Instead it can be due to conservatism within the scientific establishment – it is easier and more comfortable to simply do what has always been done.
Instead it can be due to conservatism within the scientific establishment – it is easier and more comfortable to simply do what has always been done.Test results on animals can be easily compared to earlier tests on animals to give confidence to scientists.Regulators can adopt a ‘tick box’ approach, divorced from the needs of the real world.
With the growing sophistication of computers, the ability to ‘model’ or replicate aspects of the human body is ever more possible.
Computer models of the heart, lungs, kidneys, skin, digestive and musculoskeletal systems already exist.
The first argument against animal testing is that; In a laboratory for animals, all sorts of animals, such as cats, rats, dogs, mice and chimpanzees, can be found.
The animals are locked in small cages individually, kept away from the natural world of where they should have belonged.
Both healthy and diseased tissues donated from human volunteers can provide a more relevant way of studying human biology and disease than animal testing. Companies such as Episkin, Mattek and Cell Systems Gmb H now produce these tests in easy to use kits for companies to use to test their cosmetics and other substances.
Human tissue can also be used after a person has died (e.g. Post-mortem brain tissue has provided important leads to understanding brain regeneration and the effects of Multiple Sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease.So far, cells from four different organs have been linked together on one chip to mimic the human body. Reconstituted human skin models can be used to replace the notorious Draize skin irritation tests in rabbits and have proven to be more effective at predicting human reactions. Scientists have even managed to coax cells to grow into 3D structures, such as miniature human organs, which can provide a more realistic way to test new therapies.Human cells have been used to create innovative little devices called ‘organs-on-chips’.on animal testing I have come to realize my personal view has now changed since the start of my research.Before undergoing heavy study into animal testing I believed that all types of animal testing should be stopped, but now I believe that the idea is very beneficial and should only be done when the rights of the animal are considered.In this essay I will first show the pro’s and after these will follow the con’s of animal testing.After I have done this I will again give my opinion on the subject.In the coming years, hopefully, more regulations can be passed to ensure that all animal’s lives are protected during experimentation.Alternatives to animal tests are often cheaper, quicker and more effective Replacing animal tests does not mean putting human patients at risk. Instead, replacing animal testing will improve the quality as well as the humaneness of our science.One of the most important jobs the Cruelty Free International science team does is encourage regulators to accept and promote alternative methods to animal testing.This device, which is the size of a smartphone, is known as a human-on-a-chip. It is lined with human lung cells and can be used instead of animals to study lung disease processes and screen potential drugs. Almost every type of human and animal cell can be grown in the laboratory.