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
companies are still choosing to use animal testing. In companies that manufacture cosmetics, medicine, or other chemicals, the companies want to make “new and improved” or different versions of their product. This often requires them to make and use new ingredients instead of using existing ingredients that already have records. The problem with this is that these new ingredients do not have the existing safety data that is required to sell the product. So, companies must perform experiments on animals to test the effectiveness and safety of their new product. Many of the new ingredients manufactured can be used in alternative tests, but not all of them. Companies can still choose to forgo animal testing by sticking to the thousands of ingredients that are already available. This is how companies manufacture “cruelty-free products.” Still, some companies say they are sticking to animal testing because it is required by law that all products are tested on animals to be sold in China. By doing this, however, companies are choosing to sell their products to China. In other countries, bans have been placed because companies would not sell them products if they had to be animal tested. The European Union banned the sale of cosmetics that were subject to testing after March 2013 in 28 countries. India placed a test ban on animal products in 2013. Israel and New Zealand also have effective bans in place. Australia, Brazil, Taiwan and the United States currently have bans that are pending. In these countries, products must include safety data to be sold to the public. However, there is no law saying that the safety data has to be obtained through animal testing. Therefore, these countries have the option of either using animal testing or alternative testing to acquire their results. Animal testing has been used since the medieval ages and has resulted in cures for all types of diseases in humans.
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
development.