animal tested cosmetics should be banned essay 150 words

Ending Cosmetics Animal Testing

Animals are still suffering and dying to test shampoo, mascara and other cosmetics . Terrified rabbits , guinea pigs , mice and rats have substances forced down their throats, dripped into their eyes or smeared onto their skin before they are killed. With your support, we can end cosmetics testing on animals.

Get the facts about cosmetics testing on animals and our fight to end this cruel and unnecessary practice worldwide. 

Testing cosmetics on animals is both cruel and unnecessary because companies can already create innovative products using thousands of ingredients that have a history of safe use and do not require any additional testing. Plus, modern testing methods (such as human cell-based tests and sophisticated computer models) have replaced outdated animal tests with new non-animal methods that are often faster, less expensive and more reliable.  

Suffer and die worldwide every year in cosmetics tests.

Have endorsed the Humane Cosmetics Act , a bill that would end animal testing for cosmetics in the United States.

Have full or partial bans on cosmetics animal testing, including all European Union countries, Australia, Canada, India, Israel, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway and South Korea.

Animals in the U.S. continue to suffer and die in experiments to test cosmetics like lipstick, deodorant and cologne. By supporting our work to end testing and experiments on animals, you will help countless rabbits, mice and other animals languishing in laboratories.  

For every animal saved, countless others are still suffering. Your donation can create a future where animals no longer have to suffer cruelty and abuse.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

8.10: Animal Testing Should Be Banned

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 35854

• Nathan Nobis
• Morehouse College via Open Philosophy Press

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

“Animal testing” involves experimenting on animals to try to determine whether drugs and medical treatments are safe and effective for humans. It’s wrong and should be banned.

Why? First, and most obviously, drugs and medical procedures treat diseases, injuries, and other health problems. So, to see if a treatment works, a disease or injury must be created in animals. Understatement: this is often unpleasant. Heart attacks in dogs feel awful; bone cancers in mice are painful; pigs being burned, to test burn treatments, is agonizing. Animals living with the induced conditions is unpleasant also. And they are killed at the end of the experiments to study the treatments’ effects.

It’s now easy to see why animal testing is wrong: it violates basic principles of ethical research: it is maleficent, or harmful to the research subjects; it is not beneficial to them; it is forced on them since they don’t consent; and it is unjust in that animals are burdened with problems not their own. Research – at least with animals who are conscious, and so are able to be harmed or made worse off – is wrong for reasons that comparable human research would be wrong.

Some argue that the benefits to humans justify animal testing. But when one group benefits at the major expense of another group, that’s usually wrong. And how exactly might anyone know that humans benefit more than animals are harmed? And there is scientific evidence that animal testing often is not beneficial for humans and that clinical research, public health research, and technology-based research are more useful: see the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and Americans for Medical Advancement for more information.

Some claim there are “no alternatives” to animal testing, that it is “necessary.” But there are alternatives (mentioned above) and it’s not literally necessary that anyone do it: they can refrain. But suppose someone wanted to rob a bank and needed a getaway car: there is “no alternative” to a car and so it is “necessary” for the robbery. Does that make using the car OK? No. Even if something is “necessary” and there are “no alternatives” to doing it to achieve a particular end, that doesn’t make doing the action right: the end determines that.

Finally, some say that this reasoning is all beside the point: if your child was dying and animal testing would save him or her, wouldn’t you want the testing done? Many would and that’s an understandable feeling. But it’s unlikely that animal experimentation would help their child much: other methods are likely more fruitful. And more importantly, if my child were dying and I tried to experiment on my neighbor’s children to try to save my own child, that would be wrong.

Why? Simply because those children would be harmed and treated as mere things to be used (and abused) for my and my child’s benefit, which they are not. Since those reasons apply to many animals experimented upon, animal testing is also wrong.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

student opinion

Is Animal Testing Ever Justified?

The E.P.A. recently said it would move away from requiring the testing of potentially harmful chemicals on animals. Do you support the decision?

By Natalie Proulx

Find all our Student Opinion questions here.

On Sept. 10, the Environmental Protection Agency said it would move away from requiring the testing of potentially harmful chemicals on animals, a decision that was hailed by animal rights groups but criticized by environmentalists and researchers who said the practice was necessary to rigorously safeguard human health.

What are your thoughts on animal testing? Do you think it is ever justified? Why or why not?

In “ E.P.A. Says It Will Drastically Reduce Animal Testing ,” Mihir Zaveri, Mariel Padilla and Jaclyn Peiser write about the decision:

The E.P.A. Administrator Andrew Wheeler said the agency plans to reduce the amount of studies that involve mammal testing by 30 percent by 2025, and to eliminate the studies entirely by 2035, though some may still be approved on a case-by-case basis. The agency said it would also invest $4.25 million in projects at four universities and a medical center that are developing alternate ways of testing chemicals that do not involve animals. “We can protect human health and the environment by using cutting-edge, ethically sound science in our decision-making that efficiently and cost-effectively evaluates potential effects without animal testing,” Mr. Wheeler said in a memo announcing the changes. The E.P.A. has for decades required testing on a variety of animals — including rats, dogs, birds and fish — to gauge their toxicity before the chemicals can be bought, sold or used in the environment.

The article continues:

The practice of testing with animals has long prompted complex debates driven by passionate views on morality and scientific imperative. Reaction to Tuesday’s announcement was no different. “We are really excited as this has been something we’ve wanted for quite some time,” said Kitty Block, the president and chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States, an animal protection organization. “The alternatives are the future. They’re more efficient and save lives.” Kathleen Conlee, the vice president of animal research issues at the Humane Society, said the E.P.A.’s move is “broad-sweeping and significant.” “This is the first time a government agency has made such a commitment and timelined its specific goals along the way,” Ms. Conlee said. “There’s been a lot of positive action among other federal agencies, but we want to see all government agencies take this step.” Tracey Woodruff, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco’s school of medicine, said current alternatives to animal testing are somewhat useful. But Dr. Woodruff, who worked at the E.P.A. from 1994 to 2007, said only animal testing — a process honed over decades — was robust enough to gauge chemicals’ impacts on people of various ages, genetics and health backgrounds. “I definitely think we should be investing more in this research,” she said, referring to alternative testing. “But it’s really not ready for making decisions yet — at least the way that E.P.A. is making decisions.” Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist at Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group, said she was very concerned by the announcement. Dr. Sass said animals were still necessary to study chronic conditions, like cancer and infertility. Cells in a petri dish cannot yet replace whole living systems, she said. “The E.P.A.’s deadline is arbitrary,” Dr. Sass said. “Our interest isn’t in speed, it’s getting it right. We want proper animal testing because we don’t want harmful chemicals to end up in our food, air and water.”

Students, read the entire article, then tell us:

Do you support the decision by the E.P.A. to move away from requiring the testing of potentially harmful chemicals on animals? Or do you think animal testing is still necessary to regulate harmful substances that can have adverse effects on humans?

How important is it to you that the toxicity of chemicals and other environmental contaminants is rigorously studied and regulated? Why? Do you think not testing on animals hinders those efforts?

The Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Veterans Affairs are among the government agencies that still rely on animal testing. Do you think animal testing is important in these sectors or any others? Why or why not?

Do you think animal testing is ever justified? If so, what should be the criteria for when, how and on what animals testing is done?

Students 13 and older are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public.

Natalie Proulx joined The Learning Network as a staff editor in 2017 after working as an English language arts teacher and curriculum writer. More about Natalie Proulx

Animal testing for cosmetic should be banned. To what extent do you agree or disagree

Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Writing9 with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Fully explain your ideas

To get an excellent score in the IELTS Task 2 writing section, one of the easiest and most effective tips is structuring your writing in the most solid format. A great argument essay structure may be divided to four paragraphs, in which comprises of four sentences (excluding the conclusion paragraph, which comprises of three sentences).

For we to consider an essay structure a great one, it should be looking like this:

• Paragraph 1 - Introduction
• Sentence 1 - Background statement
• Sentence 2 - Detailed background statement
• Sentence 3 - Thesis
• Sentence 4 - Outline sentence
• Paragraph 2 - First supporting paragraph
• Sentence 1 - Topic sentence
• Sentence 2 - Example
• Sentence 3 - Discussion
• Sentence 4 - Conclusion
• Paragraph 3 - Second supporting paragraph
• Paragraph 4 - Conclusion
• Sentence 1 - Summary
• Sentence 2 - Restatement of thesis
• Sentence 3 - Prediction or recommendation

Our recommended essay structure above comprises of fifteen (15) sentences, which will make your essay approximately 250 to 275 words.

Discover more tips in The Ultimate Guide to Get a Target Band Score of 7+ » — a book that's free for 🚀 Premium users.

• multilingual
• communicate
• cognitive skills
• cultural awareness
• opportunities
• globalized world
• linguistic abilities
• cultural exchange
• language proficiency
• language barrier
• foreign travel
• personal growth
• academic achievement
• self-confidence
• cross-cultural communication
• Check your IELTS essay »
• Find essays with the same topic
• View collections of IELTS Writing Samples
• Show IELTS Writing Task 2 Topics

after Completing High School and Before Going to College or university, some students take a year off either to work or travel. What do you think is better – travelling or working. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches.

The personal information of many individuals is held by large internet companies and organisations. do you think the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages, it is important for children to learn the difference between right and wrong at an early age. punishment is necessary to help them learn this distinction. to what extent do you agree / disagree with this opinion, in many countries, children are becoming overweight and unhealthy. some people think that the government should have the responsibility. to what extent do you agree or disagree, everyone of us should become a vegetarian because eating meat can cause serious health problems. to what extent do you agree.

• IELTS Scores
• Life Skills Test
• Find a Test Centre
• Alternatives to IELTS
• General Training
• Academic Word List
• Topic Vocabulary
• Collocation
• Phrasal Verbs
• Writing eBooks
• Reading eBook
• All eBooks & Courses
• Sample Essays

Animal Testing Essay

Ielts animal testing essay.

Here you will find an example of an IELTS  animal testing essay .

In this essay, you are asked to discuss the arguments  for  and  against  animal testing, and then give  your own conclusions  on the issue.

This means you must look at both sides of the issue and you must also be sure you give your opinion too.

The essay is similar to an essay that says " Discuss both opinions and then give your opinion " but it is worded differently.

Take a look at the question and model answer below, and think about how the essay has been organised and how it achieves coherence and cohesion.

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Examine the arguments in favour of and against animal experiments, and come to a conclusion on this issue.

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.

Write at least 250 words.

Animals Testing Essay - Model Answer

Issues related to animal experimentation are frequently discussed these days, particularly in the media. It is often said that animals should not be used in testing because it is cruel and unnecessary. This essay will examine the arguments for and against animal testing. 

On the one hand, the people who support these experiments say that we must do tests on animals. For instance, many famous lifesaving drugs were invented in this way, and animal experiments may help us to find more cures in the future. Indeed, possibly even a cure for cancer and AIDS. Furthermore, the animals which are used are not usually wild but are bred especially for experiments. Therefore, they believe it is not true that animal experiments are responsible for reducing the number of wild animals on the planet. 

On the other hand, others feel that there are good arguments against this. First and foremost, animal experiments are unkind and cause animals a lot of pain. In addition, they feel that many tests are not really important, and in fact animals are not only used to test new medicines but also new cosmetics, which could be tested on humans instead. Another issue is that sometimes an experiment on animals gives us the wrong result because animals’ bodies are not exactly the same as our own. As a consequence, this testing may not be providing the safety that its proponents claim.

In conclusion, I am of the opinion, on balance, that the benefits do not outweigh the disadvantages, and testing on animals should not continue. Although it may improve the lives of humans, it is not fair that animals should suffer in order to achieve this.

(Words 278)

This animal testing essay would achieve a high score.

It fully answers all parts of the task - explaining the arguments ' for ' in the first paragraph and the arguments ' against ' in the next. Conclusions are then drawn with the writer giving their opinion in the conclusion.

It is thus very clearly organised, with each body paragraph having a central idea .

