American Animal Testing

Animal Testing Should Cease To Exist
There are currently laws in place to protect animals, such as dogs and cats, from being abused or mistreated. The punishment for breaking this law can be anywhere from a small fine to two years in jail. An exception to these laws are animals used in research facilities. What makes a rabbit in a cage at home any different than a rabbit in a cage at a laboratory? There is no physical difference, only the law that decides the treatment they receive and the punishment of those who deliver the treatment. It should be illegal to harm any animal regardless of the situation. Testing usually involves using animals to test chemical, drug, food, and cosmetic products. Animals can also be used to practice surgical procedures
The Economist article, “Be Nice to Mice… Animal Testing,” notes that only one in every ten drugs tested on animals actually works on humans. This is because they are fed a lot to keep their bodies warm since they are kept in cool conditions. The cool conditions are said to keeps their temper at bay. But eating as much as they do alters the way they metabolize the drug. There are many different factors that are involved that make animal testing results difficult to translate into a hypothesis for what human results would be. James-Enger, author of Vegetarian Times article “Beyond Animal Testing,” states that using animals to predict how humans will react to the same drug or medical treatment is not a good experiment due to the difference in anatomy between humans and animals. Even testing animals with similar DNA, like chimpanzees, is not a good test because they do not react the same way as humans. For example, chimps, being our closest relatives, still did not contract AIDS when introduced to the HIV virus (Kelly). Another faulty test occurred when testing a drug called fenphen. Animals showed no serious side effects, but when tested on humans it caused heart-valve defects and was taken off the market (Kelly). There are quite a few recalls due to the inaccuracy of animal experimentation. It has also been prevalent that many tests have been over tested for no
Alternatives to animal testing are more effective, reliable, and humane. Haugen states that some alternatives to animal testing involve using cell cultures, tissue cultures, corneas from eye banks, or computer or mathematical models. Most cruelty free companies use multiple alternatives along with human clinical studies. The use of animal testing has decreased in recent years but millions are still being tortured. Since these alternatives are more accurate and people and animals are not harmed during testing, this makes is a smarter and more humane option. Kelly states that one of many alternatives to animal testing being explored is "rational drug design.” Rational drug design is when the chemical compositions of the drugs being tested are analyzed to predict how humans will react. This is a very effective method that does not involve animal cruelty. It is, again, more accurate and cruelty free. Pycroft and Martson illustrate that the variations between animals and humans is significant and this is what is taken into consideration when developing alternatives to animal testing. Another alternative involves transgenic animals. These are animals that have been genetically modified in order to more closely match the physiology of humans. Along with these transgenic animals is their short lifespan, which allows scientists to perform