Is animal testing accurate?

Answer 1

How could it be? Different species are susceptible to different forms of disease, and environmental pollutants, besides having exclusive differences in genetic profiles. If the testing is to benefit people then the testing should be done on people... with full consent of course.

Answer 2

Animal testing for what?

Animal testing to see if some compound is toxic -- sure. If I give a dose of poison to a rat to see if it will kill the rat, and the rat dies, then the result is 100% accurate.

If I dose a rat with a herbicide to see if the herbicide will kill a plant, and the rat dies, then it means that the herbicide is toxic to rats, but doesn't tell me a thing aobut whether it kills plants or not.

So the design of the experiment is crucial.

Now, if you want to know if animal testing is a valid method for determining human toxicity, then there is some debate. Not all animals have the same metabolisms as humans. In fact, some animals are better than others for toxicity testing. In some cases mice are preferred, in some cases rats, in other cases rabbits, yet other cases pigs -- it varies tremendously.

However, let's consider the alternative: could we do human toxicity testing on plants? What would that tell us? It would be as invalid as the use of animals to test herbicidal activity. Toxicity testing on dirt? Right. Computer simulations? No way. Toxicity testing on humans? Sure, try and get THAT past the ethics boards and Congress.

So how do we test for toxicity or effectiveness of something meant to affect humans without some animal testing? Would you take a new antibiotic just because some PhD somewhere SAID his new compound would cure cancer? How does he know? Where's his proof?

Answer 3

Its all relative! With animals large test groups can be fairly well-controlled, so the environments of all subjects are similar and it is easier to test the one varible being tested-rather than introducing all the varibles of diet, exercise, work habits and conditions, home conditions, smoking,and the list goes on of the not-so-average American.
Mas que nada! Its better than not being able to do research and never finding the cure because there aren't enough test "subjects" to do the toxicity screening that the FDA requires for approval because... most of the test subjects die. Human life is valued higher than animals-and that's the way it should be.
How many things have been pulled from the market after family folks used it and an unknown side effect was heart attack or stroke? How do you explain to the families that the vitamin or prescription that their mommy or daddy used wasn't properly tested? Talk about price of prescriptions...how many lawsuits are avoided because animals test out the drugs before human testing begins.
How can we tell if something kills cancer-unless we have a tissue sample to test it out on? How can we estimate a dose for a 150lb human -just a guess? or start at ineffective, non-beneficial levels on people not knowing if it is effective or toxic and gradually increase it until family members die...not from the cancer, but from the drugs attempting to cure them??
How could researchers study formations of plaque on brains of Alzheimer's patents? AIDS research? Genetics? Food dyes? Artificial sweeteners?? The MSDS safety data sheets for the compounds many of us handle on a day-to-day basis-whether you work in a supermarket or a gas station?!? Diet pills? Lotions (lucky little rats-wish I got a hot lab lady to massage me several times a day)!

Thinking of drug testing....hmmm...I just came up with an idea for curing stupidity as a result of over-empathetic responses to animals....but I don't know how much arsenic it would take to fix the problem. Ohhh..it wouldn't be right to use an animal in this case-that just won't work! Any volunteers??

As for me, I'll let a little rat try it out first, but you are welcome to sign up for the human test trials.

Answer 4

It's closer to human responses than say testing on plants or telephones. Mammals are closer to humans than other species. it's not perfect because humans are a little different. Just because something stops cancer in rats does not mean it will work in humans. But that's how research gets started. by testing on animals. And when you want there to be acure for cancer you are kind of accepting that. And by the way eating meat means animals were intentionally killed with no pain medicine. Humans treat animals very badly.

Answer 5

Using animals as test subjects is still the best way to predict how humans will react to new drugs, surgical techniques, etc. It will - it MUST - continue.

For information from an enlightened source, don't trust terrorist orgainzations like PETA - take a look at the ProTest website. That should clear up any misinformation you might have been fed:

http://www.pro-test.org.uk/

Answer 6

It is only as accurate as the sterile environment and lab techinicians make it.

Having worked in a facility where they developed vaccines, I can tell you several things---human's aren't perfect, and test results can be manually altered, if misread or temperature changes fluctuate in the environment because of poor building maintenance. Having said that, they are the closest test results scientist can depend on in order to develop vaccines.

Answer 7

testing on animals is totally inhumane, and no , is not accurate. The animals can't give feedback except for pain, which is just sickening.

Answer 8

dont understand what you are really asking, but animal testing is horrible on the animals, go watch videos on www.peta.org/

Answer 9

GUESS WHAT A SQUARED+ B SQUARED =C SQUARED PYTHAGOREAN THEROM LOOK IT UP

Answer 10

C'MONE ,GROW UP.......NO OTHER OPTION...........