Ideas are also extended and supported by the use of reasons and some examples or further clarification. No ideas are left unclear or unexplained.

There is also some good topic related vocabulary in the animal testing essay such as 'life saving drugs ' and 'bred ' and a mix of complex sentences , such as adverbial clauses :

'Although it may improve the lives of humans, it is not fair that animals should suffer in order to achieve this'.

Noun clauses :

'...they feel that many tests are not really important'.

And relative clauses :

'...the animals which are used are not usually wild... '

Transitions are also used effectively to ensure there is good coherence and cohesion . For example, ' On the other hand.. ' indicates a change to discuss the contrasting ideas, and ' Therefore... " and ' As a consequence..' are used to give results.

<<< Back

Next >>>

More 'Hybrid' Type IELTS Essays:

Old Buildings Essay: How important is it to maintain & protect them?

This essay is about old buildings and whether they should be protected. It's an opinion essay, as you have to give your opinion on protecting old buildings.

Communication Technology Essay: How have relationships changed?

Communication Technology Essay for IELTS: This essay is about how relationships have been impacted. View a model answer with tips on how to answer the Task 2 Question.

Fear of Crime Essay: Can more be done to prevent crime?

In this fear of crime essay question for IELTS you have to discuss whether more can be down to prevent crime. It's an opinion type essay.

IELTS Essay: What influence do children’s friends have on them?

In this influence of children's friends essay for IELTS you have to discuss the way children's friends may affect their behaviour and what parents can do to control this.

Any comments or questions about this page or about IELTS? Post them here. Your email will not be published or shared.

Before you go...

Check out the ielts buddy band 7+ ebooks & courses.

Would you prefer to share this page with others by linking to it?

• Click on the HTML link code below.
• Copy and paste it, adding a note of your own, into your blog, a Web page, forums, a blog comment, your Facebook account, or anywhere that someone would find this page valuable.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• All Lessons
• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

Key Phrases for IELTS Speaking: Fluency and Coherence

May 24, 24 06:15 AM

Useful Language for IELTS Graphs

May 16, 24 04:44 AM

Taking a Gap Year

May 14, 24 03:00 PM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

• Environment

Animal Testing Should Be Banned Argumentative Essay

Animal testing will get us no where. This is an important topic to give voice about because testing on animals has portrays countless pros and cons. I personally believe that testing on animals should be banned for several reasons. Animals are suffering and dying from experiments each day. Most animals that are being tested on are not protected by the laws. Harsh living conditions are present for the animal test subjects. Most people have a lack of empathy toward those animals. To put it in perspective, would you like scientists to torture your pets? All living things should be treated equally and have the rights to live, with no exceptions. The selfish act of humans has caused a myriad of problems towards the population of animals. Nevertheless, some may say that testing on animals should not be banned, I believe that this act should be banned as all living things have the right to live.

To start off, animal testing is inhuman and should be banned because of all the suffering, mistreatment, and deaths. Most companies claim that no animals were hurt during testing , this is simply wrong and untruthful:

Most companies claim that no animals were hurt during animal experimentation, but there nonetheless exists a shadow of doubt. Testing potentially includes the jabbing of needles, storage into cramped spaces, and lack of quality/quantity in nutrition. Some animals may die over the course of the experiment or be killed after their use, and others may lose their limbs, eyesight, hearing, muscle coordination, and so on. In some cases, many of the substances tested may never even see approval of public consumption and use; thus, these animals may have undergone such treatment in vain, seeing that no direct benefit to humans occurred.(“The Debate on Animal Experimentation”).

This fact stated that animal testing are not possible without hurting the subjects. All of the animals suffered in some way. What would you do if you were in the animal's place? The last thing you want to happen is to get hurt, and that is exactly what the animals feel. Animal test subjects have feelings like us too, they feel pain and fear. Only a mere 5% of animals used in experiments are protected by the law. All animals should be protected by laws just like how all humans are protected by laws. 25 million animals get mistreated and killed mercilessly in experiments are way too high. Animals cannot give consent, they are no volunteers. It is undoubtedly not okay to test on animals as they cannot give consent. Humans can,on the other hand, people volunteer to be tested on and that is a choice.

Moreover, It is wrong to test on animals because success in animal experimentation does not equate to human safety. Even though animals are the closest thing on earth to humans genetically. The results from the experiments do not work one-hundred percent accurate on humans:

When the sleeping pill thalidomide was tested on pregnant rats, mice, cats and guinea pigs, there were no incidence of birth defects, except when administered at extremely high doses. However, when it was used by pregnant women, it resulted in severe deformities affecting 10,000 babies.(“16 Integral Pros and Cons of Animal Experimentation”).

This is a proven fact, results are often not accurate since the test subjects are not humans. This also proves that animal lives are wasted from pointless experiments. As stated from the same article “A majority of the drugs that passed animal tests, 94% to be exact, failed in human clinical trials.(“16 Integral Pros and Cons of Animal Experimentation”).

The statistics from the experiments are proved and failed miserably. The drugs that are safe for humans are often not safe for animals. Not only innocent animals are dying from the experiments, valuable resources are also being consumed. Resources like medicine and food are consumed carelessly. 

As many people start to realise how animals are getting treated, boycotting of items that are a result of animal testing is increasingly popular as more people start to realise how the animals are getting treated. The topic is getting more attention and more actions are done for the rights of innocent animals:  

More than one-third of women only buy cosmetics from brands that do not use animal testing. The market for cruelty-free cosmetics (products not tested on animals) is estimated to reach $10 billion by 2024. At least 37 countries have banned or restricted the sale of cosmetics with ingredients tested on animals, including nations in the European Union. In the US, California became the first state to make it illegal to sell most cosmetics that underwent animal testing. (“Should Animals Be used For Scientific or Commercial Testing?”).

Actions are happening to protect the lives of animals. More and more people will notice this topic and eventually stop this cruel act. Instead, we can create accurate models made from skin cells to conduct research. This way, the cruelty of animal testing will sure to decrease. In this world we live, we have to learn to solve problems using our own power.

Alternatively, some people disproves the banning of animal testing since they are a big factor to contribute to many cures and treatments:

The majority of the medical breakthroughs that have happened in the last 100 years were direct results from animal research and experimentation, according to the California Biomedical Research Association. Insulin, for example, was discovered through an experiment where dogs have their pancreas removed.(“16 Integral Pros and Cons of Animal Experimentation”)

This fact undeniably true, but it does not make an excuse to test on the poor animals. We should not be toying with animal lives.  Millions of animals died for the sake of human lives. Many of the humans are not thankful for this fact, the results are not achievable without the use of animal testing. Animals are dying because of humans, the selfish acts are wrong and inhumane. Animals scream in pain, getting dissected, and dying are caused by humans. It is selfish to think the fact that it is okay to torture animals just for our own benefits. 

To summarize all the points, animal testing should be banned for a number of reasons. The cruelty of experimenting on animals will get us nowhere. I believe that this act should be banned as all living things have the right to live freely. Animals cannot give any consent and we should not take any advantage of them. More people need to understand the effect of testing on animals and ultimately stop this horrible procedure.

Related Samples

• Essay Sample about Women in Leadership Roles
• Fracking Essay Example
• Gender Biases Heavily Influence Societal Counterparts (Little Woman by Sally Benson Article Analysis Essay)
• Amazon Rainforest Essay Sample
• Essay Sample about Friends of Animals
• Economic Impacts of Live Wild Animal Imports
• Essay about How to Prepare for a Hurricane?
• The Negative Impacts Of Social Media
• Persuasive Essay Sample: The Legal Age to Own Weapons Should Be Increased to at Least 21
• The Great Galveston Hurricane of 1900 Essay Example

Didn't find the perfect sample?

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

Animal Testing should be Banned

This essay will argue against the use of animal testing, discussing ethical, scientific, and practical reasons for its prohibition. It will examine the moral implications of using animals for research, the pain and suffering inflicted, and the issue of animal rights. The piece will also discuss alternatives to animal testing, such as in vitro methods and computer modeling, and how these can be more effective, humane, and economical. The essay aims to advocate for a shift in scientific research towards more ethical and sustainable practices. Also at PapersOwl you can find more free essay examples related to Animal Testing.

How it works

Many organizations are debating whether animal testing ought to be banned in the U. S. Some believe that animal testing ought to be done. At the same time, others believe that animal testing is completely wrong. Some experts believe that other options can be available instead of doing the test on animals. Using animals to test the safety of certain products and for medical research purposes is wrong, and it should be made a point that the pain and suffering forced on the animals are just not worth it.

Animal testing is a growing debate in today’s society (1).

Animal testing entails scientists’ usage of a variety of goods, immunizations, or other items that are developed for people but are also used on animals. The most common animals used in scientific research include rats, birds, and amphibians; however, scientists do make use of other species. The operations frequently result in a significant amount of pain and distress for each individual animal. At the conclusion of an experiment, the vast majority of animals are killed, but some of them may be put to use in further research. Animal testing grew simultaneously with industrialization. It’s important to remember that the knowledge gained. The welfare of millions of people has been improved thanks to experiments and research using animals. Testing on animals has always been contentious, and this continues to be the case today because researchers need to do experiments on animals in order to discover potentially life-saving therapies and medicines for people. As a result, an unimaginably high number of defenseless creatures are being brutally put to death.

The utilization of animals in research makes it simpler for scientists to identify which medicines and therapies are safe and effective for human consumption. The primary reason that pharmaceuticals and therapies are initially tested on animals is that some treatments and medications are damaging to the lives of people and can lead to people’s death if they are not tested on animals first. Drugs that have been subjected to animal testing are responsible for the deaths of thousands of people annually. The truth is that most animal studies don’t contribute to improving human health, and the value of the role that animal testing serves in most technological advances in medicine is questionable. (2). Further investigation has shown that many medications that appear effective and safe in animals, inflicting no effect on the animals, actually fail or cause substantial injury, or perhaps even death, in people. This is because animal organs cannot be confused with human ones, and they have their own unique identification. They argue that animals cannot be relied upon as subjects since their bodies are too different from those of people. Because animals’ organs, neurological systems, and cellular constitution are so distinct from one another, any knowledge gained from doing experiments on them would be misleading. The information gained from these tests would be of little benefit to humans, in addition to being extremely harmful to the animals involved (3).

Drug testing on animals serves no practical use for science. It breaks my heart to see animals being forced to perform behaviors they don’t comprehend. Using animals in experiments is a cruel and unfair activity that has bad outcomes for everyone concerned. Diseases that affect humans, such as heart disease, numerous types of cancer, HIV, and others, cannot be passed on to animals. Experimental results in animals cannot be extrapolated to human behavior because of essential differences in morphology, physiology, and metabolism. They disagree with the concept of animal rights and believe that humans have no moral grounding in exploiting animals for material gain (4). Some of these defenseless animals are killed by being smothered by poisonous gases, being paralyzed in restraints for long periods of time, having holes punched in their skulls, having their skin scorched off, or having their spinal cords crushed. It’s cruel and pointless to test on animals. Unspeakable things can happen during the testing. One method is to slowly drip the substance under test into the eye of a rabbit until the animal’s cornea corrodes. One such method requires killing off at least half of the animals fed the component of interest (5). There is a heated discussion happening right now in the U. S. over doing tests on these poor, defenseless animals.

Costing more money and wasting resources, animal testing is unnecessary. There’s also the fact that it’s pointless to do so. Due to their inaccuracy and inability to predict the complete range of negative effects, animals are horrible test subjects for a chemical’s safety. Animals should have legal protection from this kind of abuse. In many instances, medical discoveries are delayed as researchers vainly waste time, money, effort, and animal lives trying to create an animal model of human disease (6). Animal testing generally costs enormous amounts of money, as the animals must be fed, cared for, housed, and treated with drugs or a similar experimental substance. Additionally, the price of the animals themselves must also be paid for. There are companies in the United States who actually breed animals specifically for the cause of testing, and animals can be purchased from them as well. Not only is this research cruel, but the billions of dollars wasted on animal studies funnels money away from human-based research that entails computer modeling and tissue cultures that could be helping people (5).

