Animal testing has been a debate for 30 years as the practice raises ethical and moral questions. The debate questions the effectiveness and importance of animal testing. Some support the procedure where others are against. The procedure is supported by some due to the fact that it is more ethically correct to perform testing on animals rather than testing it on human subjects. Others are against this procedure because they believe that animals have rights and they should be protected It is the procedure where animals are used for testing of drugs, cosmetics, food, and chemical testing. It is done before human trials take place so that researchers and scientists can modify the product before asking human subjects to test it. Each year more
…show more content…
95% of drugs do not pass through the human trials even though it passes in the animal trials ("Arguments against animal testing”). Currently, about 9 out of 10 experimental drugs fail in studies because the reaction on humans based on animal tests cannot be accurately predicted ("Experiments on Animals: Overview”)("How the tests are unreliable - Animal Testing for Cosmetics”). This could be due to the unseen side effects when the products was examined on humans. For instance, in 1999, a drug called Vioxx was approved by the FDA for arthritis. It was shown to be safe in animal tests but it caused more than 60,000 deaths in USA. The FDA has also reported that the serious side effects from the drugs has doubled between the years 1998-2005 which clearly suggests that animal testing is not reliable. There are many differences in the anatomy and structure of the skin and body between different species. As a result of these differences, using data from animal testing to establish irritation on the skin is not applicable ("In testing”) (Greek, …show more content…
Most of the government’s money goes into animal testing which would be more useful for other purposes such as the well-being of the country. USA’s government spends approximately 16 billion dollars using tax payer’s money for tests being done on animals. They are also supported by the National Institutes of Health as they allocate 40% of their budget for animal testing. With using other alternatives, such as in vitro testing, computer models and simulations, stem cells, genetic testing methods and many more, large amounts of money would not be spent. They would spend about 600 million dollars and these alternatives are much cheaper and reliable. This would ensure that suffering is minimised and a lower likelihood that animals would be used for testing (Croswell,
95% of drugs do not pass through the human trials even though it passes in the animal trials ("Arguments against animal testing”). Currently, about 9 out of 10 experimental drugs fail in studies because the reaction on humans based on animal tests cannot be accurately predicted ("Experiments on Animals: Overview”)("How the tests are unreliable - Animal Testing for Cosmetics”). This could be due to the unseen side effects when the products was examined on humans. For instance, in 1999, a drug called Vioxx was approved by the FDA for arthritis. It was shown to be safe in animal tests but it caused more than 60,000 deaths in USA. The FDA has also reported that the serious side effects from the drugs has doubled between the years 1998-2005 which clearly suggests that animal testing is not reliable. There are many differences in the anatomy and structure of the skin and body between different species. As a result of these differences, using data from animal testing to establish irritation on the skin is not applicable ("In testing”) (Greek, …show more content…
Most of the government’s money goes into animal testing which would be more useful for other purposes such as the well-being of the country. USA’s government spends approximately 16 billion dollars using tax payer’s money for tests being done on animals. They are also supported by the National Institutes of Health as they allocate 40% of their budget for animal testing. With using other alternatives, such as in vitro testing, computer models and simulations, stem cells, genetic testing methods and many more, large amounts of money would not be spent. They would spend about 600 million dollars and these alternatives are much cheaper and reliable. This would ensure that suffering is minimised and a lower likelihood that animals would be used for testing (Croswell,