Animal testing, being in the top 10 of the most controversial biology topic, is a major topic of discussion. The debates surrounding animal testing in the biological community surround the worry of morality, human safety interests and economic concerns, all which generally impact the future of the so many companies whose products are used every day such as; Tide, Clorox, Maybelline, and so much more.
We’ve been testing on animals since 1992 starting with isolating insulin from dogs. Even though it’s an extremely cruel thing, it 's helped in the past finding cures and treatments to life threatening illnesses. Animals are also benefitting from the testing, without having tested on animals we would not have found the treatments for rabies, distemper, …show more content…
With all the good that has come from animal testing, today we do not need to continue the testing because we have found cheaper and more humane ways to do medical and chemical testing. 94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials. [1] So many drugs are being tested on animals and the results come out positive and approved, but once moved to human clinical trials it have severe affects and sometimes lethal to humans. This may have been an efficient way for testing in the past but studies show that scientist have found a better way to do these kinds of testing, it is also for economically efficiency. The National Institution of Health (NIH) spends around $14 billion of its $31 billion annual budget, on animal testing. In vitro (in glass) testing is one-third the cost. To minimize the need to test on animals Harvard Wyss Institution has created a state-of-the-arts system called “organ-on-chip” which imitate the structure and functions of human organs. This chip can be used in disease research, drug testing, and toxicity testing which is more efficient then crude animal testing, because it has been shown to replicate human body functions. While using animals with such close DNA and genetic similarities seems to be an adequate result, but there are anatomic, metabolic and cellular differences that make it difficult for us to compare the …show more content…
[2] “Every major-medical advance is attributable to experiments on animals.” (Journal of the royal Society of Medicine) [3] This article says that this statement is untrue, there is no physical evidence that testing on animals makes products safer for humans. This brings up the point of why we still test on animals and take so many of their lives, the only answer to this is that these companies stay under the radar by doing the least possible they must do to stay in AWA’s regulations. This way they make enormous amounts of money with the easiest job. It is simply not worth all the lives, money, and time to experiment on animals.
Whether you believe Animal testing is beneficial or not, there is enough research to show the pros and cons of testing, but is it ethical to continue this testing. No matter what, testing will continue unless something is done about it. The debates surrounding animal testing in the biological community surround the worry of morality, human safety interests and economic concerns, all which generally impact the future of the so many companies, but also the lives and population of different
We’ve been testing on animals since 1992 starting with isolating insulin from dogs. Even though it’s an extremely cruel thing, it 's helped in the past finding cures and treatments to life threatening illnesses. Animals are also benefitting from the testing, without having tested on animals we would not have found the treatments for rabies, distemper, …show more content…
With all the good that has come from animal testing, today we do not need to continue the testing because we have found cheaper and more humane ways to do medical and chemical testing. 94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials. [1] So many drugs are being tested on animals and the results come out positive and approved, but once moved to human clinical trials it have severe affects and sometimes lethal to humans. This may have been an efficient way for testing in the past but studies show that scientist have found a better way to do these kinds of testing, it is also for economically efficiency. The National Institution of Health (NIH) spends around $14 billion of its $31 billion annual budget, on animal testing. In vitro (in glass) testing is one-third the cost. To minimize the need to test on animals Harvard Wyss Institution has created a state-of-the-arts system called “organ-on-chip” which imitate the structure and functions of human organs. This chip can be used in disease research, drug testing, and toxicity testing which is more efficient then crude animal testing, because it has been shown to replicate human body functions. While using animals with such close DNA and genetic similarities seems to be an adequate result, but there are anatomic, metabolic and cellular differences that make it difficult for us to compare the …show more content…
[2] “Every major-medical advance is attributable to experiments on animals.” (Journal of the royal Society of Medicine) [3] This article says that this statement is untrue, there is no physical evidence that testing on animals makes products safer for humans. This brings up the point of why we still test on animals and take so many of their lives, the only answer to this is that these companies stay under the radar by doing the least possible they must do to stay in AWA’s regulations. This way they make enormous amounts of money with the easiest job. It is simply not worth all the lives, money, and time to experiment on animals.
Whether you believe Animal testing is beneficial or not, there is enough research to show the pros and cons of testing, but is it ethical to continue this testing. No matter what, testing will continue unless something is done about it. The debates surrounding animal testing in the biological community surround the worry of morality, human safety interests and economic concerns, all which generally impact the future of the so many companies, but also the lives and population of different