The use of animals in experimenting with human-based products has been debatable for a while now. It should be noted that sometimes the benefit of successful animal research is. However, it is important to acknowledge that each animal undergoing the process endures agony and death, no matter the final result. Both animals and humans have the capacity for emotion, cognition, behavior, and the feeling of physical pain. However, animals are afforded a certain respect as humans. Animals’ rights are violated when used in research because they are not given a choice. They just put straight under the penalty of an experiment for the health of humans. Humans cannot make life better for themselves by torturing and executing so many animals each year to perform laboratory experiments or to test products on them.

• Nurunnabi ASM, Afroz RD, Alam SN. Ethical Debate on Animal Research. Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics. 2013 Dec 20;4(3):11–8.
• Doke SK, Dhawale SC. Alternatives to animal testing: A review. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal. 2015 Jul;23(3):223–9.
• Balls M, Bailey J, Combes RD. How viable are alternatives to animal testing in determining the toxicities of therapeutic drugs? Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism & Toxicology. 2019 Nov 21;15(12):985–7.
• Karaim R. Protecting Animals [Internet]. CQ Researcher by CQ Press. 2018. Available from: https://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2018071300
• Toronto. Time to end animal testing of cosmetics | The Star [Internet]. thestar.com. thestar.com; 2018. Available from: https://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editors/2018/06/30/time-to-end-animal-testing-of-cosmetics.html
• Humane Society International. Limitations of Animal Tests – Humane Society International [Internet]. Humane Society International. 2019. Available from: https://www.hsi.org/news-media/limitations-of-animal-tests/

Cite this page

Animal Testing Should Be Banned. (2020, May 13). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/animal-testing-should-be-banned/

"Animal Testing Should Be Banned." PapersOwl.com , 13 May 2020, https://papersowl.com/examples/animal-testing-should-be-banned/

PapersOwl.com. (2020). Animal Testing Should Be Banned . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/animal-testing-should-be-banned/ [Accessed: 24 May. 2024]

"Animal Testing Should Be Banned." PapersOwl.com, May 13, 2020. Accessed May 24, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/animal-testing-should-be-banned/

"Animal Testing Should Be Banned," PapersOwl.com , 13-May-2020. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/animal-testing-should-be-banned/. [Accessed: 24-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2020). Animal Testing Should Be Banned . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/animal-testing-should-be-banned/ [Accessed: 24-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Essay on Why Animal Testing Should Be Banned

Students are often asked to write an essay on Why Animal Testing Should Be Banned in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Why Animal Testing Should Be Banned

Animal testing is unkind.

Animal testing often causes pain and suffering to animals. They are kept in small cages and are used for experiments that can hurt them. This is not fair because animals feel pain just like we do. We should not make them suffer for our benefits.

Not Always Useful

Many times, tests on animals do not give results that are helpful for humans. This is because animals and humans are different. So, the pain we cause to animals may not even help us in the end.

Better Options Exist

Nowadays, we have other ways to test products that do not involve hurting animals. Scientists can use computer models or grow human cells in labs. These methods can give us good information without causing harm to any living creature.

250 Words Essay on Why Animal Testing Should Be Banned

Animal testing: why it should be banned.

Animal testing refers to scientific experiments using non-human animals as subjects. For many years, animals have been used in experiments to study diseases, test medicines, and explore other scientific questions. However, there are many reasons why this practice should be banned.

Pain and Suffering

Animals experience pain and suffering just like humans do. In animal testing, animals are often subjected to painful procedures, such as surgery, injections, and exposure to harmful chemicals. They may be kept in cramped and unsanitary conditions and denied proper food, water, and veterinary care.

Unreliable Results

Animal testing results are often unreliable when applied to humans. Animals may respond differently to drugs and treatments than humans do, leading to inaccurate or misleading findings. Additionally, the stress and fear experienced by animals during testing can affect the results, making them even less reliable.

Alternatives to Animal Testing

Today, there are many alternative methods available that can replace animal testing. These methods include computer simulations, cell cultures, and human tissue models. These alternatives are not only more humane, but they are often more accurate and reliable than animal testing.

Ethical Concerns

Animal testing raises serious ethical concerns. Many people believe that it is wrong to harm or kill animals for the sake of scientific research. Animals are sentient beings who deserve to be treated with respect and compassion.

In light of the pain and suffering caused to animals, the unreliability of results, the availability of alternatives, and the ethical concerns, it is clear that animal testing should be banned. It is time to move towards a more humane and ethical approach to scientific research.

500 Words Essay on Why Animal Testing Should Be Banned

What is animal testing.

Animal testing is the use of animals in experiments and other scientific studies. Animals are used to test products such as medicines, cosmetics, and chemicals, as well as to study diseases and develop new treatments.

Why is Animal Testing Bad?

Animal testing is bad because it causes pain and suffering to animals. Animals are often subjected to painful procedures, such as surgery, injections, and exposure to toxic chemicals. They may also be deprived of food, water, and sleep.

Animals Are Not Like Humans

The results of animal tests are not always accurate because animals are not like humans. They have different bodies, different metabolisms, and different immune systems. This means that drugs and chemicals that are safe for animals may not be safe for humans.

There Are Alternatives to Animal Testing

There are many alternatives to animal testing that are more accurate and humane. These alternatives include computer models, cell cultures, and human tissue samples. These alternatives are often more cost-effective than animal testing and do not cause pain and suffering to animals.

Animal Testing is Cruel and Unnecessary

Animal testing is a cruel and unnecessary practice. There are many alternatives to animal testing that are more accurate and humane. We should ban animal testing and replace it with these alternatives.

Animal testing is a cruel and unnecessary practice. It causes pain and suffering to animals and is often inaccurate. There are many alternatives to animal testing that are more accurate and humane. We should ban animal testing and replace it with these alternatives.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Which Economic System Is The Best And Why
• Essay on Where Do You See Yourself In The Future
• Essay on Whatsapp Boon Or Bane

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Looking for interesting animal testing topics to research and write about? This field is truly controversial and worth studying!

• 🌶️ Titles: Catchy & Creative
• 🐶 Essay: How to Write
• 🏆 Best Essay Examples
• 📌 Good Topics to Research
• 🎯 Most Interesting Topics to Write about

❓ Animal Testing Research Questions

In your animal testing essay, you might want to explore the historical or legal perspective, focus on the issue of animal rights, or discuss the advantages or disadvantages of animal testing in medicine, pharmacology, or cosmetic industry. We’ve gathered the most creative and catchy animal testing titles and added top animal testing essay examples. There are also useful tips on making and outline, formulating a thesis, and creating a hook sentence for your animal testing essay.

🌶️ Animal Testing Titles: Catchy & Creative

• What would life be like without animal testing?
• Animal testing: the cruelest experiments.
• AWA: why does not it protect all animals?
• What if animals experimented on humans?
• In the skin of a guinea pig: a narrative essay.
• Opposing animal testing: success stories.
• Animal-tested products: should they be destroyed?
• What have we gained from experiments on animals?
• Animal testing and cancer research: past and present.

🐶 Animal Testing Essay: How to Write

Animal testing has been an acute problem for a long time. Scientists and pharmaceutical firms use this approach to test cosmetics, foods, and other products people use daily.

Essays on animal testing are important because they highlight the significance of the problem. Writing outstanding animal testing essays requires extensive research and dedication.

We have prepared some do’s and don’ts for your excellent essay. But first, you should select a topic for your paper. Here are the examples of animal testing essay topics you can choose from:

• The question of animal intelligence from the perspective of animal testing
• Animal testing should (not) be banned
• How animal testing affects endangered species
• The history and consequences of animal testing
• The controversy associated with animal testing
• Animal Bill of Rights: Pros and cons
• Is animal testing necessary?

Remember that these animal testing essay titles are just the ideas for your paper. You are free to select other relevant titles and topics for discussion, too. Once you have selected the problem for your essay, you can start working on the paper. Here are some do’s of writing about animal testing:

• Do extensive preliminary research on the issue you have selected. You should be aware of all the problems associated with your questions, its causes, and consequences. Ask your professor about the sources you can use. Avoid relying on Wikipedia and personal blogs as your primary sources of information.
• Develop a well-organized outline and think of how you will structure your paper. Think of the main animal testing essay points and decide how you can present them in the paper. Remember to include introductory and concluding sections along with several body paragraphs.
• Start your paper with a hooking sentence. An animal testing essay hook should grab the reader’s attention. You can present an interesting question or statistics in this sentence.
• Include a well-defined thesis statement at the end of the introductory section.
• Your reader should understand the issue you are discussing. Explain what animal testing is, provide arguments for your position, and support them with evidence from your research.
• Discuss alternative perspectives on the issue if you are working on a persuasive essay. At the same time, you need to show that your opinion is more reliable than the opposing ones.
• Remember that your paper should not be offensive. Even if you criticize animal testing, stick to the formal language and provide evidence of why this practice is harmful.

There are some important points you should avoid while working on your paper. Here are some important don’ts to remember:

• Avoid making claims if you cannot reference them. Support your arguments with evidence from the literature or credible online sources even if you are writing an opinion piece. References will help the reader to understand that your viewpoint is reliable.
• Do not go over or below the word limit. Stick to your professor’s instructions.
• Avoid copying the essays you will find online. Your paper should be plagiarism-free.
• Avoid making crucial grammatical mistakes. Pay attention to the word choice and sentence structures. Check the paper several times before sending it for approval. If you are not sure whether your grammar is correct, ask a friend to look through the paper for you.

Do not forget to look at some of our free samples that will help you with your paper!

Animal Testing Hook Sentence

Your animal testing essay should start with a hook – an opening statement aiming to grab your reader’s attention. A good idea might be to use an impressive fact or statistics connected to experiments on animals:

• More than 100 million animals are killed in US laboratories each year.
• Animal Welfare Act (AWA) does not cover 99% animals used in experiments: according to it, rats, birds, reptiles, and fish are not animals.
• More than 50% adults in the US are against animal testing.

