Disadvantages Of Animal Testing

“I saw cats bleeding from the mouth and nose, shaking violently, and screaming in a manner that I have never heard a cat scream before” (“Investigator 's Notebook”).

This shocking observation, recorded by an undercover investigator at the Professional Laboratory and Research Services, is a terrifying reality for hundreds of millions of animals imprisoned in labs across the world. Animal testing dates back to BC times, being utilized by scientists such as Aristotle who conducted experiments on living animals. Today, animal testing is used for medical training and experimentation, as well as to test cosmetics, drugs, and chemicals. The means of obtaining these animals are categorized as either Class A or Class B. Class A animals are bred and

In comparison to animal testing, in vitro testing and other alternative methods are vastly cheaper and more cost-effective processes. For example, according to the New England Anti-Vivisection Society, “the DakDak test (used to measure the efficacy of sunscreens in preventing skin damage) can provide data for five or six products at less than half the cost of testing one product in animals” (“Limitations and Dangers”). What this means is that companies can test multiple products at once at a lower cost, which would, in turn, save them ample amounts of money each year and increase their profits. Additionally, the National Institute of Health, a government-funded medical research agency, spends a large sum of their budget on animal research. According to the National Anti-Vivisection Society, “approximately 47% of NIH-funded grants have an animal research-based component” (“The Animal Testing and Experimentation Industry”). This amounts to about $10 billion of their $22 billion budget that is going directly to cruel testing practices. This money, allocating almost half of the NIH budget, could be greatly reduced with the use of alternative methods and instead be used for bigger and more innovative

According to the American Physiological Society, animals are a reliable source for testing because “Animals are biologically similar to humans. They are susceptible to many of the same health problems . . .” (“Why do Scientists use Animals in Research?”). Many people believe that since certain animals share a majority of the same DNA as humans, the test results will be the same. While it is true that animals are closely related to humans, there are many other factors that cause them to not be the prime subjects for imitating human reactions. Aysha Akhtar, a double board-certified neurologist, states that there are three major factors that make animal testing unreliable. First, the environment and treatment of animals in labs can cause stress and other abnormal behaviors which can potentially affect test results. Second, the complexity of some human diseases is not able to be artificially reproduced in animals. Lastly, since animals and humans differ vastly in physiology and genetics, the test results may also differ greatly. In order to combat these drawbacks, there have been many advancements and innovations regarding reliable alternative methods for product testing and disease research. MatTek is one of the many companies working to reduce the use of animals in testing and they do so using 3D reconstructed human tissue models. A senior scientist and product manager at MatTek said about the