Animal Testing Flaws

Animal Testing Outlawed
Animal testing has always been a dispute between people; some people think it’s morally wrong and some people think it helps with medical and scientific breakthroughs. Drugs that people use or cosmetics that are used could have been tested through animals before being stocked on shelves. About 800 animals are tested on before a drug is passed to clinical trials (“Is animal”). Many animals get tested on, but many like mice, rabbits, hamsters, monkeys, dogs, cats, pigs, and some other animals get tested on. Animals can be used to find new advances in medical treatment and check safety for products, but these animals that get tested on can go through pain and death. Animal testing is wrong and should be stopped because
The UDSA reported that in 2010 that there was 97,123 animals that went through pain during experiments and weren’t given anaesthesia for pain relief (“Should animals”). A former Maryland secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene, Martin Wasserman has said “Animals used in chemical testing-always alive and fully concencious-are never given pain relief (“Is animal”). Though, it has been argued that animal testing is better than putting human lives in danger. However, even though products or drugs have been tested on animals it doesn’t work on people. Neurologist Aysha Akktar has said that would about more than 100 stroke drugs that passed animal trials have failed to work on humans (“Should animals”). Proceeding of the National Academy of sciences in the United States studied that around 150 human tests have failed even though it was tested on animals (“Should animals”). In addition to suffering and deaths animals go through the results of animal and human clinics can have different
Computer stimulations have been created to see the effects of a chemical on a human by a virtual model (“Is animals”). A chemosynthetic liver, which is a group of enzymes in the liver that tests weather a drugs are toxic or not (“Is animal”). There have been people that believe alternatives aren’t as reliable or take in account of factors that need to be tested on a living animal (“Alternatives in”). However, alternatives have been proven to work as well or better. A vitro test from Epiderm that uses human skin cells has been seen more effective in identifying chemical skin irritation substance rather than animal tests (“Alternatives in”). Epiderm has also collected tests of chemicals that irritate a peron’s skin correctly and tests on rabbits have been wrong ten out of twenty-five chemical tests which is a ninety-four percent error rate (“Alternatives in”). There can be many ways to help and stop animal