Should Animal Testing A Necessary Evil?

Forget cruelty or animal rights, using animals to test our pharmaceuticals is outdated, ineffective, and a waste of money. New more efficient and cheaper alternatives have been found that could end animal testing for good, if only government would take the initiative. It’s frustrating to realize that we could have had better and more effective medication at a lower coast. Some medications that passed animal experimentation have been shown to be much more harmful to humans than the diseases they were created to treat.
We have not directly benefited from using animals to test our pharmaceuticals for years. Emily Smith, a researcher who works with animals and the author of “EU Industry: Animal Testing a Necessary Evil?” does admit that no recent
This was proven by the Thalidomide disaster, which was a drug that caused damage to fetuses’ limbs, but caused no harm to the animals it was tested on. Since then animal testing has not prevented any more disasters such as this one. For example, Kathy Archibald, who wrote “Test People, Not Animals” mentions Vioxx, a drug that was tested on animals and showed no signs of dangerous side effects but then went on to kill thousands and caused other medical issues such as heart attacks in many more. It has been found that 90% of pharmaceuticals approved for human use were found to be ineffective or have harmful side
It has been supported that human based drugs could have prevented the deaths caused by the Vioxx and Thalidomide disaster. Microdose studies, which is the process of giving humans the minimum amount of a drug to still induce a harmless effect, have been found to be more accurate in measuring the metabolism of drugs in the human body. Other alternatives include computer imaging technologies and some labs who are using human tissue instead. Human tissue testing is the most effective test of human pharmaceuticals because it causes no harm to humans and accurately shows how humans will react to the