Argument Against Animal Research

673 Words3 Pages
It is without doubt that animal research has had profound implications such as novel medical research and technology [1]. However, on the sidelines of research the general public has strayed away from the unethical and controversial methodologies used by various experiments [2]. In this review, an array of refuting points will be discussed against animal experimentation such as; inconsistencies/unreliable, misled conclusions, wasted focus, money and time [4]. Furthermore, the innovative findings of peculiar medicines and the prospects of examining the correlation between animal and human diseases will not go unnoted [1]. The first point refuting the use of animals in experimental research is the inconsistencies of animal to human results and conclusions. An example of this is tobacco research, in the 1960s various studies concluded that forced inhalation of cigarette smoke did not cause cancer in animals [4]. On the other hand, a researcher by the name of Dr. Donald B. Effler stated that animal experiments lack support to indicate a smoking-cancer link in humans due to inconsistencies [4]. After…show more content…
One example is the use of computer models determining the carcinogenic properties of various substances with algorithms [4]. In comparison to animals, these computer algorithms can determine the efficiency or toxicity of compounds within days instead of years [3][4]. Another alternative advancement in replacing animals for research is the use of human cancer cells suspended in standardized cell cultures [4]. These cancer cells are mainly biopsies derived from several cancer surgeries that are then cultured and tested against an array of experimental medicine [4]. Additionally, the use of these cancer cell cultures is accurate, effective, relatively cost efficient, and are derived from humans rather than animals

More about Argument Against Animal Research

Open Document