Ineffectiveness of Animal Testing in the Medical Field
Experimenting on animals for knowledge in the scientific field is not something newly developed. Aristotle in 300 BC was known for dissecting animals and then making hypotheses about what he discovered in their anatomy. Even in current modern society, learning is done through animal experimentation and dissection. Almost as if a rite of passage, most students in high school will dissect either a worm or cat to help with their learning process and to develop their skill in the scientific method. Some scientists still believe in using animal testing for new drugs, drugs that are put on the market for the general populace to consume. However, in medical research, using animals for trials …show more content…
Claude Bernard, the father of physiology, once stated that "experiments on animals are entirely conclusive for the toxicology and hygiene of man. The effects of these substances are the same in man as on animals, save for differences in degree"(Animal Testing and Medicine). It is a common practice over history to test on animals due to their similar biology to humans. After all, a mouse shares 98% of DNA with a human. It is also seen as more humane to test an animal with a new drug than a human. In fact, in the 1960 's the drug Thalidomide was put on the market before having been tested on animals. One function of this drug was to cure women from pregnant morning sickness and was known as the "wonder drug." On the contrary, the drug ended up causing 10,000 newborns to have malformations and missing limbs(Animal Testing and Medicine). This could have possibly been avoided if there were studies on animals taking this drug before it was let out into the public. Biomedical research is rooted into animal testing. This is partially so because there is no way to test high blood pressure or blindness without using something that is living. There has been some great improvements of diseases due to animal experimentation in biomedical research such as mice being given cancer and then showing that the immune system is activated through altered tumors. This leads to …show more content…
These include in vitro testing and microfluidic chip testing. In vitro testing involves taking cells from humans and animals and then inserting the drug to the cells to see how they react. This is effective in seeing how cell 's react yet does not replace "whole body testing"(Alternative to Animals). Another alternative to animal testing is microfluidic chip testing, which includes tissue samples and a substitute for blood to try to mimic the processes of the body while testing out a new drug. These methods, both yield results based on human organisms such as human cells and tissues, rather than an animal’s, which holds more realistic future
Experimenting on animals for knowledge in the scientific field is not something newly developed. Aristotle in 300 BC was known for dissecting animals and then making hypotheses about what he discovered in their anatomy. Even in current modern society, learning is done through animal experimentation and dissection. Almost as if a rite of passage, most students in high school will dissect either a worm or cat to help with their learning process and to develop their skill in the scientific method. Some scientists still believe in using animal testing for new drugs, drugs that are put on the market for the general populace to consume. However, in medical research, using animals for trials …show more content…
Claude Bernard, the father of physiology, once stated that "experiments on animals are entirely conclusive for the toxicology and hygiene of man. The effects of these substances are the same in man as on animals, save for differences in degree"(Animal Testing and Medicine). It is a common practice over history to test on animals due to their similar biology to humans. After all, a mouse shares 98% of DNA with a human. It is also seen as more humane to test an animal with a new drug than a human. In fact, in the 1960 's the drug Thalidomide was put on the market before having been tested on animals. One function of this drug was to cure women from pregnant morning sickness and was known as the "wonder drug." On the contrary, the drug ended up causing 10,000 newborns to have malformations and missing limbs(Animal Testing and Medicine). This could have possibly been avoided if there were studies on animals taking this drug before it was let out into the public. Biomedical research is rooted into animal testing. This is partially so because there is no way to test high blood pressure or blindness without using something that is living. There has been some great improvements of diseases due to animal experimentation in biomedical research such as mice being given cancer and then showing that the immune system is activated through altered tumors. This leads to …show more content…
These include in vitro testing and microfluidic chip testing. In vitro testing involves taking cells from humans and animals and then inserting the drug to the cells to see how they react. This is effective in seeing how cell 's react yet does not replace "whole body testing"(Alternative to Animals). Another alternative to animal testing is microfluidic chip testing, which includes tissue samples and a substitute for blood to try to mimic the processes of the body while testing out a new drug. These methods, both yield results based on human organisms such as human cells and tissues, rather than an animal’s, which holds more realistic future