Is it possible to do animal testing in a humane way on animals?

Question

Or can testing labs use alternatives more but animals only when in dire need?
Do some labs use animals when they could use an alternative?

for medical science

Answer 1

IN medical lab there is a diagnostic test especially in microbiology lab which is called XENOdiagnosis which we will test the reflex of immune systems of animals upon inecting them with human protein (ANTIGEN) or microbes.

Answer 2

"Is it possible to do animal testing in a humane way on animals? Or can testing labs use alternatives more but animals only when in dire need? Do some labs use animals when they could use an alternative?"

Straight up, your answers are no, yes, and yes.

Humane testing on animals is defined as whatever the law says it is in your jurisdiction. To speak specifically to the issue of animals used in biomedical research, about two-thirds of that research does not harm the animal(s) in any way - think rats in a maze or allowing a bird to choose which room to fly to. Pain and distress are limited as much as they can possibly be during research; it is harmful to the research itself when an animal is in pain or under stress.

Labs do use alternatives when they can. Unfortunately, there is no perfect alternative to the use of animals. Simulations have been developed that are very good, but as everyone knows, computers cannot mirror the world or even aspects of it without flaws.

To speak to your last question, labs are forbidden by law to use animals when an alternative exists. Each research institution in the United States has what is called an Institutional Animal care and Use Committee (IACUC). An IACUC's job is to ensure that as few animals are used in research as possible, that the animals are obtained through legal means, and that the animals are treated as humanely as is possible before, during, and after the research.

Answer 3

there are alternatives to animal testing, such as in vitro screening and literature search (to ensure unnecessary experiment duplication). contrary to popular belief, animal testing is NOT cheap, nor is this method faster. however, it is better--in the sense that a whole organism can react in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT way than as predicted in an in vitro assay.

animal testing is the "last" phase of drug candidate screen prior to moving into human clinical trials. and contrary to popular belief, the majority of testing is done on small rodents (mice and rats specifically bred for laboratory purposes). not to argue that this is "more right" this is a statement of fact.

as to "do some labs use animals when they could use an alternative," it would not be in the best interest for a company to do this.

also, all facilities that use animals for teaching, research, or experimentation MUST have an properly composed committee not under the jurisdiction of the company--if the committee (at least one scientest knowledgable in the field of study, one veterinarian knowledgable in the care of the species being used, one scientist not experimenting on animals, one responsible member of the general public...) does not agree with the experiment, then that company CAN NOT go ahead until they get approval. non-compliance will result in state and federal punishment (fines and/or prison terms).

ALL advancements in medicine owe its success to animal testing--each and every drug and medical device.

(by the way, did you know that Ingrid Newkirk's sister, who is a diabetic, is taking daily insulin injections--a treatment that owes its success to animal testing.)

(by the way again, the use of animals for experiementation is highly regulated. in europe, it is easier to get permession for human testing than animal testing)

Answer 4

i dont believe animal testing can be done humanely, because if it was truely humane it would be ensured not to have harmful effects on the animal, it doesnt have that ensurance associated with it or it would have to be tested. there are many alternatives to animal testing including growing skin and organs in a lab to test on instead. animals are not a good candidate to test on as their systems react completely differently to medications and products than do human systems. this could cause false results and in turn be harmful for humans. many labs including procter and gamble and loreal labs use animals for horrific testing on products they already know to be safe, but it is simply done to protect themselves from lawsuits. in fact the founder of the mayo clinic has said that he knows of no useful discovery generated from animal testing.

Answer 5

Twenty. woman. uk college. (sixteen-18) artwork in an opticians- used to artwork in a puppy save however. a million. No, i like to positioned on make up yet none of that's examined on animals, and that i does no longer prefer an animal to go through in trouble-free terms so i will cover up undesirable epidermis tone. 2. particular- that's, at the instant, a mandatory evil. human beings asserting that's ineffective are blind and ill-knowledgeable on the historic previous of drugs- that's been examined on animals for hundreds of years with sturdy result. with a bit of luck, the artwork is going to alter into further and added supported by way of computers so we are able to wean ourselves off wanting animals as attempt matters- yet for now, that's mandatory and that i does no longer believe even an inoculation with out it being examined. 3. I purely consider medical sorting out and that i nonetheless do no longer help it- I in simple terms agree it needs to ensue and want for a extra helpful source interior the destiny! the reality they are in a position to strengthen organs and epidermis now could be a sturdy sign and could lead directly to sorting out on those bodyless limbs instead of living creatures.

Answer 6

I don't think it's EVER humane.

Answer 7

depends on what your testing

Answer 8

It depends.
Yes.
Are you volunteering?