs, rabbits, and mice are force fed harmful substances that are infected with lethal viruses causing reactions like brain damage, strokes, and heart attacks. Not only are these experiments painful to the animals and sometimes fatal, but also they fail to accurately reflect human reactions and are not required by the FDA.
Topic: animal-testing

The primary reason why animal testing should cease to exist is because it is inhumane to strip a helpless animal of its rights for the benefit of experimentation and research. “Animals have a basic moral right to respectful treatment . . .. This inherent value is not respected when animals are reduced to being mere tools in a scientific experiment.” (Lonestar) While animals cannot express themselves as humans can, they can feel, think, behave, and experience pain. Their inability to express themselves should not be taken advantage of.
Topic: animal-testing

While the FDA encourages manufacturers to conduct whatever testing is necessary to ensure the safety of their products, it does not specifically require the use of animals. (FDA) The FDA actually encourages companies to consider alternatives before deciding that testing on animals is necessary. They advocate that research and testing for products use a maximum amount of useful scientific information and a minimal number of animals tested. When testing does occur, they advocate for the most humane methods available. The Food and Drug Administration supports the Animal Welfare Act and the Public Health Service Policy of Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.
Topic: animal-testing

Not only is animal testing morally incorrect, but it is also not the most effective method to conduct research on products to be used by humans. In fact, 92 percent of experimental drugs that are safe and effective in animals fail to tell us that they are too dangerous or ineffective on humans. (Do Something) When conducting an experiment for safety and efficacy on animals, the purpose is to try the product on a living system before exposing it to a human. But the complicated living system of a human being barely compares to that of a helpless small animal. For example Aspirin and chocolate are harmful to cats and dogs while they remain completely unharmful to humans.
Topic: animal-testing

There are many alternatives that can be used in place for testing on animals. “Alternative” tests are those that meet one or more of the standards of the “three R’s: They replace procedures that uses animals with one that doesn’t, reduce the number of animals used in the procedure, or refine a procedure to alleviate or minimize potential animal pain. (DoSomething) While not all of the ‘R’s’ are a complete solution to animal testing, putting any of the three in place would make a significant impact on the lives of many animals.
Topic: animal-testing

As citizens and consumers, there are ways that we can stand up for the cause of the animals being tested. Many animals are harmed in the process of experimentation for educational purposes. We can demand that our alma maters stop using animals for this purpose. Buying cruelty-free products is something that can be done as a consumer to take away business from companies that test their products on animals. We can make sure that when donating to charities, we choose those that don’t experiment on animals. As citizens, we can request from our government legislation that requires alternatives to animal dissection and the immediate implementation of humane, effective non-animal tests. (PETA)
Topic: animal-testing

Opponents would have you believe that it is okay for animals to be tested on so that humans and sometimes animals would suffer less in the future, however, “We should be concerned about how animals are treated in research, and […] eliminate the number of animals who suffers” (ASPCA). Researchers are concerned only with their results and not the harmful process it takes to get them. It is clear that not only is animal testing cruel and necessary, but ineffective. However with alternatives to testing and strategies of protest, it’s possible for us to begin to diminish animal testing.
Topic: animal-testing

For many years, brand-new items have actually been validated. These products include medications, cosmetics, and so forth. People gain from these items however how were these items yielded and at what expense? Animals are being tortured for info for the advantage of humanity. They are being kept away not only from nature however likewise from their families to be tortured. Animal rights groups have actually appeared throughout the years, securing the lives of innocent animals from experiments. Below are some truths about how experimentation on animals is agonizing:
Topic: animal-testing

This process was later referred to as the three R’s, which stand for reduction, refinement, and replacement (Doke & Dhawale, 2013). Scientists used this means because of the torment done during animal experimentation, but quality had to be guaranteed. Reduction, which is the first step, is the process of lessening the number of animals to be used for animal experimentation. This is where scientists study the effects of the different body parts and organs in place of animal testing, thereby tests on animals are being substituted with tests on human cells and tissues. The next stage is refinement.
Topic: animal-testing

