In Vitro Testing Vs Animals Testing

692 Words2 Pages

Skincare products, chemicals, and medicines. What do all of these things have in common? The unfortunate truth is that they are all just a few of the many items that develop from cruelty towards animals. In a 2016 study done by the USDA, it was reported that over 800,000 animals were used for testing just that year, and that animal testing is on the rise. The vast majority of these animals are either harmed or die from testing every year. Why should human’s safety be their suffering, especially when this method of testing has better alternatives? According to the investigation done by The National Research Council of the U.S., there is already an efficient alternative to safely test products without involving animals. The answer to this problem …show more content…

In vitro testing is done by performing lab tests using human cells and tissues. This form of experimentation has already proven itself to be both quicker and less costly than animal testing. The "EpiDerm™" system is one method of in vitro testing that tests primarily for skin irritation. In an article from the Physicians Committee, costs between EpiDerm testing and animal testing were compared. When testing for skin corrosivity, using animals as a test subject cost nearly a thousand dollars more. This price difference is because the animals must be kept in a healthy state up until testing is performed. Shelter and food are primary costs that must be fulfilled throughout the experimentation period. Another in vitro test is "Corrositex," which tests for chemical corrosiveness. This testing claims that while animal testing can take weeks to provide results, Corrositex can take "as little as 3 minutes and no longer than 4 hours." It is stated that "one customer saved up to $50,000 annually" using this form of in vitro testing versus animal testing. Another major benefit of this method is that no animals are …show more content…

There is a belief that in animal testing there is little to no risk for humans. One massive issue that disproves this reasoning is the often forgotten fact that there are various biological differences among species. There have been several cases in which a product has been tested on an animal and had no harm recorded, but caused significant damage to humans. In 2006 an antibody known as "TGN1412" was tested on animal subjects and deemed safe. When a dosage 500 times smaller than what was given to the animal subjects were given to a handful of human volunteers, all subjects ended up in intensive care in with deathly conditions. Multi-organ failure was one outcome of this critical situation. This damaging event could have been avoided if in vitro testing was used

More about In Vitro Testing Vs Animals Testing

Open Document