When it comes to the topic of animal testing, most of us will readily agree that it is a very debatable discussion. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question whether it helps researchers to find new drugs and treatments suitable for humans. Whereas some are convinced that animal testing does help researchers find new effective drugs and treatments, others maintain that some drugs tested on animals are ineffective or even safe for human consumption. In my perspective the results of animal testing are unreliable, because animals and humans are not genetically or anatomically alike. Despite the fact that there has been several medical advances in new drugs and treatments thanks to the help of animal testing, one cannot
…show more content…
Although animals and human may be similar, they are not entirely identical. In his article,” Breakthroughs Might Mean the End of Animal Testing”, John Ericson maintains that “Side effects are missed, and millions of dollars are wasted. Even if a new chemical entity is deemed safe at the animal stage, it still only has an 8 percent chance of being approved for human use.” Ericson argues that even if a new drug is considered safe for animal use, it is still not likely to be approved safe for human consumption. Which brings back the topic that animal testing is not one hundred percent reliable, because humans and animals are not identical, anatomically, or genetically . Animal testing has been the primary way to test the effects of drugs, but there are numerous occasions where the side effects were easily missed. As a result of that, chemist are left to rely on a process very close to guesswork …show more content…
Both alternative results along with the results of animal testing can help get a more reliable result overall. According to Burden, “It is important to recognize that using these tools alongside each other is a vital first step towards the commonplace use of alternatives, and will allow for comparisons to be made between the traditional and newer approaches. This comparison, in turn, will help to reassure regulators and companies alike of the utility and applicability of the alternative approaches” (Burden). Basically, Burden is saying that using both of them help with the possibility of a better result as an outcome.The one thing that always seems to come back up is the fact that animals and humans are not alike in every way. Burden agrees when she writes, “ One of the problems with using laboratory animals(usually rodents) to test for the harmful effects of chemicals, is that the scientific question that must be answered is not how safe is a chemical for a rat or a mouse, but is it acceptable for a human to be exposed to it?” (Burden). In making this comment, Burden argues that just because a chemical or drug is safe for a rat does not mean it would be safe for a human to
Although animals and human may be similar, they are not entirely identical. In his article,” Breakthroughs Might Mean the End of Animal Testing”, John Ericson maintains that “Side effects are missed, and millions of dollars are wasted. Even if a new chemical entity is deemed safe at the animal stage, it still only has an 8 percent chance of being approved for human use.” Ericson argues that even if a new drug is considered safe for animal use, it is still not likely to be approved safe for human consumption. Which brings back the topic that animal testing is not one hundred percent reliable, because humans and animals are not identical, anatomically, or genetically . Animal testing has been the primary way to test the effects of drugs, but there are numerous occasions where the side effects were easily missed. As a result of that, chemist are left to rely on a process very close to guesswork …show more content…
Both alternative results along with the results of animal testing can help get a more reliable result overall. According to Burden, “It is important to recognize that using these tools alongside each other is a vital first step towards the commonplace use of alternatives, and will allow for comparisons to be made between the traditional and newer approaches. This comparison, in turn, will help to reassure regulators and companies alike of the utility and applicability of the alternative approaches” (Burden). Basically, Burden is saying that using both of them help with the possibility of a better result as an outcome.The one thing that always seems to come back up is the fact that animals and humans are not alike in every way. Burden agrees when she writes, “ One of the problems with using laboratory animals(usually rodents) to test for the harmful effects of chemicals, is that the scientific question that must be answered is not how safe is a chemical for a rat or a mouse, but is it acceptable for a human to be exposed to it?” (Burden). In making this comment, Burden argues that just because a chemical or drug is safe for a rat does not mean it would be safe for a human to