Around in the world people are fighting to stop animal testing.

It should be stopped
because animals and humans are different species and unlike humans, animals aren’t protected
from the law thus there should be an alternate form of testing, these alternative forms could use
people or human cells as test subjects. Also the impulse the egg can stand, as well as the helmet.
Some people might say that animal testing should be used because it can give new medicine to
help other people, there isn’t an alternative for this kind of testing, and there are laws for animals
made by Animal Welfare Act (AWA), in which regulate the testing on animals. However, the
law does not protect all of the animals that deserve to be protected from testing. Some scientists
are trying to develop new methods using human cells as test subjects. Furthermore, animals and
humans are different in biology, making results unsafe and not entirely applicable to humans.
To begin with, animals are different in biolay than people are. In a Nesale article of ​Issue
Overview: Animal testing​, “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the
development of new medications. It requires that before they can be tested on people, the drug
companies must test them on at least two species of animals to determine if they are
safe.”(Nesale, par 7). Therefore, scientists need two species of animals to know for sure a new
medicine is safe, but even then each animal has different biology. ​In addition a Newsela article
of ​Organ chip technology could one day eradicate the need for animal testing ​provides further
evidence regarding the inefficiency of animal testing. “Drug companies and other types of
researchers who have used animals for pre-human testing have known for a long time that the
tests are not always useful. Often the human reaction to a drug or chemical is going to be
different than the reaction of the animal that was used in the test. ”(​Lawrence, par 7)​. Therefore,
animal testing can lead to faulty results that can harm people, if scientists don’t affirm the results
again.
Another attribute, the laws do not protect all of the animals that they were intended to
protect. In the article History of Animal Testing​, ​“T
​ he AWA defines “animal” as “any live or
dead dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or such other
warm blooded animal.” The AWA excludes birds, rats and mice bred for research, cold-blooded
animals, and farm animals used for food and other purposes.​”(ProCon, par 4) This shows that not
all animals are being protected from the law and can be used in more inhumane experiments
since there are not laws to protect them. Coupled with why the laws do not help all animals is in
a Newsela article of ​Issue Overview: Animal testing​. “​The USDA breaks down its data by three
categories of pain type: animals that experience pain during the research but are given drugs to
alleviate it, animals who experience pain and are not given drugs, animals who do not experience
pain and are not given drugs.”(Nesale, par 6). Likewise, the laws don’t help animals that are
being tested for a specific don’t get medication to help them feel less in pain.
Lastly, scientists are already developing a new testing method that can replace animal
testing. In a Newsela article of ​Organ chip technology could one day eradicate the need for
animal testing,​ “​The theory is that the cells can show the reaction to drugs or chemicals — which
are pumped into the chip — in the same way that a working organ in an animal or human
would.”(Lawrence, par 12). In detail scientists are developing human cell chips that are store in
business size card made out plastic/glass, which would be more humane ways of testing, that can
be more accurate and safe to use. Also in article EMBO Reports. “Furthermore, cell-culture
based tests have considerably reduced the use of rodents in the initial screening of potential new
medicines, while speeding up the process so that 10–20 times the number of compounds can be
screened in the same period. A leading cancer charity, Yorkshire Cancer Research (Harrogate,
UK), funded research into the use of cell cultures to understand better the cellular mechanisms of
prostate cancer—allowing researchers to investigate potential therapies using fewer
animals.”(Festing, par 21) In effect, cell testing is already reducing the numbers of animals used
for testing with much faster results than regular testing can, and can lead scientists using even
less animals in a couple of years.
Those in favor of animal testing would say that animal testing is a necessity because it
helps with new medication and helps tell whether or not a new product is safe to use. The
spokesman of trade association in Europe says, "that consumers in Europe [will not] have access
to new products because we [can not] ensure that some ingredients will be safe without access to
suitable and adequate testing." (tradesman, par 5). This shows that testing on animals is needed
to make sure a product is safe to people to use. However, animals have types of hair/fur, like
texture, thickness, and genetics than human hair is .Even so, this does not show a different
solution of using real human hair to test on shampoo for example. Therefore, animal testing is
not necessary since there are different methods of testing that do not need animals to test if a
product is safe.
Overall, animal testing should be stopped, for a better a future. It can lead to inaccurate
results, which can be very harmful to the people. It also does not protect all of the animals from
harsher experiments, which can happen. Lastly, there is new development of experimentation
without animals, that can replace animal testing. These new methods have proven to be more
accurate and produce less flawed results. Animal testing can be stop when people people can
bring give it time and patients for it.