Doke and Dhawale (2013) acclaims that this is where scientists find the best way to diminish the pain, discomfort, and distress emanated by animals; it is also where improvement of habitation of research animals and improvement on the research are done (Hendriksen, 2009). Lastly, replacement is the final step in leading animal experimentation to be more humane. It is recommended that whenever possible, alternatives are to be used in place of animal testing (Doke & Dhawale, 2013). Using alternatives to animal testing is the best way of reducing the amount of laboratory animals kept in cages for research since it is using different means other than animals.
Topic: animal-testing

One alternative to the animal experimentation is in vitro testing. This is where a small amount of an animal’s body part (i.e. skin)  will be tested in a test tube. Using special laboratory equipment, scientists are able to attain the same result without animal experimentation. With this test, experimentation on animals is being replaced with tissues and cells to predict any sort of reaction from humans to new medicines, cosmetics, and others (Feder, 2007). New technology has been developed especially for this test. These newly­developed equipment have the properties to mimic the human anatomy to be able to predict the results (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, n.d.). Although this test may be a great alternative, the process of conducting this experimentation is too complex to be used globally; but there are other means of animal testing alternative.
Topic: animal-testing

One of the disadvantages of using in vitro is that it does not decrease in the number of animals killed. Although in vitro uses only a small amount of an animal’s body part, it does not necessarily mean that theses animals are not killed. Important organs may be needed for testing, and to retrieve it, scientists would have to kill the animal. However, the advantages overpower the disadvantage in the sense that there are more benefits to it than harm. The costs of animal testing, depending on the system, is more expensive than in vitro. For example, in testing products for non­genetic cancer risk, animal testing costs $700,000, while in vitro testing costs $22,000 (Humane Society International, n.d.).
Topic: animal-testing

One of the human tissues are often more reliable, in the sense that it is more accurate in predicting the reaction of humans, than animal tissues, make the cost. This is because there are only similarities when using animal cells, meaning that although some animals and humans may be alike in body functions and organs, it does not necessarily mean that humans will react the same way as animals do (New England  Anti­Vivisection Society, n.d.). The results of these tests also take a shorter amount of time as compared to animal testing.
Topic: animal-testing

Another alternative to animal testing is in silico testing. In silico is a test ran using a computer or simply, a computer simulation. In other terms this means, “Integration of modern computing and information technology with molecular biology to improve agency prioritization of data requirements and risk assessment of chemicals” (The United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2003). The word in silico was first introduced to the people by a mathematician named Pedro Miramontes in his report dubbed as “DNA and RNA Physicochemical Constraints, Cellular Automata and Molecular Evolution; wherein he defined it as a way to perform experiments using a computer (Autoimmunity Research Foundation, n.d.).
Topic: animal-testing

In silico testing was discovered because of the incorporation of technology in the performance of experiments in today’s modern world. It is the newest possible way of gaining knowledge among other methods. It is often used in toxicology wherein it determines the reaction of the human body to a drug that is being introduced whether it will be considered as a toxin or not (Raunio, 2011). It is considered as another effective alternative because it targets the specific processes that are needed in the experimentation so that no additional trials will be made (Doke & Dhawale, 2013). Amidst its popularity in the scientific community because of its advantages, some people are still doubtful in the efficiency and reliability when it comes to the results that it yields.
Topic: animal-testing

People question in silico testing mainly because it is mostly ran by the computer systems and not the human itself. In silico testing is a complex  kind of experiment because much preparation is needed; one has to devote time in installing the computer codes and maintenance of the system in order for the experiment to yield a minimal and acceptable percentage error (What is ‘in silico’ experimentation?, n.d.). The introduction of such experiment also needs additional knowledge for the scientists for them to configure and properly operate these computer systems; with such complexity present in this kind of experiment, scientists who have backgrounds in operating computer systems are the only ones capable in conducting in silico experiments (What is ‘in silico’ experimentation?, n.d.).
Topic: animal-testing

