Lwin Moe Aung
27 November 2016
Mrs. Oberlin/Mrs. Meneely
BioLit 3-4
Animal Testing “The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they talk? but, can they suffer?" A quote from English philosopher Jeremy Bentham, we can ask the same question when referring to animal testing. Over the decades, animal testing has been used worldwide, and although it may have led to medical breakthroughs, at what expense does it have to the animals? That’s why using animals in research should be banned because it is inhumane, results are unreliable, and research now shows that there are alternative methods. Animals tests can be cruel and inhumane. Laboratories in the U.S. cause the death of over 100 million animals. Some animals in this list include …show more content…
For the alternative test method to be confirmed, it needs to achieve one or more of the three “R’s.” It needs to either replace a procedure that uses animals, reduce the number of animals used in a procedure, or refine a procedure to minimize potential animal pain (The Humane Society of the United States). One benefit of non-animal testing is that they are actually more reliable than actual animal testing. For instance, the use of human tissue in toxicity testing is more accurate than animal models. The LD50 test is where animals are forced to intake toxic substances. About 50% of animals in the study end up dead, and the remaining are later killed. That’s why from a cytotoxicology lab in Sweden, Dr. Bjorn Ekwall has created a replacement for the lethal test. This test has a precision rate of about 85%, whereas the LD50 test has a rate of 61-65%. Not only is it more accurate, it also uses donated human tissue, sparing animal lives. Another benefit is that they are cost-effective and practical. It can take up to five years for traditional animal testing with chemicals to be completed. The tests also results in millions of dollars being wasted. With using non-animal alternatives, they can test hundreds of chemicals in a week for a small fraction of the cost
27 November 2016
Mrs. Oberlin/Mrs. Meneely
BioLit 3-4
Animal Testing “The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they talk? but, can they suffer?" A quote from English philosopher Jeremy Bentham, we can ask the same question when referring to animal testing. Over the decades, animal testing has been used worldwide, and although it may have led to medical breakthroughs, at what expense does it have to the animals? That’s why using animals in research should be banned because it is inhumane, results are unreliable, and research now shows that there are alternative methods. Animals tests can be cruel and inhumane. Laboratories in the U.S. cause the death of over 100 million animals. Some animals in this list include …show more content…
For the alternative test method to be confirmed, it needs to achieve one or more of the three “R’s.” It needs to either replace a procedure that uses animals, reduce the number of animals used in a procedure, or refine a procedure to minimize potential animal pain (The Humane Society of the United States). One benefit of non-animal testing is that they are actually more reliable than actual animal testing. For instance, the use of human tissue in toxicity testing is more accurate than animal models. The LD50 test is where animals are forced to intake toxic substances. About 50% of animals in the study end up dead, and the remaining are later killed. That’s why from a cytotoxicology lab in Sweden, Dr. Bjorn Ekwall has created a replacement for the lethal test. This test has a precision rate of about 85%, whereas the LD50 test has a rate of 61-65%. Not only is it more accurate, it also uses donated human tissue, sparing animal lives. Another benefit is that they are cost-effective and practical. It can take up to five years for traditional animal testing with chemicals to be completed. The tests also results in millions of dollars being wasted. With using non-animal alternatives, they can test hundreds of chemicals in a week for a small fraction of the cost