Over the past couple decades, animal testing has been deemed illegal in many countries, demanding humans to explore the vast alternatives available. Many organizations do not have a fine line justifying what animal testing means to them. When the terminology “animal testing” is used in this paper, it refers specifically to any test performed on an animal that causes pain or suffering. This pain and suffering brings in the ethical aspect of the argument as well. The animals in focus include many domestic ones such as cats, dogs, guinea pigs, rabbits, mice, etc. Not only are domestic animals included, but also primates similar to humans such as chimpanzees or gorillas. These animals are used to tests the safety for new medicines, medical procedures, and cures for cancers and other illnesses (Davies, Adler). Using animals for testing is outdated, and it is time for the medical community to catch up and apply the alternative methods. Alternative methods to animal testing in the medical community such as in vitro testing, Zebrafish embryos, microdosing, and computer models and simulations are more effective, ethical, and safe.

While finding treatments for medical diseases is vital, the alternatives to animal testing prove to be better since animals are so genetically and physiologically different. Because of these differences, scientists cannot get completely accurate information out of the conducted tests (Davies). Therefore, one must call into question if animal testing is really beneficial. The vice president of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals even states, “fifty percent of drugs that test safe in animals are toxic to humans” (Abiezer). This brings in the concept of “false positives” and “false negatives.” False negatives happen when a drug test’s not safe in animal testing but it would not harm and could possibly benefit a human (Davies). The book “Replacing Animal Models” provides an example of how an antibiotic in the penicillin family, ampicillin, is not safe in tests with guinea pigs but is with humans and mice (Davies). This is just one example of how “75 percent [of tests] will be false indications of danger” (Davies). False positives raise a bigger concern with safety. They indicate a drug or treatment test that is safe for an animal but harmful to humans (Davies). Compared to the statistic given by the vice president of PETA, this book says that “90 percent of the drugs that are promising in animals go on to fail in human trials” (Davies). This false positive is not only a safety issue, but also wastes time, money, and resources in the medical testing community. Luckily, researchers have discovered the alternatives to make these tests more effective and safer for humans in the future. 

Scientists are currently testing medical treatments using alternative methods. In Vitro testing as an alternative to animal testing seems to be the most popular and effective. In this alternative, tests are performed on cells or tissue samples taken from animals and humans. Tests done when observing animals are more inaccurate because the immobilization of the animals induces stress, which results in various reactions (Davies). Scientists believe these cultured organs or tissues can solve the problem to make up for the stress and false reactions that happen in animals during testing. These tissue samples can be used any time and can be “filmed continuously with cellular or sub-cellular resolution” (Davies). This means the samples and cells can be observed at a microscopic level. This type of testing also can help us pinpoint how a certain drug affects a particular organ or tissue in the body; it makes the understanding of drug reactions much more exact and accurate (Davies). After a toxicity ban, the European Union worked to find alternatives to animal testing. To support using less animals for testing, they follow a “Three Rs Principle:” replacement, reduction, and refinement of animal use (Adler). Adler, in the “Archives of Toxicology,” shows the alternatives to many different medical tests. These include toxicokinetics, repeated dose toxicity, and reproductive toxicity (Adler). Toxicokinetics refers to how a toxic substance behaves in the body (Adler). It is important to understand toxicokinetics in the human body to know the doses at a cellular or tissue level (Adler).  According to a study from the “Archives of Toxicology,” scientists can determine toxicokinetics using “in vitro or in silico approaches that allow quantification of specific dose-response curves” (Adler). Another medical test in vitro can be an alternative for is repeated dose toxicity. This measures the effect a substance has over a period of time when it is administered daily. The in vitro approach can help researchers determine effects in specific organs alone (Adler). However, in vitro is not the only alternative for this type of testing; it is possible that computer-based modeling techniques can provide accurate predictions (Adler). In vitro can help in aspects of other tests as well, such as reproductive toxicity. This alternative can mimic effects on the embryo and endocrine areas in the reproductive system, illustrating the damage of a toxic substance on embryos and the hormonal system (Adler). This alternative plays an important role in cancer tests as well. Animal tests have been determined to overestimate by 30 percent how well a treatment might work (Mak). In clinical trials for cancer, scientists believe that animal models should be replaced with in vitro human cell-based assays, which is the measure of the activity of the treatment on the tissue (Mak). The main aspect in this testing is focusing on the effects of new drugs on individual cells and parts of the body; it does not provide a whole body result of a new drug or treatment, and this can benefit scientists greatly (Gilbert). While bans in Europe demanded researchers to experiment with different alternatives, America should begin to put more time into finding alternatives as well. 

