Using in-vitro methods, it diminishes the use of the mice and other rodents in the earlier stages of laboratory testing ("Science and Research"). Even more, in-vitro testing can replace testing on animals when it comes to extensive drug testing for large-scale pharmaceutical industry because of the “ease of culture for production, compared with the use of animals, and because of economic considerations” ("Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages"). This allows a certain test to be replicated numerous amounts of time, all while keeping the costs relatively low.
As well as replacing animals, while choosing in-vitro methods, it will decrease the amount of laboratory personnel. In every lab that requires animal testing, veterinarians, animal handlers, and those who have to feed and take care of the animals, they will not be as greatly needed if animal testing is replaced by in-vitro testing. With a less amount of people to pay to take care of the animals, the less the government has to pay out to the workers. Therefore, in-vitro testing can be a less expensive form of testing rather than using animal models. Based on human cell and tissue cultures, in-vitro methods can only focus on the cellular level. Consequently, not redeeming it safe to be used on humans without other forms of testing, but can be used in preliminary testing to ease the number of animals involved, which is the main goal. Since in-vitro tests on a cellular level, things like the body temperature of an animal, and their blood electrolytes are not reflected in the cells in which they are mixed (Daston and Hartung), in that case, making it