Animal testing has been around for centuries, it started out to be for curiosity reasons; people wanted to learn more about the internal construction of the body, and animals were convenient--more so than humans. The word animal testing and animal research are interchangeable, but both relate to the same meaning: the use of animals in scientific experiments. The range of animals that are being tested on vary from lab to lab, but rabbits, guinea pigs, dogs, and rodents are some of the most commonly used ones. While there has been valuable results from animal testing, like the finding of milk pasteurization by Louis Pasteur. While he was one of the scientists who made the first major use with animal testing and his conclusions were beneficial,
…show more content…
On average, the government spends $14.5 billion on animal testing ("Feds Spend up to $14.5"). Michael Bastasch, reporter for The Daily Caller states: “$14.5 billion could provide a lot of tax relief for Americans. It could help pay down national debt or help prevent a shutdown. Instead, it’s paying to study the effects of crystal meth on monkeys at UCLA. How can we justify government waste like this?” The majority of the money is being spent on purposeless experiments, telling people that drugs are still bad. The amount of time each test takes to complete, despite the amount of experimentations they do to each animal, takes up a substantial chunk of the government’s money. At Oregon Health and Science University $1.6 million dollars is being spent by turning mice and monkeys into alcoholics, while at the National Institute of Health, $1.7 million is being spent by inducing baby monkeys into a depression ("An Examination of Animal"). By spending more money on experiments that time after time, still receive the same senseless conclusions; the money could have gone to a more valuable system. What are we gaining by these experiments other than we can make animals sick but it will not be like a humans disease that needs to be …show more content…
Many scientists are now noticing how genetically further apart mice and men are than they once were presumed to be, or the realization of how inaccurate animal testing really is. According to the U.S Food and Drug Administration, 92 percent of the drugs administered in human trials fail to reach the market. Shouldn’t there be a higher success rate to warrant continued testing? As well as in 2013, a study done in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a drug tested to reduce inflammation, which passed in all of the mice experiments, failed in 150 human trials ("Animal Data Is Not Reliable"). Basing conclusions on animals while trying to transfer their disease into human ones seems to be flawed and faulty. Technology has rampantly advanced since 1880 and there are better alternatives than using live animals Alternatives that can be safe for animal use, as well as
On average, the government spends $14.5 billion on animal testing ("Feds Spend up to $14.5"). Michael Bastasch, reporter for The Daily Caller states: “$14.5 billion could provide a lot of tax relief for Americans. It could help pay down national debt or help prevent a shutdown. Instead, it’s paying to study the effects of crystal meth on monkeys at UCLA. How can we justify government waste like this?” The majority of the money is being spent on purposeless experiments, telling people that drugs are still bad. The amount of time each test takes to complete, despite the amount of experimentations they do to each animal, takes up a substantial chunk of the government’s money. At Oregon Health and Science University $1.6 million dollars is being spent by turning mice and monkeys into alcoholics, while at the National Institute of Health, $1.7 million is being spent by inducing baby monkeys into a depression ("An Examination of Animal"). By spending more money on experiments that time after time, still receive the same senseless conclusions; the money could have gone to a more valuable system. What are we gaining by these experiments other than we can make animals sick but it will not be like a humans disease that needs to be …show more content…
Many scientists are now noticing how genetically further apart mice and men are than they once were presumed to be, or the realization of how inaccurate animal testing really is. According to the U.S Food and Drug Administration, 92 percent of the drugs administered in human trials fail to reach the market. Shouldn’t there be a higher success rate to warrant continued testing? As well as in 2013, a study done in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a drug tested to reduce inflammation, which passed in all of the mice experiments, failed in 150 human trials ("Animal Data Is Not Reliable"). Basing conclusions on animals while trying to transfer their disease into human ones seems to be flawed and faulty. Technology has rampantly advanced since 1880 and there are better alternatives than using live animals Alternatives that can be safe for animal use, as well as