🏆 Best Animal Testing Essay Examples

• Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed? — Argumentative Essay It is crucial to agree that animal testing might be unethical phenomenon as argued by some groups; nonetheless, it should continue following its merits and contributions to the humankind in the realms of drug investigations […]
• Should Animals Be Used in Medical Research? It is therefore possible to use animals while testing the dangers and the toxicity of new drugs and by so doing; it is possible to protect human beings from the dangers that can emanate from […]
• Cosmetic Testing on Animals The surface of the skin or near the eyes of such animals is meant to simulate that of the average human and, as such, is one of easiest methods of determining whether are particular type […]
• The Debate on Animal Testing The purpose of this paper is to define animal testing within a historical context, establish ethical and legal issues surrounding the acts, discuss animal liberation movements, arguments in support and against the act of animal […]
• Negative Impacts of Animal Testing To alter these inhumane laws, we should organize a social movement aiming at the reconsideration of the role of animals in research and improvement of their positions.
• Experimentation on Animals However, critics of experimenting with animals argue that animals are subjected to a lot of pain and suffering in the course of coming up with scientific breakthroughs which in the long run may prove futile.
• Animal Testing and Environmental Protection While the proponents of animal use in research argued that the sacrifice of animals’ lives is crucial for advancing the sphere of medicine, the argument this essay will defend relates to the availability of modern […]
• Animal Testing in Medicine and Industry Animal testing is the inescapable reality of medicine and industry. However, between human suffering and animal suffering, the former is more important.
• Preclinical Testing on Animals The authors argue that despite the recent decline in the level of quality and transparency of preclinical trials, the scientific communities should always rely on animal testing before moving to human subjects and the subsequent […]
• Using Animals in Medical Research and Experiments While discussing the use of animals in medical research according to the consequentialist perspective, it is important to state that humans’ preferences cannot be counted higher to cause animals’ suffering; humans and animals’ preferences need […]
• Animal Testing: History and Arguments Nevertheless, that law was more focused on the welfare of animals in laboratories rather than on the prohibition of animal testing.
• Laboratory Experiments on Animals: Argument Against In some cases, the animals are not given any painkillers because their application may alter the effect of the medication which is investigated.
• Animal Testing From Medical and Ethical Viewpoints Striving to discover and explain the peculiarities of body functioning, already ancient Greeks and Romans resorted to vivisecting pigs; the scientific revolution of the Enlightenment era witnessed animal testing becoming the leading trend and a […]
• Animal Testing: Long and Unpretty History Nevertheless, that law was more focused on the welfare of animals in laboratories rather than on the prohibition of animal testing.
• Animal Testing as an Unnecessary and Atrocious Practice Such acts of violence could be partially excused by the necessity to test medications that are developed to save human lives however, this kind of testing is even more inhumane as it is ineffective in […]
• Animal Experiments and Inhuman Treatment Although the results of such a laboratory may bring answers to many questions in medicine, genetics, and other vital spheres, it is frequently a case that the treatment of such animals is inhumane and cruel. […]
• Animal Testing for Scientific Research Despite the fact that the present-day science makes no secret of the use of animals for research purposes, not many people know what deprivation, pain, and misery those animals have to experience in laboratories.
• Animal Testing and Ethics I believe it is also difficult to develop efficient legislation on the matter as people have different views on animal research and the line between ethical and unethical is blurred in this area.
• Animal Testing: History and Ethics Moreover, in the twelfth century, another Arabic physician, Avenzoar dissected animals and established animal testing experiment in testing surgical processes prior to their application to man. Trevan in 1927 to evaluate the effectiveness of digitalis […]
• Animal Testing Effects on Psychological Investigation In this context, ethical considerations remain a central theme in psychological research.”Ethics in research refers to the application of moral rules and professional codes of conduct to the collection, analysis, reporting, and publication of information […]
• Genetic Modification and Testing: Ethical Considerations It is done on a molecular level by synthesizing DNA, generating sequences and then inserting the received product into the organism which will be the carrier of the outcome. Another possibility is that the time […]
• Animal Testing: Why It Is Still Being Used The major reason for such “devotion” to animal testing can be explained by the fact that alternative sources of testing are insufficient and too inaccurate to replace conventional way of testing.
• Effects of Animal Testing and Alternatives Another challenge to the proponents of animal testing is related to dosage and the time line for a study. Animal rights values rebuff the notion that animals should have an importance to human beings in […]
• Ethics Problems in Animal Experimentation In spite of the fact that it is possible to find the arguments to support the idea of using animals in experiments, animal experimentation cannot be discussed as the ethical procedure because animals have the […]
• Animal Testing: Ethical Dilemmas in Business This means that both humans and animals have rights that need to be respected, and that is what brings about the many dilemmas that are experienced in this field.
• Should animals be used for scientific research? Therefore, considering the benefits that have been accrued from research activities due to use of animals in scientific research, I support that animals should be used in scientific research.
• Use of Animals in Research Testing: Ethical Justifications Involved The present paper argues that it is ethically justified to use animals in research settings if the goals of the research process are noble and oriented towards the advancement of human life.
• Ethical Problems in Animal Experimentation The banning of companies from testing on animals will force the manufacturers to use conventional methods to test their drugs and products.
• Utilitarianism for Animals: Testing and Experimentation There are alternatives in testing drugs such as tissue culture of human cells and hence this is bound to be more accurate in the findings.
• Use of Animals in Biological Testing Thus, these veterinarians have realized that the results that are realized from the animal research are very crucial in the improvement of the health of human being as well as that of animals.
• Medical Research on Animals Should be Forbidden by Law Vaccines and treatment regimes for various diseases that previously led to the death of humans were all discovered through research on animals.
• Psychoactive Drug Testing on Animals The alterations in behavioral traits of animals due to psychoactive drugs are primarily attributed to the changes in the brain functions or inhibition of certain brain components in animals which ultimately translates to changes in […]
• Negative Impacts of Animal Testing In many instances it can be proofed that drugs have been banned from the market after extensive research on animal testing and consuming a lot of cash, because of the dire effects that they cause […]

📌 Good Animal Testing Topics to Research

• Monkeys Don’t Like Wearing Makeup: Animal Testing In The Cosmetics Industry
• Animal Testing – Should Animal Experimentation Be Permitted
• Essay Animal Testing and In Vitro Testing as a Replacement
• Animal Testing : A Better Knowledge Of Human Body
• The Importance Of Animal Testing For Evaluating Consumer Safety
• The Issues on Animal Testing and the Alternative Procedures to Avoid the Use of the Inhuman Experimentation
• An Alternative to the Harsh and Unnecessary Practices of Animal Testing for Products, Drugs, Chemicals and Other Research
• The Unethical Use of Animals and the Need to Ban Animal Testing for Medical Research Purposes in the United States
• An Argument in Favor of Animal Testing for the Purpose of Clinical Research
• An Argument Against Animal Testing and the Banning of the Practice in the United States
• The Debate About the Ethics of Animal Testing and Its Effects on Us
• An Argument in Favor of Animal Testing as Beneficial to Human Health Research
• Animal Testing and the Reasons Why It Should Be Illegal
• The Principles of the Animal Testing From the Human Perspective
• The Ethical Issues on the Practice of Animal Testing to Test Cosmetics and Drugs
• Stopping Animal Testing and Vivisection by Passing a Bill against Animal Cruelty

🎯 Most Interesting Animal Testing Topics to Write about

• An Argument Against Animal Testing of Consumer Products and Drugs
• The Consequences and Unethical Practice of Animal Testing for Medical Training and Experiments
• How Do The Contributions Of Animal Testing To Global Medical
• Ways To Improve Animal Welfare After Premising The Animal Testing
• Animal Testing – Necessary or Barbaric and Wrong?
• Animal Testing And Its Impact On The Environment
• Animal Testing and Its Contribution to the Advancement of Medicine
• Cosmetics and Animal Testing: The Cause of Death and Mistreatment
• Animal Testing And People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals
• Animal Rights Activists and the Controversial Issue of Animal Testing
• A History and the Types of Animal Testing in the Medical Area
• Argumentation on Medical Benefits of Animal Testing
• An Analysis of the Concept of Animal Testing Which Lowers the Standard of Human Life
• Is The Humane Society International Gave For Animal Testing
• A Discussion of Whether Animal Testing Is Good for Mankind or Violation of Rights
• The Ethics Of Animal Testing For Vaccine Development And Potential Alternatives
• The Good and Bad of Human Testing and Animal Testing
• What Should the Government Do About Animal Testing?
• Why Does Animal Testing Lower Our Standard of Living?
• Should Animals Be Used in Research?
• Why Should Animal Testing Be Accepted in the World?
• How Does Technology Impact Animal Testing?
• Why Should Animal Testing Be Illegal?
• Should Animal Testing Remain Legal?
• Why Should Animal Testing Be Banned?
• Can the Animal Testing Done to Find Cures for Diseases Be Humane?
• Does Animal Testing Really Work?
• Why Can’t Alternatives Like Computers Replace Research Animals?
• Should Animal Testing Continue to Test Cures for Human Diseases?
• How Does Animal Testing Effect Medicine?
• Should Animal Testing Continue or Be Stopped?
• What Are Advantages and Disadvantages of Animal Testing?
• Why Can Animal Testing Save Our Lives?
• Is Stem Cell Research Beginning of the End of Animal Testing?
• Do Beauty Products Suffer From Negative Publicity if They Conduct Trials on Animals?
• Should Medicine Trials Be Conducted?
• Can Results of Animal Testing Be Generalized to Adults?
• What Are the Origin and History of Animal Testing?
• Why Are Animals Needed to Screen Consumer Products for Safety When Products Tested by Alternative Methods, Are Available?
• How Much Does an Animal Suffer Due to Testing?
• What Is the Effectiveness of Animal Rights Groups in Stopping Animal Testing?
• How Do We Learn From Biomedical Research Using Animals?
• Who Cares for Animals in Research?
• How Do Laboratory Animal Science Professionals Feel About Their Work?
• Why Are There Increasing Numbers of Mice, Rats, and Fish Used in Research?
• How Can We Be Sure Lost or Stolen Pets Are Not Used in Research?
• Why Do Clinical Trials in Humans Require Prior Animal Testing?
• Vegetarianism Essay Ideas
• Animal Welfare Ideas
• Bioethics Titles
• Wildlife Ideas
• Extinction Research Topics
• Hunting Questions
• Genetic Engineering Topics
• Zoo Research Ideas
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, November 9). 105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/

"105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 9 Nov. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 9 November.

IvyPanda . 2023. "105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 9, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 9, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 9, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/.

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Animal Testing — Animal Testing and Alternatives for Developing Cruelty-Free Makeup

Animal Testing and Alternatives for Developing Cruelty-free Makeup

• Categories: Animal Testing Makeup

About this sample

Words: 1235 |

Published: Oct 22, 2018

Words: 1235 | Pages: 3 | 7 min read

Table of contents

8th grade argumentative essay outline, 8th grade argumentative essay example, introduction.

• Introduction to the issue of animal testing in the cosmetic industry
• The ethical concerns surrounding animal testing

Benefits of Animal Testing

• Arguments in favor of animal testing, including potential medical advancements
• Counterargument that cures developed through animal testing may not always benefit humans

Limitations of Animal Testing

• Differences in anatomy between animals and humans
• Inaccuracy of test results
• Historical examples of ineffective animal testing

Ethical Considerations

• The capacity for animals to feel pain
• The moral implications of using animals for cosmetics
• Arguments against the mistreatment of animals for human benefit

Alternatives to Animal Testing

• The availability of non-animal methods for testing cosmetics
• Challenges posed by countries with mandatory animal testing laws

Call to Action

• Encouraging consumers to support cruelty-free cosmetics
• Advocating for changes in laws and regulations regarding animal testing in the cosmetic industry

Cruelty Free Makeup: A Moral Positivity

Works cited.

• Hajar, R. (2011). Animal testing and medicine. Heart Views, 12(2), 42-44. https://doi.org/10.4103/1995-705X.86023
• Hezorg, J. (2010). Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It's So Hard to Think Straight About Animals. Harper.
• Marston, H. (2006). Is animal testing necessary to advance medical research? BMJ, 332(7534), 649-650. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.332.7534.649
• Rocca, G. D. (2017). Diagnosis of Pain in Small Companion Animals. In Pain in Animals (pp. 55-77). Springer.
• Monamy, V. (2010). Animal Experimentation: A Guide to the Issues. Cambridge University Press.
• Olfert, E. D., & Cross, B. M. (2010). Guide to the Care and Use of Experimental Animals. Wiley-Blackwell.
• Taylor, K., & Gordon, N. (2012). Reducing the use of laboratory animals in the biomedical sciences: Problems and possible solutions. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 40(5), 269-277.
• Linzey, A. (2009). Animal Rights: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
• Regan, T. (2004). The Case for Animal Rights (Updated Edition). University of California Press.
• PETA. (n.d.). Companies that don't test on animals. https://www.peta.org/living/personal-care-fashion/beauty-brands-that-you-thought-were-cruelty-free-but-arent/

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4 pages / 1657 words

1 pages / 468 words

3 pages / 1186 words

3 pages / 1351 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Animal Testing

Animal experimentation has been a subject of debate and controversy for centuries. This essay delves into the history and context of animal experimentation, its evolution over time, the arguments for and against it, and [...]

Imagine a world where innocent creatures are subjected to painful experiments in the name of scientific progress. This cruel reality is not a dystopian fiction, but rather a harsh truth that exists in our society. Animal testing [...]

Animal rights have become a pressing topic in modern-day society due to the increased awareness of animal welfare and ethical responsibilities. The concept of animal rights involves the recognition of animals as sentient beings [...]

Goldberg, A., & Prescott, J. (2002). Animal experimentation: A moral issue? John Wiley & Sons.Perel, P., Roberts, I., Sena, E., Wheble, P., Briscoe, C., & Sandercock, P. (2007). Comparison of treatment effects [...]

Since long time ago animals starting from mice to cows have been used for research. There are lots of examples of testing these or that phenomena on animals. But is it correct? Is it what a human should do? And what well-known [...]

