Critical Evaluation: Advantages & Disadvantages of Animal Testing

This essay examines the contentious issue of animal testing, exploring its methodologies, advantages, and disadvantages. It highlights the ethical concerns surrounding inhumane treatment and questions the reliability of extrapolating animal experimental results to human biology due to physiological and genetic differences. The essay cites examples of failed drug trials and species-specific reactions to substances, emphasizing the limitations of animal models. While acknowledging the role of animal testing in advancing scientific understanding and developing treatments, it also underscores the need for alternative approaches that more accurately mimic human systems. The conclusion advocates for a balanced perspective, recognizing the shared experiences of pain and suffering between animals and humans, while acknowledging the ongoing debate about the ethics and effectiveness of animal experimentation. Desklib offers a range of similar essays and study resources for students.

Animal
testing

Table of Contents
Introduction..................................................................................................................................3
Methodology................................................................................................................................3
Advantages and disadvantages of animal testing........................................................................3
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................3
Would you appreciate it or not?...................................................................................................3
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................4

Introduction
Animal experimentation is not only harsh, but it is also frequently useless. Many human
diseases, also including major related to heart disease, many types of cancer, HIV, Parkinson's
disease, and schizophrenia, do not affect animals (Garattini and Grignaschi, 2017). In order to
replicate the human sickness, indications of these diseases are artificially produced in animals in
laboratories. Such trials, however, minimise the complexity of human conditions, which are
influenced by a wide range of elements such as heredity, socioeconomic considerations, deep-
seated psychological difficulties, and a variety of life experiences.
Methodology
Laboratory protocols and environments have uncontrollable effects on animal biology, which can
have an impact on study outcomes. Animals in laboratories are kept in artificial surroundings for
the duration of their life, usually in windowless chambers (Madden and et.al, 2020). Captivity
and sharing of common of scientific experiments, such as artificial illumination, life form noises,
and confined housing settings, might prohibit animals from exhibiting species-typical
behaviours, resulting in unhappiness and deviant behaviour.
Results
The study also found that drug experiments on monkeys are just as bad at predicting the effects
on people as tests on any other species. Only 19 percent of 93 serious drug side effects could
have been predicted by animal experiments, according to a new study. Only around 10% of over
1,000 putative stroke therapies that had been deemed "effective" in animal research moved to
human trials. None of them functioned well enough in humans (Sreedhar and et.al, 2020). 90%
of medications fail in human trials despite passing preclinical tests (including animal tests) -
either because they are unsafe or because they are ineffective. Cancer treatments have the lowest
success rate (only 5% of them are approved after going through clinical trials), followed by
psychiatry drugs (6%), heart therapies (7%), and neurology drugs (8%). (8 percent success rate).
According to our findings, using dogs, rats, mice, and rabbits to determine whether or not a
medicine is safe for people delivers little statistically useful information. Many disease affecting
humans, such as Parkinson's disease, major types of heart disease, many cancer types, Vascular
dementia, HIV, and insanity, do not affect animals.

Only about a third of the compounds that have been linked to cancer in humans have also been
linked to cancer in animals.
Only 50% of the DNA responsible for controlling genes in mice could be linked with human
DNA, according to a study of over 100 mouse cell types.
The most often utilised monkey species for drug testing (Cynomolgous macaque monkeys) are
sensitive to tylenol (acetaminophen) levels that would kill humans.
Chocolate, grapes, raisins, avocados, and macadamia nuts are all OK for humans, yet they are
poisonous to dogs.
Advantages and disadvantages of animal testing
Advantages - It would be difficult for researchers to make an educated judgement about the
safety of cosmetics if animal testing was forbidden (Wilkinson, 2019). As you can see, this
strategy allows developers to experiment and learn more about how to provide consumers with
the greatest products available. Even if animals do not have the same chemical makeup as
humans, it will suffice for scientists to utilise on testing to understand how beauty products will
operate on people. While this procedure has some inherent limitations, it is currently the best
option until medical technology advances further. Statewide rules and standards govern animal
research, as does the 1966 Animal Health Act (AWA), which establishes minimum habitation
standards for lab animals and conducts veterinarian inspections on a daily basis. Furthermore,
any proposals incorporating the use of animals in experiments must be approved by the
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), which was established by the research
labs.
Disadvantages - It's very likely that animals will be subjected to inhumane treatment during the
testing, such as restraint. The Draize Test is a good illustration of this, in which the test rabbits'
eyelids are pulled back for at least three days during the test, causing them pain and anguish.
Animal testing has received a great deal of criticism due of this component, not just in the United
Kingdom, but around the world. Though there are certain painless experiments in which animals
are returned back where they were removed afterward, this is not always the case in all studies.
Keep in mind that some animals are murdered right after each experiment, while others suffer
from chemical poisoning or injuries, causing them to spend the rest of their lives in captivity.

Animal testing isn't cheap, considering the cost of providing care, food, and shelter for the
animals used in the experiments. Furthermore, the operation is frequently carried out over a
period of several months, resulting in additional costs. The animals actually are frequently
purchased for testing and then they are killed.
Conclusion
Laboratory protocols and environments have uncontrollable effects on animal biology, which can
have an impact on study outcomes. Animals in laboratories are kept in artificial surroundings for
the duration of their life, usually in windowless chambers. Captivity and sharing of common of
scientific experiments, such as artificial illumination, life form noises, and confined housing
settings, might prohibit animals from exhibiting species-typical behaviours, resulting in
unhappiness and deviant behaviour. It is becoming increasingly clear that extrapolating animal
experimental results to human biology and disorders is unreliable. Animals and humans share
many biological and psychological features, most notably the shared experiences of pain, fear,
and suffering. 80 Evidence, on the other hand, shows that major physiological and genetic
distinctions between humans and other animals invalidate the use of animals to research human
diseases, therapies, medications, and other topics. In the vast majority of biomes, animal models
in particular, and animal experiments in general, provide insufficient basis for forecasting
therapeutic outcomes in humans.
Would you appreciate it or not?
I think Animals must be used in research in order for scientists to create novel medications and
cures. Scientists' grasp of human biology and health has vastly increased thanks to the use of
animals in the lab. Animal models are used to test the efficacy and safety of experimental
medicines. Alternative study approaches do not accurately imitate persons and full bodily
systems and are not as dependable.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Chapman, M., Long Live the Animals: Animal Testing Ends Now. Analog, p.21.
Garattini, S. and Grignaschi, G., 2017. Animal testing is still the best way to find new treatments
for patients. European journal of internal medicine, 39, pp.32-35.
Madden, J.C., and et.al, 2020. A review of in silico tools as alternatives to animal testing:
principles, resources and applications. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 48(4), pp.146-172.
Sreedhar, D. and et.al, 2020. Ban of cosmetic testing on animals: a brief overview. International
Journal of Current Research and Review, 12(14), p.113.
Wilkinson, M., 2019. The potential of organ on chip technology for replacing animal testing.
In Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change (pp. 639-653). Brill.