One of the main points that is not known well when it comes to having a discussion on animal testing is what exactly happens when animals are being tested and what the alternatives of animal testing are. Animal testing takes potential chemicals that big industries want to introduce, such as the cosmetic or pharmaceutical industries, and injects them into animals to examine the reactions of the animals to the chemical (Abbott 1). One popular example that arose early on in animal testing is named the draize test, which injects a needle directly into a rabbit’s eye to evaluate the reaction of the rabbit to the chemicals (Abbott 2). If the animal shows any irritation or damage, it provides scientists and companies examples to decide on whether
…show more content…
For example, a variety of body systems can be tested in vitro such as ears, eyes, tongues, and several other types of cells for scientists to examine (Abbott 1). The different cells could replace the need of a live animal. Including cells, various other types of material can be produced in these labs, making it possible to experiment on whole tissues and microbes as well. The versatility of in vitro approach is very appealing to pharmaceutical companies as well as the cosmetic industry (“Alternatives”, par. 3). The question is, which one of these methods is the most successful? The main argument from countless alternative testing activists is that alternative testing is just as valuable, if not more valuable than animal testing (Abbott 1). The draize test and other experiments performed on animals do not have the most reliable results. Around 50% of animal tests are positive, however 90% of these tests are false positives (Abbott 1). It is also true that in vitro is not certified to be 100% accurate, however it’s results are more reproducible (Abbott 1). In fact, research shows that in vitro tests mirror what happens in a human’s body with greater accuracy than animal testing (Abbott …show more content…
The belief is that alternative testing cannot accomplish this. Also argued is that in vitro can be used in conjunction with animal testing. Using in vitro to test the toxicity of chemicals and then use them on animals would be the humane option of animal testing, which several people in between the two extremes of the animal testing issue reside with. This approach would reduce animal testing, but still provide agencies the option of their current method of testing (Doglin 1). Others also believe that animal testing opponents take these issues too far, and believe the idea of saving the lives of humans is more essential than saving the lives of an animal (“Animal”, par. 4). However, there are multiple arguments against these
For example, a variety of body systems can be tested in vitro such as ears, eyes, tongues, and several other types of cells for scientists to examine (Abbott 1). The different cells could replace the need of a live animal. Including cells, various other types of material can be produced in these labs, making it possible to experiment on whole tissues and microbes as well. The versatility of in vitro approach is very appealing to pharmaceutical companies as well as the cosmetic industry (“Alternatives”, par. 3). The question is, which one of these methods is the most successful? The main argument from countless alternative testing activists is that alternative testing is just as valuable, if not more valuable than animal testing (Abbott 1). The draize test and other experiments performed on animals do not have the most reliable results. Around 50% of animal tests are positive, however 90% of these tests are false positives (Abbott 1). It is also true that in vitro is not certified to be 100% accurate, however it’s results are more reproducible (Abbott 1). In fact, research shows that in vitro tests mirror what happens in a human’s body with greater accuracy than animal testing (Abbott …show more content…
The belief is that alternative testing cannot accomplish this. Also argued is that in vitro can be used in conjunction with animal testing. Using in vitro to test the toxicity of chemicals and then use them on animals would be the humane option of animal testing, which several people in between the two extremes of the animal testing issue reside with. This approach would reduce animal testing, but still provide agencies the option of their current method of testing (Doglin 1). Others also believe that animal testing opponents take these issues too far, and believe the idea of saving the lives of humans is more essential than saving the lives of an animal (“Animal”, par. 4). However, there are multiple arguments against these