What Are The Pros And Cons Of Animal Testing

Early on, the elimination of animal testing was unfeasible because it was the only available source. However, technology advancements in the late 20th and early 21st centuries have introduced alternative methods that are often cheaper and more relevant to humans. William Russell and Rex Burch first introduced the 3R’s of animal research in 1959. These R’s stand for the reduction, refinement, and replacement of the use of animals in research and testing. Many alternative methods that have come forward follow these ethics. More than 40 alternatives have been validated and approved world-wide with many more under way. There are a variety of cell-based skin tests, called EPISKIN, EpiDerm, and SkinEthic that can be used to assess the safety of drugs, chemicals, and cosmetics on humans. Organs-on-chips contain human cells grown in a system that mimics the structure and function of human organs. Researchers have also developed computer models that predict and show the ways drugs react to the human body. According to the former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human tests agree 5-25 percent of the time, while cell culture toxicology, another alternative form of animal testing, agrees 80-85 percent of the time.
Even with these alternatives, many
However, technology has replaced the need for almost all types of animal experimentation. These alternative testing methods are producing more efficient results and are eliminating the horrors and inhumanity associated with traditional animal testing. Many people are rejecting alternative methods because they are new and unorthodox. However, alternative methods of testing do not mean putting humans at risk. They do not mean putting a halt on medical progress. Rather, non-animal testing will greatly improve the quality and humaneness of our toxicity testing and drug