Financial Issues:

Now since a lot of testing on animals is required to eventually produce a product, that is viable for use
among humans, large sums of money must be spent. The tests consume time, animal lives and money
so much so that "Some animal tests take months or years to conduct and analyze (e.g., 4-5 years, in the
case of rodent cancer studies), at a cost of hundreds of thousands—and sometimes millions—of dollars
per substance examined (e.g., $2 to $4 million per two-species lifetime cancer study)". This potentially
hinders the progress of testing since there are allocated budgets within which testing must take place.
Thus, potential cures could be missed out which totally undermines the purpose of testing animals in
the first place. And even after spending so much money the testing does not always come to fruition
which means a lot of money wasted which could have been allocated elsewhere. For example in the US
"According to an analysis of government data, the National Institutes of Health spends between $12
billion and nearly $14.5 billion on animal testing every year" (Bastasch). "$14.5 billion could provide a lot
of tax relief for Americans. It could help pay down the national debt or help prevent a shutdown," says
Anthony Bellotti, founder and executive director of the watchdog group, White Coat Waste Project.
"Instead, it's paying for experiments in which small dogs are forced to run on treadmills until they have
heart attacks at schools…" (Bastasch). This example has been verified in PETA article "Tax payer money
wasted annually animal testing" which states that $500,000 are used in induction of heart attacks in
dogs along with the fact that even after testing them on animals, 92% still fail in human beings begging
the question that if the method is not working, why is it allowed to continue? Even though the DNA of
humans and chimpanzees or mice may match, that is not enough evidence to allow testing on animals
worth billions only for them to fail on the actual subjects being tested for.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/05/feds-spend-up-to-14-5-billion-annually-on-animal-testing/

Cruel:

However, no matter what how successful animal testing has been the fact that animals are being put
through inhumane treatment is very cruel. These treatments include food deprivation, irradiation,
burning of skin or fur and testing medicine or cosmetics to see how they might potentially affect
humans. This cosmetic testing includes "The Draize eye test, used by cosmetics companies to evaluate
irritation caused by shampoos and other products, involves rabbits being incapacitated in stocks with
their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for multiple days, so they cannot blink away the products
being tested". Animals are put through tests that are excruciatingly painful and still there is nothing
done to lessen some of the pain they endure. "In 2010 the US department of agriculture reported that
around 97000 animals suffered in pain during experimentation while being given no anaesthesia". Other
times animals are even killed via horrible methods such as Carbon dioxide asphyxiation and more
commonly neck breaking. After suffering this horrible treatment there is still a possibility that the
substances these animals were tested for will not be of any benefit to humans since that substance
might not even get approval, hence animals are killed in vain. Although laws have been passed which
protect animals these laws do not apply to most of the animals that are tested. The animal welfare act
that was passed to protect animal rights "is limited to warm-blooded animals, and it does not cover
many of those – most notably excluding mice, rats, and birds, which along with fish make up 95 percent
of the animals used in research" ("US law and animal research"). Even if animals are treated better at
testing facilities and the unnecessary testing is cut out they are still injected with infections to form
drugs and see their progress which is painful and in some cases fatal.

http://animalresearch.thehastingscenter.org/u-s-law-and-animal-research/

Genetically Similar:

Humans and animals are very much alike. Not only is their Genetic makeup like that of humans but
some of their physiological pathways also follow the same route as humans. A prime example that
exhibits the similarity in genome of animals and humans is the chimpanzee which shares about 99% of
its genetic material with Humans while same is the case for mice as "About 99 percent of genes in
humans have counterparts in the mouse … Eighty percent have identical, one-to-one counterparts " said
Eric Lander, Director of the Whitehead Institute Center for Genomic Research in Cambridge,
Massachusetts (Walton, CNN). Having similar Genetic makeup means that Humans and these animals
behave in the same way at a cellular level thus they behave similarly to in response to certain stimuli.
These stimuli include certain bacteria and viruses which follow the same pathway in both the species
and attack the same specific sites. "Rats and mice are mammals that share many processes with humans
and are appropriate for use to answer many research questions," said Jenny Haliski, a representative for
the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (Melina). As Humans and
mice share almost 90 percent of the human DNA, Mice are currently used in genetic research to test
gene replacement, and gene therapy because they have similar gene types to those of humans and will
have similar reactions to diseases and disease processes. Nowadays, Scientists can now easily breed
genetically-altered mice that are known as "transgenic mice" that can carry genes that are like those
that cause diseases in humans. This information is used to study how and where those pathogens will
attack if they enter humans. Due to this, it is easier to make drugs that can counter those pathogens.
The drugs are also tested on animals and seen how effective they are in neutralising the pathogens
before making them safe to use among humans.

http://www.livescience.com/32860-why-do-medical-researchers-use-mice.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/04/coolsc.coolsc.mousegenome/

Ineffective drugs:

Apart from the ethical implications, there are other concerns which render using animals as test subjects
useless. The drugs that are produced from animals are often ineffective even though they yielded
positive results in animals. "94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials". This is
because no matter how similar the animal genome is to human genome the tiniest differences account
for changes in the way animals react to certain drugs in comparison to humans. As a result, the drugs
can actually cause harmful effects in humans that may even turn out to fatal. An example is the drug
thalidomide that was given to women who were pregnant to cure their nausea. The drug tested
positively when it was given to mice that were also pregnant however it had adverse effects when it was
given to pregnant women. The children that were born from these women to whom the drug was given
suffered from great deformities. "German paediatricians and geneticists began to see children with
gross limb malformations of a most unusual pattern". These deformities were traced back to the women
who were given Thalidomide and so the drug was discontinued as it had affected several newborn
children and it was reported that "around 10000 children were born with severe deformities". There are
some instances where the difference in genomes causes the drug to test negatively among animals but
eventually be a great success when given to humans. This results in many drugs being shelved or their
production stopped that might potentially be able to cure diseases. "source of human suffering may be
the dozens of promising drugs that get shelved when they cause problems in animals that may not be
relevant for humans." Examples of these include the drug aspirin. It tested negatively in many animal
species however there are minimal side effects in humans. Another example is the drug Lasix which is
"used to reduce fluid retention during heart failure and other diseases. Though experiments in mice
show extensive liver damage, decades of clinical use have proven its safety for humans". This effectively
proves that animal testing is unreliable and inaccurate.

