Is Animal Testing Inhumane?

Is animal testing considered inhumane? Should we as humans do anything to stop animal experimentation? These are only a few of the questions asked by several critics everyday of this topic. Every year in the United States, about seventy million animals are tortured and killed due to cosmetic companies, government agencies, educational institutions, and scientific centers. Poor innocent defenseless animals are mistreated badly everyday for the sake of human safety. Many people believe that animal testing is needed because it has played a vital part in medical research, but those people don’t realize that our advancements in technology have created new methods that can be used instead of animal experimentation. Lab experimentation involving

Animal testing implies the use of animals in experiments or scientific research for practical aims. According to Rachel Hajar, a cardiologist in Qatar, animal experimentation is known to be dated back to early Greek years when physician scientists, such as Aristotle and Erasistratus, conducted experiments on living animals (Hajar 42). From then on, other scientists continued to follow in their footsteps in order “to advance the understanding of anatomy, physiology, pathology, and pharmacology (Hajar 42). As scientists continued to undergo their experiments, severe criticism started taking place once many people found animal testing as cruel and unusual punishment. The swift growth in animal experimentation led to the evolution of countless agencies aimed at putting an end to animal cruelty while also sharing their reason with the public. Abuses of animals during testing have all been publicized and have created a public frenzy in the past couple of years. Animal testing is cruel punishment and several people are aiming to finally end

The only problem is that scientists refuse to take advantage of it because they feel animal research is more reliable. According to Clarence Little, a leading cancer animal experimenter, “many other important medical advances have been delayed because of misleading information derived from animal models (Miller 138). New brought up technology known as Epiderm and Episkin, can imitate human skin cells and the structure of the human skin (ANNA). Researchers can now test on these alternative methods rather than the skin of live rabbits. Another Alternative option to animal testing is called EpiOcular. EpiOcular is used to form an almost exact replica of the human cornea. This method has the opportunity to end rabbit eye irritancy test by closely resembling the way a real eye reacts to harmful substances. All of these tests have been proven to be useful and reliable alternatives to testing products on live animals. Therefore, because effective means of product toxicity testing are available without the use of live animal specimens, testing potentially deadly substances on animals is