Alternatives to Animal Testing

Although the CFHS recognizes that many improvements have been made to ensure that a minimum number of animals are used in medical and cosmetic testing and research, we would like to see more alternatives used, particularly for cosmetic testing where the use of animals is not required by law. There are several non-animal research models that can also be used to help scientists and researchers limit the number of animals used in testing. While these models can never replace animals used for medical testing, which requires that the effects of drugs and diseases be seen working in a complete body system, they can help reduce their use. According to Health Canada, It is often important to understand how the body as a whole functions under certain conditions, including how repair and defence mechanisms operate in the whole animal. In order to conduct studies in a living body, researchers must use animals whose systems closely resemble those of humans. For this reason non-animal models cannot completely eliminate the use of animals in testing. However, several non-animal models have helped reduce the number of animals used. Epidemiological studies, also known as population studies, look at the link between someones lifestyle including factors such as diet, habits, and occupation and disease. These studies help researchers connect cause-and-effect relationships between lifestyle and disease without doing specific testing, and can help scientists gain an understanding of diseases to help decrease the use of animals. Computer Models: Computer models can be used to simulate diseases and to help scientists understand the way different substances can be used to treat disease. The models are based on existing information and data and can help researchers with information specifically relating to humans. Cell and Tissue Culture (In Vitro Testing): Samples of human cells and tissues can be used in laboratories to test a substance in a certain type of cell or tissue. It is relatively low-cost and is beneficial because it provides researchers with information specifically relating to humans. Cell and tissue cultures are grown outside of the living organism, creating an artificial environment for toxicology testing. However, using cell and tissue cultures does not allow a researcher to see the effect of a substance in a living body with all its complexities. This method is valuable for research and can help limit the use of animals, but cant replace them entirely. The CFHS encourages the use of non-animal models wherever possible. When animals must be used, we encourage that the fewest possible number be used.
Name: CHFS (Canadian federation of humane societies) Title of webpage: Alternatives to animal testing

Website: cfhs Date: 2009 Organization: CFHS Date retrieved: march 1 url: http://cfhs.ca/research/alternatives_to_animal_testing/

Arguments Against Animal Testing

There are no real alternatives to animal experimentation, as alternatives are those options that arise in order to replace something of somewhat the same worth, and there is nothing else in the world that is quite as useless, harmful and misleading as animal experimentation. This is why animal rights activists all over the world should start declining medicines that have been tested on animals.
"I have studied the question of vivisection for thirty-five years and am convinced that experiments on living animals are leading medicine further and further from the real cure of the patient. I know of no instance of animal experiment that has been necessary for the advancement of medical science; still less do I know of any animal experiment that could conceivably be necessary to save human life." -H. Fergie Woods, M.D. Clearly, it is pretty much impossible to untest a particular drug. Now that the knowledge of its use is already with us, most individuals dont even bother looking into the means through which it was initially obtained. Yes, of course a person may very well regret the fact that insulin came about only after experimenting on dogs, but they are basically powerless when it comes to changing the fact. What we need to know is that animal testing doesnt have a monopoly on the existence of insulin or on the existence of any substance being used to treat some kind of illness. On the other hand, it would be very wrong to state that animal testing has no scientific merit to it. However, the practical and humanitarian justification of animal testing must be called into question when you consider other similar evil practices like imperialism and slavery, which were at one time most certainly acceptable and useful to their perpetrators. The most commonly held perception (or rather misconception) of animal testing is that it is necessary for the development of cures, vaccines and other treatments for human illnesses. Supporters ask a very important question what would happen to research on cancer, heart disease and AIDS if animal experimentation were to be completely stopped? Will the progress in treatments and cures for such illnesses also come to a stop? There is a rapidly growing movement of healthcare professionals that include scientists; doctors and even some educated members of the public who are

extremely opposed to animals based testing, specifically on scientific and medical grounds. They are of the opinion that animal testing and research is completely based on false premises, that the results that are obtained from such experimentation cannot be applied to the human body. Not only do animals react differently from humans where drugs, experiments and vaccines are concerned, but they also tend to react differently from each other. Ignoring these differences has been and will continue to be extremely costly to human health. One of the most famous examples when it comes to the dangers of animal experimentation would have to be the Thalidomide Tragedy of the 60s and 70s. Thalidomide was a drug that came out of the German market and was previously considered to be safely tested on thousands and thousands of animals. It was then marketed as a wonder drug; an amazing sedative for breastfeeding or pregnant mothers and it supposedly could cause no harm to either the mother or the child. Despite this apparent safety testing, tens of thousands of children whos mothers had used this drug were born with severe deformities. Another good example of the dangers of animal testing is Clioquinol, which was also supposed to be safely tested on animals and later on had a severely adverse impact on humans. Manufactures in the 70s in Japan, it was marketed as a wonder drug for providing relief from diarrhea. Not only did it not work on humans, but it even cause diarrhea in them! As a result of this drug being administered to the public, thousands of cases of paralysis and blindness and thousands of death cases occurred all over. Now do you think that these two examples were just isolated cases exceptions? Even though most drugs are routinely tested on animals, reports have shown that hundreds of thousands of people are killed every year and more than 2 million are hospitalized due to these prescription drugs. Reports have also shown that at least 4 out of every 10 patients who use a prescription drug can expect to suffer from sever or even noticeable side effects. Many clinical observers will agree that the incidence of medically induces diseases are now so great that roughly 1 in every 10 hospitals beds will be occupied by patients who have been made ill by their doctors. So, what happens to all those important breakthroughs caused by animal testing, and that have enormously aided the overall human health? The animal research industry has given many examples of the success of cures and treatments for different illnesses that have only been found through animal testing. They believe that if animal experimentation is stopped, then it will be at the expense of life and the human health. However, animal research has not aided in the fight against any of the major diseases. Take cancer for example. Animal research has not aided in the least bit when it comes to warding off cancer. In fact, it has managed to divert resources from effective research and from the wisest of all solutions prevention. With countless innocent animals, billions of dollars and more than 30 to 40 years

being spent on the war against cancer, one would expect concrete results to show up if animal experimentation was actually as effective as it is made out to be. On the contrary, the incidence of cancer has grown and continues to grow. Many cancer funds and organizations have claimed that we are now losing the war against cancer because this animal-based cancer research is failing, and it just downright stinks. What progress has been made in the study of AIDS? Animals are still being used for experiments even though they are not capable of developing the AIDS virus. The development of those lifesaving protease inhibitors was initially delayed because of the misleading data that came out of experiments on monkeys. What good does it do to us, humans, to test something on them, monkeys? Youll probably find out some 5 to 6 years from now that it works on monkeys, but once you test it on humans, then youll realize that humans behave completely different. So, you just wasted five precious years of your life. Clearly, if you we are looking to make any progress in medicine, an entirely new approach is required. Human medicine should no longer be dependent on veterinary medicine. It is dangerous and fraudulent to apply data retrieved from one species to another entirely different species. Animal testing will continue to confuse all issues and their results will most definitely be precise and accurate. There is no basic connection between animal testing and the human health. The general belief in the goodness of animal testing is basically the result of brainwashing that the general public has been subjected to for a long, long time. Behind these torturous practices are the pharmaceutical companies that spend billions of dollars on financing and publicizing the research universities and institutes. I rest my case.

Author: Natasha Bantwal Published: Jan/ 21/2008 Accessed: March 1/ 2010 Webpage title: Arguments against animal testing Website title: Buzzle Publishing organization: Buzzle url: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/argument-against-animal-testing.html