 

Each time you use a Band-Aid, spray Febreeze, or apply your brand new Maybelline Mascara you may not think about the concept that each of those brands still take part in first testing their products on animals. These innocent animals are locked in cages in labs, only to be poked and prodded by needles and undergo countless tests, suffering through the pain just to see another day. Every year hundreds of thousands of animals are subdued to undergoing countless tests and experiments. Many of these experiments lead to the animals well being diminished through the harmful tactics performed. Certain labs will take part in Vivisection, which translates to "cutting a living specimen," while others have even begun purposely breeding animals with malformations. However, many new testing methods are now readily available. These tests no longer include live animals in the process. So, the question posed by many conservationists is simply, "Should animal testing finally come to an end?" Many would argue that animal testing must be put to an end, purely due to the humane aspects of it. I, for one, feel that due to the vast new abilities to perform more accurate and less costly experiments that do not harm a single animal, there is a very obvious answer to the question.  In sum, animal experimentation should come to an end. Due to all the new alternative methods that prove to be more accurate, much cheaper, and remove innocent animals from unhealthy lab settings. The world needs to be made more aware of these new options so that, in turn, they are supported more and we can see a change in the upcoming future that weeds out the continuation of animal testing. 

While many members of the scientific community are known to argue that animal experimentation is the necessary evil to protecting the human population, the vast majority of others oppose this. This side of the spectrum strongly believes that the process of subduing animals to undergo testing is not only extremely immoral, but also unethical. Animals have been used in science dating back to around 450 B.C. (Animal Testing). A research animal is any animal that humans use solely for scientific research.  Although there are several laws protecting certain rights of animals such as The Animal Welfare Act of 1966, the condition that animals are forced to live in while participating in experiments in these labs is far from ideal. Many times rats or mice are forced to live in a shoebox-sized cage with five, ten, or even twenty others. Lab animals are usually short lived both due to rapid health deterioration from the procedures, or simply by being euthanized or disposed of by researchers after they no longer provide any use. President and CEO of the Human Society of the United States writes about how the New York Blood Center abandoned sixty-six chimps in Liberia after they no longer needed them. These animals had foregone experiments for three decades and were left completely helpless after everything they had gone through. The center terminated all funding for the chimps for its own financial benefit (Pacelle).  Nonetheless, activists of animal testing argue that due to the technology advances and additional research methods being readily available, the concept of animal experimentation should finally see its resting point and be replaced. 

Aside from the moral aspects of the topic, many studies provide inadequate information and results. This leads to the entire testing being a waste. A former animal experimenter produced an article describing how after finishing his work, he now feels that the invasive experiments preformed on animals should come to an end. "For years, I did invasive experiments on animals, until I finally learned that it is a waste of lives, money and time. I'm glad that the National Institutes of Health is starting to acknowledge this too" (Cheng). The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has begun to acknowledge these inapplicable experiments and looks forward to greater investment in non-animal technologies. They mention that the cases performed often do not provide clear ways to mimic drugs, or even predict how disease will affect humans. Therefore, the argument is introduced that instead of wasting money on testing animals, money should be invested into better research technologies (Cheng). 

Award winning journalist Michael Casey also writes about the same idea. He mentions how even though animals do not always match up to human's according to today's technology. Despite this, the testing has increased by almost 73 percent in the last fifteen years according to a new study conducted by PETA, or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Casey). He also mentions how federally funded labs have begun breeding animals such as mice, that are born carrying specific traits or genes. Animals that do not carry these genes are killed immediately after birth. Each tested animal must first be made sick. For example, destroying the cells of the pancreas with poisoners injections causes diabetes. Constricting the coronary arteries causes Heart Attacks. They are harmed for something that is no fault of their own. In addition, testing animals that have been bred to carry a specific malformation may not react identically to those that have the natural malformation. Projects to test medicines for strokes, cancer, and other conditions are also often poorly designed and produce meaningless results, resulting in wasted animals' lives (McKie). 

Researchers have also become desperate to control the amount of money put into animal testing as well. Not only does this lead to the conditions potentially worsening for the animals due to less funding, but also they have begun using fewer animals to test a new medicine. Although initially one may think that is good that less test subjects are being harmed, it results in a lack of singling out specific biological effects of the drugs (McKie). In order to make the research more accurate, the number of animals would need to be doubled. This in turn, would increase the cost as well. Mark Prescott mentions that there is a fine line between too many and too little when it comes to how many animals are needed, either way it is ethically questionable. 

It is obvious that animal testing has proven a key role in research in many aspects of testing products before they are used safely on humans. However, there are so many new alternatives. Alternative test methods are test methods that reduce, refine, or replace animal use in research and testing (NEAVS). Scientists have developed new alternatives that are more sophisticated and no longer face issues caused by species differentiations making the results more relevant to humans. Alternative methods include in vitro testing, computer modeling, simulators, stem cell methods, non-invasive imaging, micro dosing, and even human volunteers. In Vitro translates to test tube, basically describing processes where models of human cells and tissues are used while computerized and computer models are obviously done virtually. Non-invasive imaging consists of different CT Scans, MRI's, etc. Micro dosing consists of human participants that are given in such extremely low quantities of the drug that will not affect the entire body system. With human volunteers being taken into consideration, we see arguably the most reliable form of testing, putting animal experiments on the back burner. It allows humans to be safely studied down to a single neuron instead of cats or monkeys having their internal organs damaged. To some, it is almost questionable as to why nothing has changed yet. 

The list of benefits does not end with being more relevant to humans. The New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS) speaks of how these can lead to safer products without the use of animals all together. The ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000 generated a lot of information about the topic. NEAVS mentions ICCVAM's mission "to promote the development, validation, and regulatory acceptance of new, revised, and alternative regulatory safety testing methods" (National Toxicology Program). Using human tissue is more accurate, reliable, and is more cost-effective. How comparable are you really to a mouse? After all, a test performed on a human counterpart is much more likely to stay consistent to humans than a test performed on animals then transferred to humans. On top of that, no animals are harmed.