Another helpful alternative to using animals is testing zebrafish embryos. I include Zebrafish embryos as an alternative because they do not experience any pain or suffering in the stage they are in (Strahle). I am arguing for alternatives to animal testing primarily because of the pain the animals go through, so Zebrafish embryos do not fall in that category. The Zebrafish embryo is accepted as an alternative nationwide because it does not fall under animal protection. The embryo would only fall under protection when it could feed on its own, and this puts the final controversy of the ethics to rest (Strahle). They are especially admired for their genetic, molecular, and cellular manipulation (Strahle). These embryos can allow scientists to observe gene function in an intact organism. Even more significantly, over “5000 zebrafish mutant and transgenic strains have been established.” These strains are a major key in gaining knowledge in gene function at a global scale (Strahle). These zebrafish embryos can help in research with kidney disease, heart arrhythmias, anemia, glaucoma, cancer – especially melanoma and leukemia – and many others (Strahle). Because these embryos have such elaborate gene function, these genetically associated diseases can be observed with various treatments in the zebrafish embryos, and science can be one step closer to understanding these specific inherited illnesses. (Strahle). Strahle states that these embryos are significantly better than the animal models that include mice and rats because they allow researchers to carry out “large-scale screens for such phenotypes” (Strahle). This means researchers are able to have a close up of a number of cells carrying specific genetic diseases and how the treatments are affecting them. This is not the only reason Zebrafish embryos are a better alternative to animals. Mammals’ regenerative capabilities are not even close to those of a Zebrafish (Strahle). Like the in vitro alternative, Zebrafish embryos are a great alternative for toxicology of water pollutants (Strahle). Zebrafish embryos should be the worldwide alternative over animals for this form of testing because they are cheaper, faster, and more ethical. With the in vitro alternative, researchers cannot view the subject on a whole body scale; however, the embryos provide them with this ‘whole organism’ approach (Strahle). In Germany, the Zebrafish embryo toxicity assay is mandatory and shows toxicity effects on fish (Strahle). However, the significance of these embryos show in a study where Zebrafish embryos were used to determine the cardiotoxicity of substances on a human heart. The embryos predicted the toxicity with more than 80 percent success (Strahle). This study is more than enough to verify that Zebrafish embryos can replace animals in many medical tests. America should take advantage of the availability of the embryos in place of animal testing. 

There are many other technological alternatives that can be used in place of animals. These include microfluidic chip testing, microdosing, imaging studies, and computer models. Microfluidic chip testing is said to provide even more information than in vitro tests. This testing mimics biological pathways and processes from tissue samples from different areas in the body that are linked by microchannels (Gilbert). Additionally, it helps in studying diseases and drug metabolism. However, there are limitations in modeling to the safety of the drug, and researchers cannot view the substance on a whole body scale (Gilbert). The vice president of PETA mentions another example of this when she says there are “computer chips that mimic the drug going through the system” (Abeizer). Microdosing is a controversial alternative. Human volunteers are administered enough of a drug to affect them on a cellular level without compromising their entire body (Gilbert). An issue with this method is researchers cannot determine the accurate safety of the drug unless the full amount is administered. Imaging studies such as MRIs, PETs, and SPECT images may seem like an obvious alternative. These machines help study the structures of and drug effects on different parts of the body (Gilbert). However, scientists still rely on animals for more information on the effects of drugs on the whole body. Computer models and simulations seem to be effective alternatives. These models include virtual human organs, metabolism processes, and bodily reactions. The models help illustrate the effects of car accidents, heart disease, and new drugs (Gilbert). Also, the vice president of PETA gives another example of this virtual modeling when she states, “breast cancer research now involves very sophisticated 3D tissue construct models” (Abeizer). From all of these different alternatives, it is clear that there are many options scientists can pursue for medical testing. The combination of these alternatives positively outweigh the option of using animals for testing.