Animal testing is a debated issue over the previous decades. Animal testing in simple words is the use of animals in researches in order to determine the safety of various products such as foods, drugs and cosmetics. People have [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

IELTS Mentor "IELTS Preparation & Sample Answer"

• Skip to content
• Jump to main navigation and login

Nav view search

• IELTS Sample

IELTS Writing Task 2/ Essay Topics with sample answer.

Ielts writing task 2 sample 731 - nowadays animal experiments are widely used to develop new medicines, ielts writing task 2/ ielts essay:, nowadays animal experiments are widely used to develop new medicines and to test the safety of other products. some people argue that these experiments should be banned because it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer, while others are in favour of them because of their benefits to humanity..

IELTS Materials

• IELTS Bar Graph
• IELTS Line Graph
• IELTS Table Chart
• IELTS Flow Chart
• IELTS Pie Chart
• IELTS Letter Writing
• IELTS Essay
• Academic Reading

Useful Links

• IELTS Secrets
• Band Score Calculator
• Exam Specific Tips
• Useful Websites
• IELTS Preparation Tips
• Academic Reading Tips
• Academic Writing Tips
• GT Writing Tips
• Listening Tips
• Speaking Tips
• IELTS Grammar Review
• IELTS Vocabulary
• IELTS Cue Cards
• IELTS Life Skills
• Letter Types

• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Copyright Notice
• HTML Sitemap

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Cambridge Open

The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation

Nonhuman animal (“animal”) experimentation is typically defended by arguments that it is reliable, that animals provide sufficiently good models of human biology and diseases to yield relevant information, and that, consequently, its use provides major human health benefits. I demonstrate that a growing body of scientific literature critically assessing the validity of animal experimentation generally (and animal modeling specifically) raises important concerns about its reliability and predictive value for human outcomes and for understanding human physiology. The unreliability of animal experimentation across a wide range of areas undermines scientific arguments in favor of the practice. Additionally, I show how animal experimentation often significantly harms humans through misleading safety studies, potential abandonment of effective therapeutics, and direction of resources away from more effective testing methods. The resulting evidence suggests that the collective harms and costs to humans from animal experimentation outweigh potential benefits and that resources would be better invested in developing human-based testing methods.

Introduction

Annually, more than 115 million animals are used worldwide in experimentation or to supply the biomedical industry. 1 Nonhuman animal (hereafter “animal”) experimentation falls under two categories: basic (i.e., investigation of basic biology and human disease) and applied (i.e., drug research and development and toxicity and safety testing). Regardless of its categorization, animal experimentation is intended to inform human biology and health sciences and to promote the safety and efficacy of potential treatments. Despite its use of immense resources, the animal suffering involved, and its impact on human health, the question of animal experimentation’s efficacy has been subjected to little systematic scrutiny. 2

Although it is widely accepted that medicine should be evidence based , animal experimentation as a means of informing human health has generally not been held, in practice, to this standard. This fact makes it surprising that animal experimentation is typically viewed as the default and gold standard of preclinical testing and is generally supported without critical examination of its validity. A survey published in 2008 of anecdotal cases and statements given in support of animal experimentation demonstrates how it has not and could not be validated as a necessary step in biomedical research, and the survey casts doubt on its predictive value. 3 I show that animal experimentation is poorly predictive of human outcomes, 4 that it is unreliable across a wide category of disease areas, 5 and that existing literature demonstrates the unreliability of animal experimentation, thereby undermining scientific arguments in its favor. I further show that the collective harms that result from an unreliable practice tip the ethical scale of harms and benefits against continuation in much, if not all, of experimentation involving animals. 6

Problems of Successful Translation to Humans of Data from Animal Experimentation

Although the unreliability and limitations of animal experimentation have increasingly been acknowledged, there remains a general confidence within much of the biomedical community that they can be overcome. 7 However, three major conditions undermine this confidence and explain why animal experimentation, regardless of the disease category studied, fails to reliably inform human health: (1) the effects of the laboratory environment and other variables on study outcomes, (2) disparities between animal models of disease and human diseases, and (3) species differences in physiology and genetics. I argue for the critical importance of each of these conditions.

The Influence of Laboratory Procedures and Environments on Experimental Results

Laboratory procedures and conditions exert influences on animals’ physiology and behaviors that are difficult to control and that can ultimately impact research outcomes. Animals in laboratories are involuntarily placed in artificial environments, usually in windowless rooms, for the duration of their lives. Captivity and the common features of biomedical laboratories—such as artificial lighting, human-produced noises, and restricted housing environments—can prevent species-typical behaviors, causing distress and abnormal behaviors among animals. 8 Among the types of laboratory-generated distress is the phenomenon of contagious anxiety. 9 Cortisone levels rise in monkeys watching other monkeys being restrained for blood collection. 10 Blood pressure and heart rates elevate in rats watching other rats being decapitated. 11 Routine laboratory procedures, such as catching an animal and removing him or her from the cage, in addition to the experimental procedures, cause significant and prolonged elevations in animals’ stress markers. 12 These stress-related changes in physiological parameters caused by the laboratory procedures and environments can have significant effects on test results. 13 Stressed rats, for example, develop chronic inflammatory conditions and intestinal leakage, which add variables that can confound data. 14

A variety of conditions in the laboratory cause changes in neurochemistry, genetic expression, and nerve regeneration. 15 In one study, for example, mice were genetically altered to develop aortic defects. Yet, when the mice were housed in larger cages, those defects almost completely disappeared. 16 Providing further examples, typical noise levels in laboratories can damage blood vessels in animals, and even the type of flooring on which animals are tested in spinal cord injury experiments can affect whether a drug shows a benefit. 17

In order to control for potential confounders, some investigators have called for standardization of laboratory settings and procedures. 18 One notable effort was made by Crabbe et al. in their investigation of the potential confounding influences of the laboratory environment on six mouse behaviors that are commonly studied in neurobehavioral experiments. Despite their “extraordinary lengths to equate test apparatus, testing protocols, and all possible features of animal husbandry” across three laboratories, there were systematic differences in test results in these labs. 19 Additionally, different mouse strains varied markedly in all behavioral tests, and for some tests the magnitude of genetic differences depended on the specific testing laboratory. The results suggest that there are important influences of environmental conditions and procedures specific to individual laboratories that can be difficult—perhaps even impossible—to eliminate. These influences can confound research results and impede extrapolation to humans.

The Discordance between Human Diseases and Animal Models of Diseases

The lack of sufficient congruence between animal models and human diseases is another significant obstacle to translational reliability. Human diseases are typically artificially induced in animals, but the enormous difficulty of reproducing anything approaching the complexity of human diseases in animal models limits their usefulness. 20 Even if the design and conduct of an animal experiment are sound and standardized, the translation of its results to the clinic may fail because of disparities between the animal experimental model and the human condition. 21

Stroke research presents one salient example of the difficulties in modeling human diseases in animals. Stroke is relatively well understood in its underlying pathology. Yet accurately modeling the disease in animals has proven to be an exercise in futility. To address the inability to replicate human stroke in animals, many assert the need to use more standardized animal study design protocols. This includes the use of animals who represent both genders and wide age ranges, who have comorbidities and preexisting conditions that occur naturally in humans, and who are consequently given medications that are indicated for human patients. 22 In fact, a set of guidelines, named STAIR, was implemented by a stroke roundtable in 1999 (and updated in 2009) to standardize protocols, limit the discrepancies, and improve the applicability of animal stroke experiments to humans. 23 One of the most promising stroke treatments later to emerge was NXY-059, which proved effective in animal experiments. However, the drug failed in clinical trials, despite the fact that the set of animal experiments on this drug was considered the poster child for the new experimental standards. 24 Despite such vigorous efforts, the development of STAIR and other criteria has yet to make a recognizable impact in clinical translation. 25

Under closer scrutiny, it is not difficult to surmise why animal stroke experiments fail to successfully translate to humans even with new guidelines. Standard stroke medications will likely affect different species differently. There is little evidence to suggest that a female rat, dog, or monkey sufficiently reproduces the physiology of a human female. Perhaps most importantly, reproducing the preexisting conditions of stroke in animals proves just as difficult as reproducing stroke pathology and outcomes. For example, most animals don’t naturally develop significant atherosclerosis, a leading contributor to ischemic stroke. In order to reproduce the effects of atherosclerosis in animals, researchers clamp their blood vessels or artificially insert blood clots. These interventions, however, do not replicate the elaborate pathology of atherosclerosis and its underlying causes. Reproducing human diseases in animals requires reproducing the predisposing diseases, also a formidable challenge. The inability to reproduce the disease in animals so that it is congruent in relevant respects with human stroke has contributed to a high failure rate in drug development. More than 114 potential therapies initially tested in animals failed in human trials. 26

Further examples of repeated failures based on animal models include drug development in cancer, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), traumatic brain injury (TBI), Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and inflammatory conditions. Animal cancer models in which tumors are artificially induced have been the basic translational model used to study key physiological and biochemical properties in cancer onset and propagation and to evaluate novel treatments. Nevertheless, significant limitations exist in the models’ ability to faithfully mirror the complex process of human carcinogenesis. 27 These limitations are evidenced by the high (among the highest of any disease category) clinical failure rate of cancer drugs. 28 Analyses of common mice ALS models demonstrate significant differences from human ALS. 29 The inability of animal ALS models to predict beneficial effects in humans with ALS is recognized. 30 More than twenty drugs have failed in clinical trials, and the only U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved drug to treat ALS is Riluzole, which shows notably marginal benefit on patient survival. 31 Animal models have also been unable to reproduce the complexities of human TBI. 32 In 2010, Maas et al. reported on 27 large Phase 3 clinical trials and 6 unpublished trials in TBI that all failed to show human benefit after showing benefit in animals. 33 Additionally, even after success in animals, around 172 and 150 drug development failures have been identified in the treatment of human AD 34 and inflammatory diseases, 35 respectively.

The high clinical failure rate in drug development across all disease categories is based, at least in part, on the inability to adequately model human diseases in animals and the poor predictability of animal models. 36 A notable systematic review, published in 2007, compared animal experimentation results with clinical trial findings across interventions aimed at the treatment of head injury, respiratory distress syndrome, osteoporosis, stroke, and hemorrhage. 37 The study found that the human and animal results were in accordance only half of the time. In other words, the animal experiments were no more likely than a flip of the coin to predict whether those interventions would benefit humans.

In 2004, the FDA estimated that 92 percent of drugs that pass preclinical tests, including “pivotal” animal tests, fail to proceed to the market. 38 More recent analysis suggests that, despite efforts to improve the predictability of animal testing, the failure rate has actually increased and is now closer to 96 percent. 39 The main causes of failure are lack of effectiveness and safety problems that were not predicted by animal tests. 40

Usually, when an animal model is found wanting, various reasons are proffered to explain what went wrong—poor methodology, publication bias, lack of preexisting disease and medications, wrong gender or age, and so on. These factors certainly require consideration, and recognition of each potential difference between the animal model and the human disease motivates renewed efforts to eliminate these differences. As a result, scientific progress is sometimes made by such efforts. However, the high failure rate in drug testing and development, despite attempts to improve animal testing, suggests that these efforts remain insufficient to overcome the obstacles to successful translation that are inherent to the use of animals. Too often ignored is the well-substantiated idea that these models are, for reasons summarized here, intrinsically lacking in relevance to, and thus highly unlikely to yield useful information about, human diseases. 41

Interspecies Differences in Physiology and Genetics

Ultimately, even if considerable congruence were shown between an animal model and its corresponding human disease, interspecies differences in physiology, behavior, pharmacokinetics, and genetics would significantly limit the reliability of animal studies, even after a substantial investment to improve such studies. In spinal cord injury, for example, drug testing results vary according to which species and even which strain within a species is used, because of numerous interspecies and interstrain differences in neurophysiology, anatomy, and behavior. 42 The micropathology of spinal cord injury, injury repair mechanisms, and recovery from injury varies greatly among different strains of rats and mice. A systematic review found that even among the most standardized and methodologically superior animal experiments, testing results assessing the effectiveness of methylprednisolone for spinal cord injury treatment varied considerably among species. 43 This suggests that factors inherent to the use of animals account for some of the major differences in results.