In addition to scientific tests being more reliable and accurate, they are much more cost effective and practical. In-Vitro testing can be performed in a range of as little as three minutes to four hours. Most animal testing ranges from two to four weeks to be fully completed. A traditional animal test including using chemicals on animals can take up to 5 years per chemical, and cost millions of dollars while the non-animal counterparts tested hundreds of chemicals in a week for an extremely lower cost. A study performed testing a sunscreen was completed in days where as the same study would have taken months if performed on animals. Not only did it save time, but it also cut the cost of the study in half (NEAVS). In an article on the British Medical Journal, five authors asked, "Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?" The answer turns out that there is really no dead set in stone evidence. There are so many differences between species. Arsenic is an extremely poisonous chemical to humans; however, it is completely harmless to many species of animals. Aspirin on the other hand is beneficial to humans, where as it is extremely lethal to felines, one major species that animal testing uses. Other drugs vary from stimulants to sedatives when used to humans versus animals such as morphine. 

Charles River Laboratories has as subsidiary, Endosafe, that has been producing an alterative to testing solutions in rabbit's eyes. The company says that it has replaced most rabbit testing in most drug company factories along with their product being found on the market at dialysis centers. These tests are as cheap as a mere five dollars (Feder). Albert P. Li is the Chairman of Admet, which is a corporation that owns In Vitro Laboratories. He mentions "Admet charges up to $20,000 to screen a drug against liver cells and other human tissues for toxic effects. To get the same information from animals, a drug company would have to use much more of the drug, wait a lot longer and pay for the upkeep and eventual autopsies of the animals it used" (Feder). 

Through the continuation of animal testing we are wasting millions of dollars in funds, and time that cannot be replaced.  We cannot afford to have repeats of these past animal experimentation mishaps. Through all of this it is clear why we should be turning to these alternatives for more promising and effective outcomes. 

Of course, there is an opposing side of the spectrum. This group believes that animal testing should be carried on due to their belief that it is indeed, the best option. The vast majority of the population sees animal testing as cruel, but necessary for Medical Progress. Many scientists claim that animal rights groups and activists all make the same deceptive claim when it comes to animal testing and all the negatives. There are records of many great triumphs when it comes to experimentation on animals. Such as a possible HIV treatment that led dogs to experience liver damage, but subsequently saved humans from experiencing the same terrible fate. There are many reasons why experiments have been conducted on animals; one being that through the act of vivisection scientists are able to grasp a foundation of knowledge in anatomy and physiology. These experiments are not just limited to testing the safety of drugs, but also to learn and perfect different procedures before performing them on humans. 

There is no doubt that animal testing has provided immense amounts of knowledge, cures, and all sorts of spectacular discoveries. However, take into account that out of all the new drugs that pass animal testing, 92% of them later fail human trials. The bottom line is that there are now new ways to do the same thing. If scientists have developed more accurate ways, why run the risk of these trials not quite adding up. On top of that, these new ways to do the same thing are readily available in cheaper, more effective, reliable, and moral ways. When taking attempting certain procedures we have the availability to preform some of these procedures on humans that have donated their bodies to scientists for reasons like these. Like mentioned previously, the concept of a mouse's anatomy being compared to a human's is not going to produce very accurate results. Many scientists pose the question, "what would be the result if research on animals was prohibited?" However, we now know there are in fact dozens of new options to conducting research. Clearly relying on solely using animal testing is failing to protect people and it should be replaced with twenty-first century science and technology. 

There are much fewer images of the act of animal testing in today's society, however, this does not entail that it has ended, or even slowed down. We now know that is has indeed increased in the past years. In fact, it may be noticeable that laboratories have even cut back on the excuses they use to the practices they perform. These numbers continue to rise, but when you take a closer look you notice that the outcomes of these experiments do not even add up. The concept that humans differ from animals needs to be made clearer. Author Peter Singer states that, "Animals are humans too, and we must respect other species." These animals are no less important to us, and there is no justifiable reason as to why we can perform the acts we do on them. As science continues to grow and transform more and more people will begin to realize what options are becoming available. Animal testing takes money away from more effective research. It is cruel and in many cases not even necessary. Although currently, no new drug can be used in patients before being tested another way prior to, alternative methods are available to help reduce the numbers of animals being put through such forms of torture. Through reducing the amount of animals needed gradually we can help eliminate the need for it. It's quite clear this is not something that can be changed overnight but it is something that can be worked at. New Jersey, New York, and California have passed legislation for non-animal alternatives be funded and used instead of animal tests whenever available. In addiction, NEAVS founded a Petition, Mandatory Alternatives, that requires the FDA to use non-animal methods or alternatives whenever they exist. Science has allowed for things to change in a way that has such vast benefits, protecting both animals and humans lives with additional benefits such as being more cost effective and efficient. 

There are also smaller things that can be done in effort to transfer testing over to these alternatives. By stopping supporting certain charities that use donations to fund animal testing, funds available for the continuation of the testing can be cut back. There is also a European Initiative Stop Vivisection that can be signed. Cruelty-free products can be bought instead of those that currently participate in animal testing such as Dove, Vicks, and Aveeno. Helping to spread the word, and speaking up are small things you can do to make a big impact on many peoples views and opinions on the topic. Consequently, animal experimentation needs to come to an end due to the extensive amounts of cheaper, accurate, and more ethical, and non-cruel alternatives available. If the world becomes more informed of these options, and reasons as to why they should be supported it can end the continuation of harmful animal testing once and for all.  