Despite the alternatives, science has not always had them as a resource. Animal testing is not all ineffective. Animals have helped the medical community for hundreds of years. They have been vital in finding treatments, testing the safety of drugs, and improving the overall health of humans and other animals. In some cases, animals can even simulate humans better than the alternative methods (Murnagham). On the popular talk show “The Doctors,” a certain doctor explains that while going through medical school he had to perform a medical procedure on a dog that had been anaesthetized before he was able to complete his doctorate (Abiezer). Could this be a justified example of using animals? Not only have animals helped in medical procedures, but also in the use of dogs for the discovery of insulin in 1921 for the treatment of diabetes, cats for inventing the heart-lung machine in 1953, mice for developing penicillin in 1928, and rats for drugs associated with psychiatric disorders (Davies). These all sound great; however, at the time of these discoveries, the alternative methods now available were not known or perfected. The idea of alternatives was not even discussed until the late 50’s (Doke). Though alternatives had been thought about, they were not used until the late 1970’s with in vitro, microfluidic chip testing, and MRIs (Houssin). The alternative of zebrafish embryos was not even first used until 1990 (Scholz). Even though animals did help in the past with medical treatments, science has since discovered these better alternatives. While one can argue the benefits that animals have brought medicine, it is clear if these alternatives were available at the time, they could have been used to discover these breakthroughs in place of animals testing. 

According to a study by PETA, animal testing has increased by 73 percent in the last 15 years (Casey). The use of mice in these tests have increased the most. The number of mice increased from 1.2 million to 1.9 million (Casey). Luckily, the use of cats and dogs slightly declined (Casey). Although millions of animals have already suffered, the United States recently took action. In 2016, president Barack Obama signed a chemical safety law. This law condemns animal testing and puts new regulations into place (O'Connor). This revised Toxic Substance Control Act was much needed and had been changed in over 20 years. The revisions include “discouraging the use of chemical substances on vertebrate animals," and it also requires the Environmental Protection Agency to seek out and use alternate testing methods (O’Connor). Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society, even remarks that this is the first time congress has made a "preference for the development and use of alternative methods and strategies"(O'Connor). Based on the revised act, the EPA has two years to start promoting the use of alternative testing. It is a relief that America is taking alternative methods into consideration and making a plan to fully replace animals (O'Connor). The law suggests its own ideas for alternatives, such as in vitro for testing individual human cells against chemicals. Also, the act suggests using computer modeling to understand the effects of chemicals and to gain more knowledge on the chemicals we believe are safe (O'Connor). This act will hopefully lead to a major change in the medical testing community and allow us to explore the benefits of new alternatives. 

This is not the only action America is taking to put an end to animal testing. In 2013, the National Institute of Health announced that it is ending its program where they use chimpanzees for medical testing (Reardon). Many people are extremely upset that they are taking this resource away, while animal activists are excited. Most believe since chimpanzees are most closely related to humans, they provide the most accurate medical feedback. People are arguing that the NIH is supposed to be doing everything to improve our health, but they are not taking into consideration the testing done on our closest relative. The NIH does say the chimpanzees will continue to be observed for behavioral research (Reardon). However, these chimpanzees will not have to go through tortuous other tests, and they have been moved from laboratories to sanctuaries (Reardon). This law finally recognizes the respect these chimpanzees deserve from the NIH and America.

Clearly, from the multiple alternatives listed, animals are no longer needed for many of the medical tests they are used for. Though the world has not reached a place in science where animals can be fully replaced, there are many that can be saved from the tests we do have alternatives for. Thankfully, other countries have made efforts to end animal testing completely, and the United States is clearly not far behind. It is thrilling to see the efforts being made to encourage alternatives and protect hundreds of thousands of animals. Even though animals have helped develop many drugs and treatments, it is time for science to modernize the testing even further. 