Despite all these disadvantages, there are still advantages to in silico testing. According to Arora et al. (2011), this mode of experimentation reduces the animals that are being used in animal testing making it a more humane method. In a software called Computer Aided Drug Design, it evaluates whether a drug will interact to a specific binding site and prohibits from undergoing in vivo confirmatory test on drugs that exhibit no biological activity (Doke and Dhawale, 2013). It makes the setup more reliable in the sense that it is more consistent since variables can be controlled unlike in in vivo testing wherein the health status of an animal shall be taken into consideration because it can affect the outcome of the experiment.
Topic: animal-testing

In silico testing can also make the translation of the collected data safer and more efficient. Experiments that undergo in silico testing can produce results faster as compared to other means which could take a lot of months or even years just for the results to be available (Arora et al., 2011). Eventually, in silico testing is a feasible alternative to animal testing because it considers the animals being used in the experiment, it controls all the variables present in the experiment, eradicating the presence of dependent variables and collects experimental results in a faster and systematic process.
Topic: animal-testing

As citizens of the United States we are entitled to our civil rights. They include our basic needs for living a happy and safe life. Animals however are not entitled to any rights to ensure them safety, good health, and proper living conditions. Animal testing laboratories torture and kill innocent animals daily. The laboratories smell of chemicals and bleach, and the cages are dirty, and not properly kept. The horrible smells fill their nostrils and they are forced to walk in their own urine and feces.
Topic: animal-testing

Animal testing is such a controversial topic because it involves using a living organism to test different drugs and chemicals and can potentially have a fatal outcome. The amount of stress put onto the animal throughout the testing is unhealthy and painful for the animal. It is just like an animal being brutally beaten by their owner; unfortunately the drugs and other hurtful substances forced onto the animal have long term effects and make the animal suffer through it to see the results of the test.
Topic: animal-testing

There are different reasons for animal testing, the main ones being for cosmetic purposes such as makeup brands and plastic surgery procedures like Botox. Scientists use the animals to research different drugs and chemicals and essentially are looking for abnormal reactions from them. Being a female I purchase different cosmetic products that I use on a day to day basis. Cosmetics are articles intended to be applied to the human body for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance without affecting the body’s structure or functions (“Fact Sheet–Cosmetic Testing”). Some of the most commonly known brands test their products on animals. Companies like Johnson & Johnson, Avon, Kleenex, Vaseline, Dove, Giorgio Armani, Maybelline, and countless more companies test their products on animals. Scientists conduct skin irritation tests that rub chemicals onto shaved skin or drop the chemicals into rabbit’s eyes without any pain medication (“Fact Sheet- Cosmetic Testing”).
Topic: animal-testing

They are testing products with the chemicals that could potentially cause the irritation, such as makeup remover, eye shadow, mascara, and things applied to the eye or eyelid. This test is obviously inhumane and painful for the rabbits, but there are alternatives to this test that are humane and can be done in place of it. Instead of putting the chemicals onto the rabbits, manufacturers can drop the chemicals onto donated human corneas (Cosmetics and Household). Women wear makeup and purchase products that are applied regularly to the face and eyes. With those products I am trusting that they will enhance my physical features in a positive way, but I would not want those products to be tested in such a cruel and torturous way.
Topic: animal-testing

Diseases are another reason for testing on animals. Cancer, Down syndrome, heart problems, diabetes, and others are some of the main diseases scientists are trying to find cures for. The other side to animal testing can potentially save lives by finding cures for these life threatening diseases. This is why some parts of animal testing are so vital to our health systems and patients. Many universities use animals to test in different types of training programs. At the University of Michigan nursing students used a cat to practice putting a tube into its windpipe. The goal of the procedure was for nurses working on survival flights to be able to perform the procedure to patients in critical condition. The cat was later adopted into a family and was not harmed at all (Kozlowski). Although this particular procedure seems harmless to the cat and sounds painless campaigns continued to protest against using live animals and PETA continued to press the subject.
Topic: animal-testing

