Animal testing for products is not only inhumane but also unreliable with safe alternative methods available. Animals used in testing go thru intense trauma during their time there. Animal research and testing is expensive, time-consuming, and unreliable because animals are undeniably different than human beings. It has been proven over and over that things that may work in animals fail in humans. There are many other alternatives that will not only do a better job but also save millions of dollars and millions of animals. As humanity progresses in technology, they should be resourceful in finding ways to test that are cheaper, more reliable, and less cruel to other living things.
A four-month secret investigation of a Canadian lab in 2016 revealed animals left untreated and abused physically by lab techs. Nothing was reported about this stress and treatment. (Care 2) The animals are under extreme stress and tress negatively influences the reliability of animal research data. Stress influences heart rate, pulse, blood pressure, muscular activity, and hormone levels and can modify the normal values of these variables significantly. Studies have shown that animals experience sympathy pains and react to seeing and hearing other animals in distress. (Feder) So, ultimately the mistreatment and lack of care taints their tests.
Not only is the use of animals cruel, it is also inaccurate. A human body does not resemble the body of a rat or rabbit. Many tests have been done to show the unreliability of the results from animals. Often the mouse will show one result and then the rabbit will show a different result and ultimately the human being shows yet another result. Should we really trust a product that may be safe on a rat with our children? Industry executives say that as much as 25% of the drugs tested on animals failed to show side effects that later proved serious enough to prevent the drugs from being marketed. (Feder)
127 our experts are availableright now
One example is with the late Dr. Bjӧrn Ekwall (Cytotoxicology Laboratory in Sweden) who developed a replacement for the LD50 test that measured toxicity at a precision rate of up to 85% accuracy compared to the original LD50 rate on animals of 61-65%. This test uses donated human tissue instead of animals. Also, the test can target toxic effects on specific human organs, whether the toxic substance permeates the blood barrier, and other highly sophisticated and precise information that the agonizing death of an animal of a different species would not reveal. (Neavs) Another example is with cancer research. Despite millions of animals used and billions of taxpayer dollars spent on cancer research, roughly 95% of cancer drugs that enter human clinical testing fail. (Neavs)
Often it seems a cure has been found for a mouse but then fails in a human. Even chimpanzees, very close to the genetics of a human, do not give accurate results. Of the more than eighty HIV vaccines that have proven safe and effective in chimpanzees have all failed to protect or prove safe in humans in nearly 200 human clinical trials. (Neavs) Yet another example is when London clinicians injected six volunteers with tiny doses of TGN1412, an experimental therapy for rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis that had previously been given, with no side effects, to mice, rats, rabbits, or monkeys. Within minutes, the human test subjects reacted badly to the injection.
The compound was designed to dampen the immune response, but it had supercharged theirs instead, setting off chemicals that sent all six to the hospital. (Allen) A few other examples: penicillin is toxic to guinea pigs, aspirin is poisonous to cats, and the recalled diet drug phen-fen caused no heart damage in animals, while it did in humans. Species differences in anatomy, organ structure and function, toxin metabolism, chemical and drug absorption, and mechanisms of DNA repair, among other differences between humans and other species, can give us inadequate information when we attempt to apply animal data to human diseases and drug responses.
Animals used in testing can be replaced by other scientifically proven alternatives. It would make more sense to spend money on testing that has reliable results. There are many alternatives that can be used that do save the company money while providing accurate results that do not torture animals in the process. Nearly fifty different alternative methods and testing strategies have been developed, validated and accepted by international regulatory authorities. (Human Society) Snippets of human skin, eyes, and the lining of the throat and other tissues are routinely grown in test tubes from donated human cells.
These can be used instead of animals to study biological and disease processes, as well as drug metabolism. Devices have already been produced that accurately mimic the lung, heart, kidney and gut. Human tissue can be donated from surgery like biopsies, cosmetic surgery and transplants. Human tissue can also be used after a person has died and donated to science. Post-mortem brain tissue has provided important leads to understanding brain regeneration and the effects of Multiple Sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease. (Cruelty Free) Invitro International’s Corrositex, synthetic skin, can provide a chemical corrosivity determination in as little as three minutes to four hours, unlike animal testing that can take as long as two to four weeks.
DakDak, an alternative test used to measure the effectiveness of sunscreens, was reported to do in days what it took animal studies months to do, and estimates that it can test five or six products for less than half the cost to study a single product in animals. The traditional testing of chemicals using animals can take up to five years per substance and cost millions of dollars, while non-animal alternatives can test hundreds of chemicals in a week for a fraction of the cost. (Neavs) There are also stem cell and genetic testing methods. Scientists have even managed to get cells to grow into 3D structures, such as miniature human organs, which can provide a more realistic way to test new tings. Testing is also being done virtually, using computers and simulation software. People can volunteer for testing that is in its final phases with no worries of fatality or severe side effects.
These volunteers get very low quantities of the drugs. These tests will not affect the whole-body system. By using blood from human volunteers to test for the presence of fever-causing contaminants in intravenous medicines can save hundreds of thousands of rabbits each year from traditional “pyrogen” tests. (Humane Society) Procter & Gamble has spent $225 million developing and deploying alternative testing methods for a wide range of personal-care and pet food products over the last twenty years. (Feder) L’Oréal says it has spent more than $800 million over the same period. Wageningen explains that they have already successfully replaced 80% of all animal testing and hope to be completely free of using animals in the very near future. (Wageningen)
In 1959 William Russell and Rex Burch introduced the principle of the 3Rs: replace, reduce, and refine in “The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique” (Waters& Allen). This article provided a guideline for performing animal research. Replacement refers to replacing animals with other technologies. It can include the use of human volunteers, tissues and cells, mathematical and computer models, and established cell lines.
Reduction refers to methods that minimize the number of animals used per experiment or study. It also includes methods which allow the information gathered per animal in an experiment to be shared in order to reduce the use of additional animals. Refinement refers to methods that minimize the pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm that may be experienced by research animals. Evidence suggests that pain and suffering can alter an animal’s behavior, physiology, and immunology. Such changes can lead to variation in experimental results that impairs both the reliability and repeatability of studies. The 3Rs, over time, have become established as crucial considerations and influenced new legislation aimed at controlling the use of animals in these experiments.
Relying on animal research and testing to protect and improve human health is not only unsafe and inhumane to the animals, but also expensive, time-consuming, and unreliable. It has been proven again and again that things that work in animals fail in humans. We are not the same and the results are not genuine with so many differences within each species. There are many other available alternatives that will do a better job, save money, and save millions of animals from suffering.
