Sunday, March 13, 2016

Alternatives to animal testing?



For many years now, we have been using animals for testing hair products, human health, pharmaceuticals, etc. Many of these animals has died and suffered mutations or slow painful deaths or even physiological distress. Usually at the end of the experiments, the animals are killed but some may be used in other experiments. The more commonly used animals in experiments are mice, dogs, cats, hamsters, and in some countries monkeys are used as well. Roughly estimated around 115 million animals worldwide are being used in laboratory experiments every year. Sometimes when a scientist tries to cure a disease, they would try to created artificial symptoms of the disease in the animals and then treat it with different unknown substances. As this was stated in the article, in some cases the drugs may work on animals but when it is given to a human, the drugs fails and causes other issues. The National Research Council believes that they may have found a alternative to animal testing by using human cells or cells lines to conduct the tests. They believe that this alternative can be more reliable to humans because scientist can use computers to help make predictions more relevant to people than animal testing.

http://www.hsi.org/campaigns/end_animal_testing/qa/about.html

How do you feel about animal testing? How reliable do you feel that animal testing is? After reading the article, how do you feel knowing that some drugs can be successful in a animal but fail when given to a human? Do you guys think that we should look into more alternatives than animal testing?

12 comments:

  1. The article does have quite the noticeable bias towards an anti-animal testing stance.

    In terms of animal testing, I do believe that using human cells would be more accurate, as some drugs that work on animals might not work on humans. The article gives the statistic that animal studies fail to predict real human outcomes in 50 to 99.7 percent of cases. While it might have been good enough before, it is not good enough in the modern era where more accurate methods are available.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I found it quite interesting that the article said that "many disease areas have seen little or no progress despite decades of animal research." This means that animal testing is not only abusive, but relatively useless. In my opinion, we should invest in finding alternatives to this mode of testing that so that we can conduct scientific research more effectively (and also because of the prevalent moral imperative).

    ReplyDelete
  3. After reading though the article, I would agree that the statement that animal testing is not practical for modern drug development, and am willing to overlook the fact that the writer of the article did not seem very trustworthy or reputable. The abundance of computer technology and modern medical instruments are capable of being a much better simulation tool than animals, and they offer many improvements over animal testing. However, one major problem with this technology is that it is relatively new and untested. Errors can happen, as with animals, but more quality assurance needs to be done to ensure that computers can operate with at least the same quality as animals, or we would be exposing human patients to even more risks than is necessary, especially with cancer or lukemia drugs.

    ReplyDelete
  4. After reading this article I noticed how they keep doing all of this testing on the animals and nothing is happening but yet, it hurting the animals and they are be abusive for things that are not even working. This needs to stop because animal cruelty is a huge thing happing in the world today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I found your comment very insightful, and I concur. Animal testing is is unnecessary and should not continue to be permitted in our society.

      Delete
  5. I think animal testing is very sad and is something that needs to be stopped. After reading this article helped me realize that animal testing is not reliable not only because I don't like the idea of animal testing but also because there's no point to it because of unreliable it is. In the article it has also stated that the drugs may work on the animals but not on humans that also just proves how that it's not realiable. In that case this makes me feel disappointed and sad because they're risking and killing innocent animals for no reason. I think that we should look into more alternatives because in that case it could definitely help us change everyone's perspective on this and make a big movement for animal testing to stop. Animal cruelty is already a problem and we need to come together and make a change with this problem.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I feel that testing these products on animals is inhumane and needs to be stopped immediately. According to the article animal testing,"provides little understanding of how chemicals behave in the body, and in many cases do not correctly predict real-world human reactions". I feel that if it doesn't even provide a real world experience of how the product might affect humans why would we still continue this process. If the products aren't successful in humans but they are in animals I feel that we are just killing these innocent creatures for no reason. I think we should definitely try the human cell testing rather then the animal testing because it is a safer alternative, we would actually be able to see how the product affects humans, and countless animal lives would be saved.

    ReplyDelete
  7. After reading this article and agreeing with it mostly there is that bias that the author had in the back of my mind as I read. So although animal testing is genuinely horrible and is animal cruelty I do somewhat see the need for it as if it were not to be done than thousands maybe even millions of people can suffer from non functioning cure or antibiotics that haven't been tested. However, I am not saying we should just continuing with the way we have been doing it but we should put more strict regulations on it and and just kill innocent animals. As for the human cells I'm not too sure how that may turn as we do need further information to clarify if it will work on testing.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I personally find it a bit disturbing that we have no knowledge of the actual number of animals that are killed for testing, but the fact that it is above 115 million annually should make us rethink our animal use. In my opinion, animal testing should at least be more heavily regulated. Mainly due to the fact that testing on animals sometimes doesn't bring out the same effects that it does when it is used on humans.

    ReplyDelete
  9. For scientific purposes, animal testing doesn't seem to be that accurate. Their DNA, especially the smaller rodents, is much different than ours. And for ethical reasons, who are we to say that one form of life is more important than the other. Especially when we are harming them with nothing to show for it, like the animals killed in the surplus. Using animals to test products not necessary to life, like cosmetics, seems especially cruel. There really is no justifying it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Animal testing is a more of a myth than scientific evidence. Animals and humans are completely different and testing on animals can yield inconsistent results. I agree with this article to stop using animal testing and start to use human-based research. It makes more sense to start testing and research on humans than trying on animals with inaccurate results then moving into human trials. If the system is still at an animal then human trial, we will be wasting more money because they will go back on testing on more animals. It is inhumane and unnecessary to test on animals.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Animal testing is a more of a myth than scientific evidence. Animals and humans are completely different and testing on animals can yield inconsistent results. I agree with this article to stop using animal testing and start to use human-based research. It makes more sense to start testing and research on humans than trying on animals with inaccurate results then moving into human trials. If the system is still at an animal then human trial, we will be wasting more money because they will go back on testing on more animals. It is inhumane and unnecessary to test on animals.

    ReplyDelete