They wanted them to replace using live animals with simulators which virtually does the same thing (Kozlowski). Tests like this that are done seem so minuet compared to others that are used for finding cures. Animal testing for human health has been said to be unsafe, unreliable, and expensive. On the contrary there have been cases where animal testing for medical reasons has in fact found vaccines and cures. From 1940 to 1960 polio was one of the most popular and well known diseases.
Topic: animal-testing

Due to the research conducted on animals polio has been eliminated as a well-known disease because of a vaccine that almost everyone has received (Use of Animals). Today children receive a lifetime vaccine for polio and are also immunized against typhus, whooping cough, and tetanus. I can see where the controversy comes in. I definitely think finding cures for all these diseases are something that needs to be done, but at the same time animals should have rights to their bodies.
Topic: animal-testing

Animals that are forced into these facilities to be tested on come from all different parts of the world. Specially bred rats and mice are the mammals used in most medical research (“What Types of Animals”). Other mammals commonly found in research are guinea pigs, rabbits, hamsters, and farm animals such as pigs and sheep (“What Types of Animals”). In some cases it has been rumored that some of the animals are specially bred for certain types of testing. This has raised a lot of questions as to how accurate the tests actually are. Different animals are used for certain tests. In previous studies it was proven that certain animals react differently to the same tests.
Topic: animal-testing

This is why so many different breeds and types of animals are affected by this; it involves so many different supplies and equipment which in turn can become costly. Animal testing has been known to be a costly and an unethical way of finding accurate cures. Some tests can take months or even years to conduct and analyze. This can result in spending hundreds of thousands, sometimes even millions of dollars on one test (“Costs of Animal”). The inefficiency and exorbitant costs associated with animal testing makes it impossible for regulators to adequately evaluate the potential effects of more than 100,000 chemicals worldwide (“Costs of Animal”).The amount of time needed to conduct one simple test is almost too extreme. The animal is suffering for months to years, for one result that isn’t even guaranteed. The amount of money spent on one test isn’t worth it, when the results are not always accurate.
Topic: animal-testing

Population studies have shown how many infectious diseases are caused and also how many can be prevented. In fact, the National Insitutes of Health reported that more than 80 HIV/AIDS vaccines that have passed animal testing have failed in clinical trials (“Alternatives: Testing without Torture”). Non- animal tests are another great alternative. Non-animal tests include an embryonic stem cell test, 3T3 neutral red uptake photo toxicity tests and human skin leftover from surgical procedures (“Alternatives: Testing without Torture”). There are so many alternatives to animal testing that should be utilized instead of using live animals.
Topic: animal-testing

On the other hand animal testing has contributed to finding many different cures and treatments for different diseases. When it comes down to it if you’re loved one has a disease and the only way to find an effective cure is to test it on an animal, then you would definitely want it done. Life or death plays a huge role in why so many people support animal testing. Animals are the most effective thing to test on because they share the same characteristics as humans. Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans (Animal Testing-ProCon). Sharing DNA with an animal has so many positive effects; the likeliness of finding a cure from testing on one of these animals could save so many lives. Laws have regulated animal testing to prevent the cruel and torturous acts from happening (Animal Testing-ProCon).
Topic: animal-testing

There are many positive sides to animal testing that could potentially benefit our health systems and patients. Animal Cruelty is illegal in most states in the U.S. How is torturing animals, poking them with needles, rubbing harmful chemicals onto their bodies and into their eyes legal? It is defined as the same thing. Holding an innocent animal against their will and torturing them with harmful substances is animal cruelty and should be illegal. There are positive alternatives to finding cures and treatments.
Topic: animal-testing

Although there are some positives, the amount of money, time, and animal cruelty is not worth it, considering the results are not always accurate. The amounts of stress they are put through in these labs are enough to kill them without the drugs. The suffering and pain of these innocent animals are not worth making sure our mascara doesn’t make our eyes puffy, or how high of a dosage is safe without overdosing. Finding the alternatives could change everything. Throughout this research I have learned that animal testing is a cruel and ruthless act.