Even rats from the same strain but purchased from different suppliers produce different test results. 44 In one study, responses to 12 different behavioral measures of pain sensitivity, which are important markers of spinal cord injury, varied among 11 strains of mice, with no clear-cut patterns that allowed prediction of how each strain would respond. 45 These differences influenced how the animals responded to the injury and to experimental therapies. A drug might be shown to help one strain of mice recover but not another. Despite decades of using animal models, not a single neuroprotective agent that ameliorated spinal cord injury in animal tests has proven efficacious in clinical trials to date. 46

Further exemplifying the importance of physiological differences among species, a 2013 study reported that the mouse models used extensively to study human inflammatory diseases (in sepsis, burns, infection, and trauma) have been misleading. The study found that mice differ greatly from humans in their responses to inflammatory conditions. Mice differed from humans in what genes were turned on and off and in the timing and duration of gene expression. The mouse models even differed from one another in their responses. The investigators concluded that “our study supports higher priority to focus on the more complex human conditions rather than relying on mouse models to study human inflammatory disease.” 47 The different genetic responses between mice and humans are likely responsible, at least in part, for the high drug failure rate. The authors stated that every one of almost 150 clinical trials that tested candidate agents’ ability to block inflammatory responses in critically ill patients failed.

Wide differences have also become apparent in the regulation of the same genes, a point that is readily seen when observing differences between human and mouse livers. 48 Consistent phenotypes (observable physical or biochemical characteristics) are rarely obtained by modification of the same gene, even among different strains of mice. 49 Gene regulation can substantially differ among species and may be as important as the presence or absence of a specific gene. Despite the high degree of genome conservation, there are critical differences in the order and function of genes among species. To use an analogy: as pianos have the same keys, humans and other animals share (largely) the same genes. Where we mostly differ is in the way the genes or keys are expressed. For example, if we play the keys in a certain order, we hear Chopin; in a different order, we hear Ray Charles; and in yet a different order, it’s Jerry Lee Lewis. In other words, the same keys or genes are expressed, but their different orders result in markedly different outcomes.

Recognizing the inherent genetic differences among species as a barrier to translation, researches have expressed considerable enthusiasm for genetically modified (GM) animals, including transgenic mice models, wherein human genes are inserted into the mouse genome. However, if a human gene is expressed in mice, it will likely function differently from the way it functions in humans, being affected by physiological mechanisms that are unique in mice. For example, a crucial protein that controls blood sugar in humans is missing in mice. 50 When the human gene that makes this protein was expressed in genetically altered mice, it had the opposite effect from that in humans: it caused loss of blood sugar control in mice. Use of GM mice has failed to successfully model human diseases and to translate into clinical benefit across many disease categories. 51 Perhaps the primary reason why GM animals are unlikely to be much more successful than other animal models in translational medicine is the fact that the “humanized” or altered genes are still in nonhuman animals.

In many instances, nonhuman primates (NHPs) are used instead of mice or other animals, with the expectation that NHPs will better mimic human results. However, there have been sufficient failures in translation to undermine this optimism. For example, NHP models have failed to reproduce key features of Parkinson’s disease, both in function and in pathology. 52 Several therapies that appeared promising in both NHPs and rat models of Parkinson’s disease showed disappointing results in humans. 53 The campaign to prescribe hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in millions of women to prevent cardiovascular disease was based in large part on experiments on NHPs. HRT is now known to increase the risk of these diseases in women. 54

HIV/AIDS vaccine research using NHPs represents one of the most notable failures in animal experimentation translation. Immense resources and decades of time have been devoted to creating NHP (including chimpanzee) models of HIV. Yet all of about 90 HIV vaccines that succeeded in animals failed in humans. 55 After HIV vaccine gp120 failed in clinical trials, despite positive outcomes in chimpanzees, a BMJ article commented that important differences between NHPs and humans with HIV misled researchers, taking them down unproductive experimental paths. 56 Gp120 failed to neutralize HIV grown and tested in cell culture. However, because the serum protected chimpanzees from HIV infection, two Phase 3 clinical trials were undertaken 57 —a clear example of how expectations that NHP data are more predictive than data from other (in this case, cell culture) testing methods are unproductive and harmful. Despite the repeated failures, NHPs (though not chimpanzees or other great apes) remain widely used for HIV research.

The implicit assumption that NHP (and indeed any animal) data are reliable has also led to significant and unjustifiable human suffering. For example, clinical trial volunteers for gp120 were placed at unnecessary risk of harm because of unfounded confidence in NHP experiments. Two landmark studies involving thousands of menopausal women being treated with HRT were terminated early because of increased stroke and breast cancer risk. 58 In 2003, Elan Pharmaceuticals was forced to prematurely terminate a Phase 2 clinical trial when an investigational AD vaccine was found to cause brain swelling in human subjects. No significant adverse effects were detected in GM mice or NHPs. 59

In another example of human suffering resulting from animal experimentation, six human volunteers were injected with an immunomodulatory drug, TGN 1412, in 2006. 60 Within minutes of receiving the experimental drug, all volunteers suffered a severe adverse reaction resulting from a life-threatening cytokine storm that led to catastrophic systemic organ failure. The compound was designed to dampen the immune system, but it had the opposite effect in humans. Prior to this first human trial, TGN 1412 was tested in mice, rabbits, rats, and NHPs with no ill effects. NHPs also underwent repeat-dose toxicity studies and were given 500 times the human dose for at least four consecutive weeks. 61 None of the NHPs manifested the ill effects that humans showed almost immediately after receiving minute amounts of the test drug. Cynomolgus and rhesus monkeys were specifically chosen because their CD28 receptors demonstrated similar affinity to TGN 1412 as human CD28 receptors. Based on such data as these, it was confidently concluded that results obtained from these NHPs would most reliably predict drug responses in humans—a conclusion that proved devastatingly wrong.

As exemplified by the study of HIV/AIDS, TGN 1412, and other experiences, 62 experiments with NHPs are not necessarily any more predictive of human responses than experiments with other animals. The repeated failures in translation from studies with NHPs belie arguments favoring use of any nonhuman species to study human physiology and diseases and to test potential treatments. If experimentation using chimpanzees and other NHPs, our closest genetic cousins, are unreliable, how can we expect research using other animals to be reliable? The bottom line is that animal experiments, no matter the species used or the type of disease research undertaken, are highly unreliable—and they have too little predictive value to justify the resultant risks of harms for humans, for reasons I now explain.

The Collective Harms That Result from Misleading Animal Experiments

As medical research has explored the complexities and subtle nuances of biological systems, problems have arisen because the differences among species along these subtler biological dimensions far outweigh the similarities , as a growing body of evidence attests. These profoundly important—and often undetected—differences are likely one of the main reasons human clinical trials fail. 63

“Appreciation of differences” and “caution” about extrapolating results from animals to humans are now almost universally recommended. But, in practice, how does one take into account differences in drug metabolism, genetics, expression of diseases, anatomy, influences of laboratory environments, and species- and strain-specific physiologic mechanisms—and, in view of these differences, discern what is applicable to humans and what is not? If we cannot determine which physiological mechanisms in which species and strains of species are applicable to humans (even setting aside the complicating factors of different caging systems and types of flooring), the usefulness of the experiments must be questioned.

It has been argued that some information obtained from animal experiments is better than no information. 64 This thesis neglects how misleading information can be worse than no information from animal tests. The use of nonpredictive animal experiments can cause human suffering in at least two ways: (1) by producing misleading safety and efficacy data and (2) by causing potential abandonment of useful medical treatments and misdirecting resources away from more effective testing methods.

Humans are harmed because of misleading animal testing results. Imprecise results from animal experiments may result in clinical trials of biologically faulty or even harmful substances, thereby exposing patients to unnecessary risk and wasting scarce research resources. 65 Animal toxicity studies are poor predictors of toxic effects of drugs in humans. 66 As seen in some of the preceding examples (in particular, stroke, HRT, and TGN1412), humans have been significantly harmed because investigators were misled by the safety and efficacy profile of a new drug based on animal experiments. 67 Clinical trial volunteers are thus provided with raised hopes and a false sense of security because of a misguided confidence in efficacy and safety testing using animals.

An equal if indirect source of human suffering is the opportunity cost of abandoning promising drugs because of misleading animal tests. 68 As candidate drugs generally proceed down the development pipeline and to human testing based largely on successful results in animals 69 (i.e., positive efficacy and negative adverse effects), drugs are sometimes not further developed due to unsuccessful results in animals (i.e., negative efficacy and/or positive adverse effects). Because much pharmaceutical company preclinical data are proprietary and thus publicly unavailable, it is difficult to know the number of missed opportunities due to misleading animal experiments. However, of every 5,000–10,000 potential drugs investigated, only about 5 proceed to Phase 1 clinical trials. 70 Potential therapeutics may be abandoned because of results in animal tests that do not apply to humans. 71 Treatments that fail to work or show some adverse effect in animals because of species-specific influences may be abandoned in preclinical testing even if they may have proved effective and safe in humans if allowed to continue through the drug development pipeline.

An editorial in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery describes cases involving two drugs in which animal test results from species-specific influences could have derailed their development. In particular, it describes how tamoxifen, one of the most effective drugs for certain types of breast cancer, “would most certainly have been withdrawn from the pipeline” if its propensity to cause liver tumor in rats had been discovered in preclinical testing rather than after the drug had been on the market for years. 72 Gleevec provides another example of effective drugs that could have been abandoned based on misleading animal tests: this drug, which is used to treat chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), showed serious adverse effects in at least five species tested, including severe liver damage in dogs. However, liver toxicity was not detected in human cell assays, and clinical trials proceeded, which confirmed the absence of significant liver toxicity in humans. 73 Fortunately for CML patients, Gleevec is a success story of predictive human-based testing. Many useful drugs that have safely been used by humans for decades, such as aspirin and penicillin, may not have been available today if the current animal testing regulatory requirements were in practice during their development. 74

A further example of near-missed opportunities is provided by experiments on animals that delayed the acceptance of cyclosporine, a drug widely and successfully used to treat autoimmune disorders and prevent organ transplant rejection. 75 Its immunosuppressive effects differed so markedly among species that researchers judged that the animal results limited any direct inferences that could be made to humans. Providing further examples, PharmaInformatic released a report describing how several blockbuster drugs, including aripiprazole (Abilify) and esomeprazole (Nexium), showed low oral bioavailability in animals. They would likely not be available on the market today if animal tests were solely relied on. Understanding the implications of its findings for drug development in general, PharmaInformatic asked, “Which other blockbuster drugs would be on the market today, if animal trials would have not been used to preselect compounds and drug-candidates for further development?” 76 These near-missed opportunities and the overall 96 percent failure rate in clinical drug testing strongly suggest the unsoundness of animal testing as a precondition of human clinical trials and provide powerful evidence for the need for a new, human-based paradigm in medical research and drug development.

In addition to potentially causing abandonment of useful treatments, use of an invalid animal disease model can lead researchers and the industry in the wrong research direction, wasting time and significant investment. 77 Repeatedly, researchers have been lured down the wrong line of investigation because of information gleaned from animal experiments that later proved to be inaccurate, irrelevant, or discordant with human biology. Some claim that we do not know which benefits animal experiments, particularly in basic research, may provide down the road. Yet human lives remain in the balance, waiting for effective therapies. Funding must be strategically invested in the research areas that offer the most promise.