http://www.pcrm.org/research/animaltestalt/animaltesting/dangerous-medicine-examples-of-animal-
based-tests

Testing Successful:

This testing of animals has proven to be very successful as it led to cures and treatments for diseases
that were deemed to be incurable and fatal not only for humans but animals themselves as well. This
has been the major contributing factor in the increase of life expectancy, along with better hygiene and
proper sanitation, in the past century. In the US, "In 1900s the life expectancy on average was 49 years
and in 2004 the average increased to 69.3 years" (Johnson). Life expectancy increase is directly related
to the success of animal testing as fewer people die of diseases such as the common cold. Per the
California Biomedical Research Association "Every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has
directly resulted from research using Animals" ("Why Are Animals Necessary in Biomedical Research?").
From antibiotics to blood transfusions, dialysis to organ transplantation, from vaccinations to
chemotherapy, bypass surgery and joint replacement, practically every present-day protocol for the
prevention, treatment, cure and control of disease, pain and suffering is based on knowledge attained
through research with lab animals.' Examples of these breakthroughs include finding the source that
caused diabetes and then producing a cure for it. It was found that the source of diabetes was the lack
of body's ability to produce insulin completely (Type 1 diabetes) or the body producing too little insulin
(Type 2 diabetes). This discovery was only made when "In 1889, German scientist Oskar Minkowski and
German physician Joseph von Mering removed a pancreas from a dog to prove its role in
digestion…Sugar was found in the dog's urine, proving their connection between diabetes and the
pancreas…" (Johnson). In this way, it was proven that lack of insulin which is produced in the pancreas
was responsible for causing Diabetes. This testing not only benefited humans but animals themselves as
well. Many animals suffered from diseases such as rabies which are now preventable due to vaccines
that were created in animal research labs. "Dogs, cats, sheep, cattle, deer, foxes are also living longer,
happier and healthier lives thanks to vaccines for rabies, distemper, parvo virus (infectious diarrhea),
infectious hepatitis, anthrax, tetanus and feline leukemia" (" The proud achievements of animal research
and the consequences of halting it") . Thus, many animals died and some were even close to extinction,
an example is the black-footed ferret. However, testing on animals helped since cures for these diseases
were found.

http://www.ca-biomed.org/csbr/pdf/fs-whynecessary.pdf

http://ecotek-us.com/JanayJohnson-AnimalBased_Research_and_Curing_Diabetes.pdf

http://www.ca-biomed.org/csbr/pdf/proud.pdf

Invitro:

Considering the financial constraints, ethical issues and inaccuracy of the results obtained from animal
testing there are other better methods available. These procedures are cheaper, far more accurate than
animal testing and eliminate the ethical problems of using animals since no animals are used in these
methods. "Today—because experiments on animals are cruel, expensive, and generally inapplicable to
humans—the world's most forward-thinking scientists have moved on to develop and use methods for
studying diseases and testing products that replace animals and are actually relevant to human health"
("Alternatives to Animal Testing", peta). One of these methods is in vitro testing which involves using
human cells and tissues. Cells and tissues are taken from donors which are grown in cultures and
provided with appropriate nutrients for growth. These cells and tissues then replicate functions of
organs for example skin which is very beneficial for cosmetic industries and it, in turn, replaces the use
of animal test subjects. Cosmetics are then tested on these cultures to check whether the product
created benefits the human skin and to also keep an eye on the side effects such as skin irritation or
rashes. Since this method uses the human cells there is no way that there would be any discrepancies in
the results obtained. Some people argue that these cell cultures cannot replace testing done on a whole
body which has interrelated processes such and blood circulation and signal transmission in nerves
going on all the time and the effects it has on potential drugs and pathogens. However, another cheaper
method is now available to counter this and it's known as computer modelling. The computer mimics
the human physiology and hence provides information on how the drug behaves when it enters the
human body. "Researchers have developed a wide range of sophisticated computer models that
simulate human biology and the progression of developing diseases" ("Alternatives to Animal Testing",
peta). Now both these methods are cheaper in comparison to animal testing as proven by the fact that
"An "unscheduled DNA synthesis" animal test costs $32,000, while the in vitro alternative costs $11,000"
("Costs of Animal and Non-Animal Testing"). Testing on animals cost almost triple as compared to
alternate methods which are far more accurate as well.

Conclusion:
It cannot be argued that animal testing has been successful and has helped to break boundaries in
medical science. Some diseases that killed millions are now curable with a few tablets all thanks to the
tests carried out on animals. Animals themselves have also benefited from it and some species have also
been saved from dying out. However, the fact that animals must suffer through infections from
pathogens just for our sake against their will is undeniable. This treatment cannot be rationalised no
matter how it is presented especially when testing is not even 100% accurate. Most of the time the
drugs produced using animals fail which means not only are animal lives wasted but also a lot of money
and resources are consumed as well. There are cheaper and far more accurate alternatives available
which do not even use animals. If all this is taken into consideration, the claim that animal testing is
justified seems frail at best.