I. Introduction
a. There is an estimated 115 million animals used for research in laboratories every year. The precise number is unknown because so few countries actually collect data about every animal they use for testing and research.
II. Narration
a. Animal testing is the use of any non-human animal in an experiment. It has become more prevalent in the past few decades due to advancements in the medical and scientific fields. Without these experiments, we would not have many of the vaccines, medicines, and surgical practices that are common today. There are very few protections for animals involved in this research though.
b. The use of animals in research should stop because animals can give misleading results, are expensive, and are …show more content…
Tests determining genetic toxicity such as the chromosome aberration test costs $30,000 while an in vitro test only costs $20,000. iii. Embryotoxicity tests performed on rats cost $50,000 while the in vitro rat limb bud test costs $15,000 [4].
V. Animal testing is cruel and inhumane.
a. Animals involved in experiments undergo a lot of suffering. They may be purposefully infected with deadly diseases, poisoned, burnt, blinded, or have a number of other invasive procedures performed on them and undergo a lot of psychological stress for prolonged periods of time. If they are not killed as a direct result of the test or are needed to be euthanized at the end so their tissues can be analyzed, then they are often euthanized anyway.
i. Acute toxicity tests such as the LD50 test used to measure the single dose needed to kill half of the animals involved in the test. This was eventually banned and replaced for other often still lethal options. ii. The Draize eye test involved placing chemicals in rabbits’ eyes and preventing them from blinking to observe the level of irritation caused by the irritant. The rabbits often suffer bleeding, ulcers, or …show more content…
The efficacy of animal models is low. The FDA reports that nine out of ten experimental drugs that pass in animal trials will fail in later clinical studies [6]. In cancer trials, the translation from animal models to clinical cancer trials had less than 8% success. This is due to the limited ability of animals at being able to represent the more complex processes surrounding human carcinogenesis and physiology [7]. People are not animals and the same effects cannot be expected in people as there are in animals.
b. Without animal testing, we would not have many of the life-saving cures and treatments we now have.
i. While this is true, the limitations surrounding animal testing is becoming more obvious now. There are new alternatives that more accurately predict the toxicity, effectiveness, and side effects of products and chemicals in humans than testing them on animals can. ii. In vitro testing methods using human cells and tissue cultures like EpiDerm have been far more accurate than Draize skin tests on rabbits. In a test, EpiDerm correctly identified all of the 25 test chemicals that cause human skin irritation while the tests on rabbits misclassified 10 out of the 25 [8]. iii. Other up and coming and promising alternatives are computer models and simulations, non-invasive imaging techniques like MRIs and CT scans, and even the 3D printing of tissues.
VII.
a. There is an estimated 115 million animals used for research in laboratories every year. The precise number is unknown because so few countries actually collect data about every animal they use for testing and research.
II. Narration
a. Animal testing is the use of any non-human animal in an experiment. It has become more prevalent in the past few decades due to advancements in the medical and scientific fields. Without these experiments, we would not have many of the vaccines, medicines, and surgical practices that are common today. There are very few protections for animals involved in this research though.
b. The use of animals in research should stop because animals can give misleading results, are expensive, and are …show more content…
Tests determining genetic toxicity such as the chromosome aberration test costs $30,000 while an in vitro test only costs $20,000. iii. Embryotoxicity tests performed on rats cost $50,000 while the in vitro rat limb bud test costs $15,000 [4].
V. Animal testing is cruel and inhumane.
a. Animals involved in experiments undergo a lot of suffering. They may be purposefully infected with deadly diseases, poisoned, burnt, blinded, or have a number of other invasive procedures performed on them and undergo a lot of psychological stress for prolonged periods of time. If they are not killed as a direct result of the test or are needed to be euthanized at the end so their tissues can be analyzed, then they are often euthanized anyway.
i. Acute toxicity tests such as the LD50 test used to measure the single dose needed to kill half of the animals involved in the test. This was eventually banned and replaced for other often still lethal options. ii. The Draize eye test involved placing chemicals in rabbits’ eyes and preventing them from blinking to observe the level of irritation caused by the irritant. The rabbits often suffer bleeding, ulcers, or …show more content…
The efficacy of animal models is low. The FDA reports that nine out of ten experimental drugs that pass in animal trials will fail in later clinical studies [6]. In cancer trials, the translation from animal models to clinical cancer trials had less than 8% success. This is due to the limited ability of animals at being able to represent the more complex processes surrounding human carcinogenesis and physiology [7]. People are not animals and the same effects cannot be expected in people as there are in animals.
b. Without animal testing, we would not have many of the life-saving cures and treatments we now have.
i. While this is true, the limitations surrounding animal testing is becoming more obvious now. There are new alternatives that more accurately predict the toxicity, effectiveness, and side effects of products and chemicals in humans than testing them on animals can. ii. In vitro testing methods using human cells and tissue cultures like EpiDerm have been far more accurate than Draize skin tests on rabbits. In a test, EpiDerm correctly identified all of the 25 test chemicals that cause human skin irritation while the tests on rabbits misclassified 10 out of the 25 [8]. iii. Other up and coming and promising alternatives are computer models and simulations, non-invasive imaging techniques like MRIs and CT scans, and even the 3D printing of tissues.
VII.