The opportunity costs of continuing to fund unreliable animal tests may impede development of more accurate testing methods. Human organs grown in the lab, human organs on a chip, cognitive computing technologies, 3D printing of human living tissues, and the Human Toxome Project are examples of new human-based technologies that are garnering widespread enthusiasm. The benefit of using these testing methods in the preclinical setting over animal experiments is that they are based on human biology. Thus their use eliminates much of the guesswork required when attempting to extrapolate physiological data from other species to humans. Additionally, these tests offer whole-systems biology, in contrast to traditional in vitro techniques. Although they are gaining momentum, these human-based tests are still in their relative infancy, and funding must be prioritized for their further development. The recent advancements made in the development of more predictive, human-based systems and biological approaches in chemical toxicological testing are an example of how newer and improved tests have been developed because of a shift in prioritization. 78 Apart from toxicology, though, financial investment in the development of human-based technologies generally falls far short of investment in animal experimentation. 79

The unreliability of applying animal experimental results to human biology and diseases is increasingly recognized. Animals are in many respects biologically and psychologically similar to humans, perhaps most notably in the shared characteristics of pain, fear, and suffering. 80 In contrast, evidence demonstrates that critically important physiological and genetic differences between humans and other animals can invalidate the use of animals to study human diseases, treatments, pharmaceuticals, and the like. In significant measure, animal models specifically, and animal experimentation generally, are inadequate bases for predicting clinical outcomes in human beings in the great bulk of biomedical science. As a result, humans can be subject to significant and avoidable harm.

The data showing the unreliability of animal experimentation and the resultant harms to humans (and nonhumans) undermine long-standing claims that animal experimentation is necessary to enhance human health and therefore ethically justified. Rather, they demonstrate that animal experimentation poses significant costs and harms to human beings. It is possible—as I have argued elsewhere—that animal research is more costly and harmful, on the whole, than it is beneficial to human health. 81 When considering the ethical justifiability of animal experiments, we should ask if it is ethically acceptable to deprive humans of resources, opportunity, hope, and even their lives by seeking answers in what may be the wrong place. In my view, it would be better to direct resources away from animal experimentation and into developing more accurate, human-based technologies.

Aysha Akhtar , M.D., M.P.H., is a neurologist and preventive medicine specialist and Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, Oxford, United Kingdom.

1. Taylor K, Gordon N, Langley G, Higgins W. Estimates for worldwide laboratory animal use in 2005 . Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 2008; 36 :327–42. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

2. Systematic reviews that have been conducted generally reveal the unreliability and poor predictability of animal tests. See Perel P, Roberts I, Sena E, Wheble P, Briscoe C, Sandercock P, et al. Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: Systematic review. BMJ 2007;334:197. See also Pound P, Bracken MB. Is animal research sufficiently evidence based to be a cornerstone of biomedical research? BMJ 2014;348:g3387. See Godlee F. How predictive and productive is animal research? BMJ 2014;348:g3719. See Benatar M. Lost in translation: Treatment trials in the SOD 1 mouse and in human ALS. Neurobiology Disease 2007; 26 :1–13 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . And see Akhtar AZ, Pippin JJ, Sandusky CB. Animal studies in spinal cord injury: A systematic review of methylprednisolone . Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 2009; 37 :43–62. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

3. Mathews RAJ. Medical progress depends on animal models—doesn’t it? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2008; 101 :95–8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

4. See Shanks N, Greek R, Greek J. Are animal models predictive for humans? Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2009; 4 :2 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also Wall RJ, Shani M. Are animal models as good as we think? Theriogenology 2008; 69 :2–9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

5. See note 3, Mathews 2008. See also Hartung T, Zurlo J. Food for thought… alternative approaches for medical countermeasures to biological and chemical terrorism and warfare . ALTEX 2012; 29 :251–60 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See Leist M, Hartung T. Inflammatory findings on species extrapolations: Humans are definitely no 70-kg mice . Archives in Toxicology 2013; 87 :563–7 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See Mak IWY, Evaniew N, Ghert M. Lost in translation: Animal models and clinical trials in cancer treatment . American Journal in Translational Research 2014; 6 :114–18 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . And see Pippin J. Animal research in medical sciences: Seeking a convergence of science, medicine, and animal law . South Texas Law Review 2013; 54 :469–511. [ Google Scholar ]

6. For an overview of the harms-versus-benefits argument, see LaFollette H. Animal experimentation in biomedical research In: Beauchamp TL, Frey RG, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics . Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011:812–18. [ Google Scholar ]

7. See Jucker M. The benefits and limitations of animal models for translational research in neurodegenerative diseases . Nature Medicine 2010; 16 :1210–14 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See Institute of Medicine. Improving the Utility and Translation of Animal Models for Nervous System Disorders: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2013. And see Degryse AL, Lawson WE. Progress towards improving animal models for IPF . American Journal of Medical Science 2011; 341 :444–9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

8. See Morgan KN, Tromborg CT. Sources of stress in captivity . Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2007; 102 :262–302 [ Google Scholar ] . See Hart PC, Bergner CL, Dufour BD, Smolinsky AN, Egan RJ, LaPorte L, et al. Analysis of abnormal repetitive behaviors in experimental animal models In Warrick JE, Kauleff AV, eds. Translational Neuroscience and Its Advancement of Animal Research Ethics . New York: Nova Science; 2009:71–82 [ Google Scholar ] . See Lutz C, Well A, Novak M. Stereotypic and self-injurious behavior in rhesus macaques: A survey and retrospective analysis of environment and early experience . American Journal of Primatology 2003; 60 :1–15 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . And see Balcombe JP, Barnard ND, Sandusky C. Laboratory routines cause animal stress . Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science 2004; 43 :42–51. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

9. Suckow MA, Weisbroth SH, Franklin CL. The Laboratory Rat . 2nd ed. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press; 2006, at 323.

10. Flow BL, Jaques JT. Effect of room arrangement and blood sample collection sequence on serum thyroid hormone and cortisol concentrations in cynomolgus macaques ( Macaca fascicularis ). Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science 1997;36:65–8.

11. See note 8, Balcombe et al. 2004.

12. See note 8, Balcombe et al. 2004.

13. Baldwin A, Bekoff M. Too stressed to work. New Scientist 2007;194:24.

14. See note 13, Baldwin, Bekoff 2007.

15. Akhtar A, Pippin JJ, Sandusky CB. Animal models in spinal cord injury: A review . Reviews in the Neurosciences 2008; 19 :47–60. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

16. See note 13, Baldwin, Bekoff 2007.

17. See note 15, Akhtar et al. 2008.

18. See Macleod MR, O’Collins T, Howells DW, Donnan GA. Pooling of animal experimental data reveals influence of study design and publication bias . Stroke 2004; 35 :1203–8 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also O’ Neil BJ, Kline JA, Burkhart K, Younger J. Research fundamentals: V. The use of laboratory animal models in research. Academic Emergency Medicine 1999;6:75–82.

19. Crabbe JC, Wahlsten D, Dudek BC. Genetics of mouse behavior: Interactions with laboratory environment . Science 1999; 284 :1670–2, at 1670. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

20. See Curry SH. Why have so many drugs with stellar results in laboratory stroke models failed in clinical trials? A theory based on allometric relationships. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2003;993:69–74. See also Dirnagl U. Bench to bedside: The quest for quality in experimental stroke research . Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism 2006; 26 :1465–78 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

21. van der Worp HB, Howells DW, Sena ES, Poritt MJ, Rewell S, O’Collins V, et al. Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies? PLoS Medicine 2010; 7 :e1000245. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

22. See note 20, Dirnagl 2006. See also Sena E, van der Worp B, Howells D, Macleod M. How can we improve the pre-clinical development of drugs for stroke? Trends in Neurosciences 2007; 30 :433–9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

23. See Gawrylewski A. The trouble with animal models: Why did human trials fail? The Scientist 2007;21:44. See also Fisher M, Feuerstein G, Howells DW, Hurn PD, Kent TA, Savitz SI, et al. Update of the stroke therapy academic industry roundtable preclinical recommendations . Stroke 2009; 40 :2244–50. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

24. See note 23, Gawrylewski 2007. There is some dispute as to how vigorously investigators adhered to the suggested criteria. Nevertheless, NXY-059 animal studies were considered an example of preclinical studies that most faithfully adhered to the STAIR criteria. For further discussion see also Wang MM, Guohua X, Keep RF. Should the STAIR criteria be modified for preconditioning studies? Translational Stroke Research 2013; 4 :3–14 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

25. See note 24, Wang et al. 2013.

26. O’Collins VE, Macleod MR, Donnan GA, Horky LL, van der Worp BH, Howells DW. 1,026 experimental treatments in acute stroke . Annals of Neurology 2006; 59 :467–7 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

27. See note 5, Mak et al. 2014.

28. See note 5, Mak et al. 2014.

29. See Perrin S. Preclinical research: Make mouse studies work . Nature 2014; 507 :423–5 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also, generally, Wilkins HM, Bouchard RJ, Lorenzon NM, Linseman DA. Poor correlation between drug efficacies in the mutant SOD1 mouse mode versus clinical trials of ALS necessitates the development of novel animal models for sporadic motor neuron disease. In: Costa A, Villalba E, eds. Horizons in Neuroscience Research. Vol. 5. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science; 2011:1–39.

30. Traynor BJ, Bruijn L, Conwit R, Beal F, O’Neill G, Fagan SC, et al. Neuroprotective agents for clinical trials in ALS: A systematic assessment . Neurology 2006; 67 :20–7 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

31. Sinha G. Another blow for ALS . Nature Biotechnology 2013; 31 :185 [ Google Scholar ] . See also note 30, Traynor et al. 2006.

32. See Morales DM, Marklund N, Lebold D, Thompson HJ, Pitkanen A, Maxwell WL, et al. Experimental models of traumatic brain injury: Do we really need a better mousetrap? Neuroscience 2005; 136 :971–89 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also Xiong YE, Mahmood A, Chopp M. Animal models of traumatic brain injury . Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2013; 14 :128–42 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . And see commentary by Farber: Farber N. Drug development in brain injury. International Brain Injury Association ; available at http://www.internationalbrain.org/articles/drug-development-in-traumatic-brain-injury/ (last accessed 7 Dec 2014).

33. Maas AI, Roozenbeek B, Manley GT. Clinical trials in traumatic brain injury: Past experience and current developments . Neurotherapeutics 2010; 7 :115–26. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

34. Schneider LS, Mangialasche F, Andreasen N, Feldman H, Giacobini E, Jones R, et al. Clinical trials and late-stage drug development in Alzheimer’s disease: An appraisal from 1984 to 2014 . Journal of Internal Medicine 2014; 275 :251–83 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

35. Seok J, Warren HS, Cuenca AG, Mindrinos MN, Baker HV, Xu W, et al. Genomic responses in mouse models poorly mimic human inflammatory diseases . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 2013; 110 :3507–12. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

36. Palfreyman MG, Charles V, Blander J. The importance of using human-based models in gene and drug discovery . Drug Discovery World 2002. Fall:33–40 [ Google Scholar ] .

37. See note 2, Perel et al. 2007.

38. Harding A. More compounds failing phase I. The Scientist 2004 Sept 13; available at http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/23003/title/More-compounds-failing-Phase-I/ (last accessed 2 June 2014).

