Is It Better To Replace Animal Testing?

Life in the laboratory is the only life Colin has ever known. The Maltese-beagle mix lived at the University of Florida's kennels since he was only two months old. The tests on Colin resulted in Colin having all his teeth removed, getting into fights with other dogs, suffering from anxiety, and forcing him to wear special shirts for months at a time to help with the stress of living in small quarters. Colin was born vulnerable to a deadly disease that prevented his body from using the sugar stored in his body. For over four years, Colin was a victim to gene therapy to combat a disease that occurs in one in every 100,000 people. During that time, he had developed serious kidney and bladder infections, conjunctivitis and chronic vomiting. At only four years old, Colin had exhibited health conditions of a dog twice his …show more content…
Alternative testing methods have many advantages. Scientists are working to develop computer models for new cell and tissue tests and other methods to replace animal testing. These alternatives are more humane and are more cost-effective and reliable than traditional animal tests. Once a new method has been developed, it has to be scientifically validated by multiple laboratories to see if the results reliably predict the outcomes in people. Almost 50 different alternative methods and testing strategies have been developed, validated and accepted by international regulatory authorities. For example, using EpiSkin, EpiDerm, and SkinEthic are artificial human skin, and can save thousands of rabbits each year from skin corrosion and irritation tests. All three of these artificial human skins have been approved to replace animal testing. A lot of cures for diseases have seen hardly any progress despite decades of animal research. Over a thousand potential drugs for strokes have been tested in animals, but only one of these has worked in