A baby bunny that is getting medicine poured on it.

Photo credit: Shutterstock

The fact that animal testing is cruel and inhumane should be enough to convince people that the practice should be outlawed altogether. But unfortunately, it isn’t. Therefore, this article is centered on arguing from a scientific standpoint why animals should never be used as test subjects.

1. Alternative Testing Methods Are Available

There’s a method available called in vitro (test tube) testing that is more far more accurate than animal testing since human cells and tissues are used. And don’t worry—no humans are harmed in the process. A sample of skin or cells are taken and studied on a micro level, such as in a petri dish.

In addition to this type of testing, there is another method available called microdosing. Microdosing is when tiny doses of pharmaceuticals are applied to human subjects. But again, don’t worry. The doses are so small that they don’t cause any adverse reactions.

Lastly, there are artificial human organs that are currently in development that can recreate the functions of the human body. This technology allows computer models to report on the toxicity of the substance without harming humans or animals.

2. Animal Tests Are Expensive… More Expensive Than Alternative Methods

According to Humane Society International, animal testing is actually more expensive than alternative methods that are currently available in the marketplace. For example, researchers found that an “unscheduled DNA synthesis” animal test costs $32,000. But an in vitro test only costs $11,000. Furthermore, a “rat phototoxicity test” amounts to $11,500. But the non-animal equivalent only costs $1,300. These are the kinds of figures that lead up to astronomical long-term savings.

3. Animals Are Not Accurate Test Subject

Because our biological makeup is so different than that of animals, they make for poor test subjects. In fact, 94% of pharmaceuticals that pass animal tests will fail during human clinical trials. A 2013 study published in the Archives of Toxicology concluded that, “The low predictivity of animal experiments in research areas allowing direct comparisons of mouse versus human data puts strong doubt on the usefulness of animal data as key technology to predict human safety.”

This growing body of evidence supports the notion that animals are not feasible test subjects. As such, the practice itself should be banned.

About 

Sarah is a freelance writer with a wide variety of interests, including international relations, politics, education, humanitarianism, women's rights, yoga, mental and physical health, and natural remedies.