39. See note 5, Pippin 2013.

40. See note 5, Hartung, Zurlo 2012.

41. Wiebers DO, Adams HP, Whisnant JP. Animal models of stroke: Are they relevant to human disease? Stroke 1990; 21 :1–3. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

42. See note 15, Akhtar et al. 2008.

43. See note 2, Akhtar et al. 2009.

44. Lonjon N, Prieto M, Haton H, Brøchner CB, Bauchet L, Costalat V, et al. Minimum information about animal experiments: Supplier is also important . Journal of Neuroscience Research 2009; 87 :403–7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

45. Mogil JS, Wilson SG, Bon K, Lee SE, Chung K, Raber P, et al. Heritability of nociception I: Responses of 11 inbred mouse strains on 12 measures of nociception . Pain 1999; 80 :67–82. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

46. Tator H, Hashimoto R, Raich A, Norvell D, Fehling MG, Harrop JS, et al. Translational potential of preclinical trials of neuroprotection through pharmacotherapy for spinal cord injury . Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine 2012; 17 :157–229. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

47. See note 35, Seok et al. 2013, at 3507.

48. Odom DT, Dowell RD, Jacobsen ES, Gordon W, Danford TW, MacIsaac KD, et al. Tissue-specific transcriptional regulation has diverged significantly between human and mouse . Nature Genetics 2007; 39 :730–2 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

49. Horrobin DF. Modern biomedical research: An internally self-consistent universe with little contact with medical reality? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2003; 2 :151–4. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

50. Vassilopoulous S, Esk C, Hoshino S, Funke BH, Chen CY, Plocik AM, et al. A role for the CHC22 clathrin heavy-chain isoform in human glucose metabolism . Science 2009; 324 :1192–6. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

51. See Guttman-Yassky E, Krueger JG. Psoriasis: Evolution of pathogenic concepts and new therapies through phases of translational research . British Journal of Dermatology 2007; 157 :1103–15 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also The mouse model: Less than perfect, still invaluable. Johns Hopkins Medicine ; available at http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/institute_basic_biomedical_sciences/news_events/articles_and_stories/model_organisms/201010_mouse_model.html (last accessed 10 Dec 2014). See note 23, Gawrylewski 2007. See note 2, Benatar 2007. See note 29, Perrin 2014 and Wilkins et al. 2011. See Cavanaugh S, Pippin J, Barnard N. Animal models of Alzheimer disease: Historical pitfalls and a path forward. ALTEX online first; 2014 Apr 10. And see Woodroofe A, Coleman RA. ServiceNote: Human tissue research for drug discovery . Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News 2007; 27 :18 [ Google Scholar ] .

52. Lane E, Dunnett S. Animal models of Parkinson’s disease and L-dopa induced dyskinesia: How close are we to the clinic? Psychopharmacology 2008; 199 :303–12. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

53. See note 52, Lane, Dunnett 2008.

54. See note 5, Pippin 2013.

55. Bailey J. An assessment of the role of chimpanzees in AIDS vaccine research . Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 2008; 36 :381–428. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

56. Tonks A. The quest for the AIDs vaccine . BMJ 2007; 334 :1346–8 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

57. Johnston MI, Fauci AS. An HIV vaccine—evolving concepts . New England Journal of Medicine 2007; 356 :2073–81. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

58. See Rossouw JE, Andersen GL, Prentice RL, LaCroix AZ, Kooperberf C, Stefanick ML, et al. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy menopausal women: Principle results from the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial . JAMA 2002; 288 :321–33 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also Andersen GL, Limacher A, Assaf AR, Bassford T, Beresford SA, Black H, et al. Effects of conjugated equine estrogen in postmenopausal women with hysterectomy: The Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial . JAMA 2004; 291 :1701–12 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

59. Lemere CA. Developing novel immunogens for a safe and effective Alzheimer’s disease vaccine . Progress in Brain Research 2009; 175 :83. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

60. Allen A. Of mice and men: The problems with animal testing. Slate 2006 June 1; available at http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2006/06/of_mice_or_men.html (last accessed 10 Dec 2014).

61. Attarwala H. TGN1412: From discovery to disaster . Journal of Young Pharmacists 2010; 2 :332–6 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

62. See Hogan RJ. Are nonhuman primates good models for SARS? PLoS Medicine 2006; 3 :1656–7 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also Bailey J. Non-human primates in medical research and drug development: A critical review . Biogenic Amines 2005; 19 :235–55. [ Google Scholar ]

63. See note 4, Wall, Shani 2008.

64. Lemon R, Dunnett SB. Surveying the literature from animal experiments: Critical reviews may be helpful—not systematic ones . BMJ 2005; 330 :977–8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

65. Roberts I, Kwan I, Evans P, Haig S. Does animal experimentation inform human health care? Observations from a systematic review of international animal experiments on fluid resuscitation . BMJ 2002; 324 :474–6 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

66. See note 60,Allen 2006. See also Heywood R. Target organ toxicity . Toxicology Letters 1981; 8 :349–58 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See Fletcher AP. Drug safety tests and subsequent clinical experience . Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 1978; 71 :693–6. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

67. See note 60, Allen 2006. See note 5, Pippin 2013. See also Greek R, Greek J. Animal research and human disease . JAMA 2000; 283 :743–4 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

68. See note 60, Allen 2006. See also note 5, Leist, Hartung 2013.

69. Food and Drug Administration. Development & approval process (drugs); available at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/ (last accessed 7 Dec 2014). See also http://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm143534.htm (last accessed 7 Dec 2014).

70. Drug discovery pipeline. IRSF; available at http://www.rettsyndrome.org/research-programs/programmatic-overview/drug-discovery-pipeline (last accessed 24 Sept 2014).

71. See note 60, Allen 2006.

72. Follow the yellow brick road. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2003;2:167, at 167.

73. See note 5, Pippin 2013.

74. For data on aspirin, see Hartung T. Per aspirin as astra … Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 2009; 37 (Suppl 2 ):45–7 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also note 5, Pippin 2013. For data on penicillin, see Koppanyi T, Avery MA. Species differences and the clinical trial of new drugs: A review . Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1966; 7 :250–70 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also Schneierson SS, Perlman E. Toxicity of penicillin for the Syrian hamster . Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 1956; 91 :229–30. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

75. See note 67, Greek, Greek 2000.

76. Oral bioavailability of blockbuster drugs in humans and animals. PharmaInformatic . available at http://www.pharmainformatic.com/html/blockbuster_drugs.html (last accessed 19 Sept 2014).

77. Sams-Dodd F. Strategies to optimize the validity of disease models in the drug discovery process . Drug Discovery Today 2006; 11 :355–63 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

78. Zurlo J. No animals harmed: Toward a paradigm shift in toxicity testing . Hastings Center Report 2012;42. Suppl:s23–6 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

79. There is no direct analysis of the amount of money spent on animal testing versus alternatives across all categories; however, in 2008 the Chronicle of Higher Education reported that funding of research involving animals (under basic research) of the National Institute of Health (NIH) remained steady at about 42 percent since 1990. See Monastersky R. Protesters fail to slow animal research. Chronicle of Higher Education 2008:54. In 2012, NIH director Francis Collins noted that the NIH’s support for basic research has held steady at 54 percent of the agency’s budget for decades. The remainder of the NIH’s budget is heavily funded toward clinical research, suggesting that preclinical human-based testing methods are much less funded. See also Wadman M. NIH director grilled over translational research centre. Nature News Blog 2012 Mar 20. Available at http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/03/nih-director-grilled-over-translational-research-center.html (last accessed 5 Mar 2015). There is no data that suggests that the NIH’s funding of animal experimentation has decreased. A 2010 analysis estimates that at least 50 percent of the NIH’s extramural funding is directed into animal research; see Greek R, Greek J. Is the use of sentient animals in basic research justifiable? Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2010; 5 :14 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

80. For a helpful discussion on animal pain, fear, and suffering, see DeGrazia D. Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Lives and Moral Status . New York: Cambridge University Press; 1996:116–23. [ Google Scholar ]

81. See Akhtar A. Animals and Public Health: Why Treating Animals Better Is Critical to Human Welfare . Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012:chap. 5.

Cruelty Free International

subtitle: Working to create a world where no animals suffer in a laboratory

breadcrumb navigation:

• About Animal Testing /
• current page Arguments against animal testing

Arguments against animal testing

Animal experiments are cruel, unreliable, and even dangerous

The harmful use of animals in experiments is not only cruel but also often ineffective. Animals do not naturally get many of the diseases that humans do, such as major types of heart disease, many types of cancer, HIV, Parkinson’s disease or schizophrenia. Instead, signs of these diseases are artificially induced in animals in laboratories in an attempt to mimic the human disease. Yet, such experiments belittle the complexity of human conditions which are affected by wide-ranging variables such as genetics, socio-economic factors, deeply-rooted psychological issues and different personal experiences.

It is not surprising to find that treatments showing “promise” in animals rarely work in humans.  Not only are time, money and animals’ lives being wasted (with a huge amount of suffering), but effective treatments are being mistakenly discarded and harmful treatments are getting through. The support for animal testing is based largely on anecdote and is not backed up, we believe, by the scientific evidence that is out there.

Despite many decades of studying cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, stroke and AIDS in animals, none of these conditions have reliable and fully effective cures and some don’t even have effective treatments.

The history of cancer research has been the history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades and it simply didn’t work in human beings.

Unreliable animal testing

• 92% of drugs fail in human clinical trials despite appearing safe and effective in animal tests, often on safety grounds or because they do not work.
• Urology drugs have the lowest success rate (only 4% are approved after entering clinical trials) followed by heart drugs (5% success rate), cancer drugs (5% success rate) and neurology drugs (6% success rate).
• Our research has shown that using dogs, rats, mice and rabbits to test whether or not a drug will be safe for humans provides statistically little useful insight. Our study also revealed that drug tests on monkeys are just as poor as those using any other species in predicting the effects on humans.
• A recent study found that out of 93 dangerous drug side effects, only 19% could have been predicted by animal tests.
• Another study showed that over 1,000 potential stroke treatments have been “successful” in animal tests, but of the approximately 10% that progressed to human trials, none worked sufficiently well in humans.
• One review of 101 high impact discoveries based on basic animal experiments found that only 5% resulted in approved treatments within 20 years. More recently, we conducted an analysis of 27 key animal-based ‘breakthroughs ’ that had been reported by the UK press 25 years earlier. Mirroring the earlier study, we found only one of the 27 “breakthroughs” had been realised in humans, and that was subject to several caveats.

Dangerous animal testing

• Vioxx, a drug used to treat arthritis, was found to be safe when tested in monkeys (and five other animal species) but has been estimated to have caused around 140,000 heart attacks and strokes and 60,000 deaths worldwide.
• Human volunteers testing a new monoclonal antibody treatment (TGN1412) at Northwick Park Hospital, UK, in 2006 suffered a severe immune reaction and nearly died. Testing on monkeys at 500 times the dose given to the volunteers totally failed to predict the dangerous side effects.
• A drug trial in France resulted in the death of one volunteer and left four others severely brain damaged in 2016. The drug, which was intended to treat a wide range of conditions including anxiety and Parkinson’s disease, was tested in four different species of animals (mice, rats, dogs and monkeys) before being given to humans.
• A clinical trial of Hepatitis B drug fialuridine had to be stopped because it caused severe liver damage in seven patients, five of whom died. It had been tested on animals first.

Animals are different

• Animals do not get many of the diseases we do, such as Parkinson’s disease, major types of heart disease, many types of cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, HIV or schizophrenia.
• An analysis of over 100 mouse cell types found that only 50% of the DNA responsible for regulating genes in mice could be matched with human DNA.
• The most commonly used species of monkey to test drug safety (Cynomolgous macaque monkeys) is resistant to doses of paracetamol (acetaminophen) that would be deadly in humans.
• Chocolate, grapes, raisins, avocados and macadamia nuts are harmless in humans but toxic to dogs.
• Aspirin is toxic to many animals and would not be on our pharmacy shelves if it had been tested according to current animal testing standards.

The science relating to animal experiments can be extremely complicated and views often differ. What appears on this website represents Cruelty Free International expert opinion, based on a thorough assessment of the evidence.

FIND OUT MORE ABOUT ANIMAL TESTING

Alternatives to animal tests are often cheaper, quicker and more effective.

Alternatives to animal testing

subtitle: Alternatives to animal tests are often cheaper, quicker and more effective.

Science Page

Established in 1898, Cruelty Free International is firmly rooted in the early social justice movement and has a long and inspiring history.

Our History

subtitle: Established in 1898, Cruelty Free International is firmly rooted in the early social justice movement and has a long and inspiring history.

Millions of animals are used and killed in the name of progress every year.

Facts and figures on animal testing

subtitle: Millions of animals are used and killed in the name of progress every year.

Animals used in laboratories are deliberately harmed, not for their own good, and are usually killed at the end of the experiment.

What is animal testing?

subtitle: Animals used in laboratories are deliberately harmed, not for their own good, and are usually killed at the end of the experiment.

Animal testing is carried out in a wide range of areas, including biological research, and testing medicines and chemicals.

Types of animal testing

subtitle: Animal testing is carried out in a wide range of areas, including biological research, and testing medicines and chemicals.

Science Publications