Animal testing has been attributed to many major medical advancements, however this argument is not necessarily true. According to PETA, an article was published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine that found this claim to be false. The National Institute of health reported that 95 out of 100 drugs that pass animal testing fail on humans. Additionally, PETA cited a further study that was conducted by researchers called 'Where is the Evidence That Animal Research Benefits Humans?'. This study found that there is very little evidence to support animal experimentation to benefit humans. Instead, much of the improvements and advancements in health are down to environmental factors, development of X-Rays, nutrition and research and knowledge on particular illnesses. Not due to the experimentation of drugs on animals. Whilst there have been experiments conducted on animals during these discoveries, these experiments were not vital to any medical or health research or findings. Instead of wasting time and money on testing drugs on animals that have been found to be 5% effective, these resources should be used to advance non-animal testing methods that will have an impact on human health, with the potential to be cheaper faster, and ethical. Resources: https://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/why-we-do-it/arguments-against-animal-testing https://www.lonestar.edu/stopanimaltesting.htm https://www.peta.org/blog/top-five-reasons-stop-animal-testing/ https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-bad-science/

**TL;DR – Animal testing is unreliable, wasteful, and dangerous. In what way can an animal's reaction be a proper representation of the potentially negative effects of products and drugs on humans?** Animals' reactions are thought to show promising results, mostly based on anecdotal evidence. The diseases that pharmaceuticals are meant to treat are often artificially induced which makes the evidence even more unreliable. High-risk conditions like cancer, psychiatric disorders, and heart and neurology issues have animal tested-drug success rates of only 5%, 6%, 7%, and 8% respectively. A well-known toxicologist who advocates for non-animal testing developments, Dr. Thomas Hartung, made clear that the “costs and duration of toxicological studies are clearly prohibitive to satisfy societal safety needs." New approaches with cell-based models could save time, resources, and worries for safety. Instead, animal testing is done slowly while a mass of data is collected that is not always predicative of human effects. Animals simply do not contract the same diseases in the same way humans do, so this evidence will never be entirely accurate. Some drugs let out onto the market have even shown to be extremely dangerous. A notable example is the arthritis drug Vioxx, which was tested on six animal species and estimated to have caused 320,000 heart attacks and strokes and 140,000 deaths worldwide. Why continue cruel and unethical testing with such little payoff? And this is only on the pharmaceutical side! Think about how many toiletries, cleaning products, and chemicals also need to be tested. https://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/why-we-do-it/arguments-against-animal-testing https://www.navs.org/five-reasons-end-animal-testing/#.YCbO-HdKi-s https://thetylt.com/culture/animal-testing-ban

**TL;DR Animal testing should be banned for beauty products, however in the case of developing new medicines, animal testing is necessary.** Animal testing should certainly be banned for cosmetic industries across the world. As the RSPCA argues: ‘There are already more than enough cosmetics products available and thousands of existing cosmetics ingredients are accepted as safe. It is simply not justifiable to cause animal suffering to develop more’. [1] However, in medical fields, until a better alternative is able to be safely used by all labs, animal testing unfortunately is necessary to ensure that medical products are safe for further tests on humans. Although it is important to realize that medical animal testing is not able fully represent or mimic the human condition, it provides relevant and crucial information when the genetics and molecular pathways are similar to a humans. Animals are essential to understanding the complex interactions between cells and tissues in response to a medical treatment. [2] The *Stanford Medicine Research Centre* states that ‘The use of animals in some forms of biomedical research remains essential to the discovery of the causes, diagnoses, and treatment of disease and suffering in humans and in animals.’ [3] Despite the increase in new alternatives to animal experiments which continue to be developed over the years, until they are widely accessible for all scientists, animal testing will have to suffice. There is no need for animal testing on beauty products, as there is no real harm to humans if the components of a beauty product are not correct in a testing stage. However, animal experiments are unfortunately necessary if we want to continue to make progress in medical/scientific research and to help create drugs to combat life-threatening illnesses and diseases. [1] ‘Cosmetics testing using animals’, (https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/laboratory/testingchemicals/cosmetics) [2] ‘Why animal research is necessary’, (https://vib.be/science/why-animal-research-necessary) [3] ‘WHY ANIMAL RESEARCH?’ (https://med.stanford.edu/animalresearch/why-animal-research.html#:~:text=The%20use%20of%20animals%20in,in%20humans%20and%20in%20animals.)

Animal testing is incredibly necessary to develop new drugs and treatments that won't kill people. Mice are pretty much just like little humans. If it wasn't necessary, then it wouldn't be standard practice. Other developed testing methods are not even 1% as effective yet, and taking away animal testing prematurely would be a massive detriment to society. Yes, most drugs have a 5% effectiveness rate, such is the nature of drug testing. Makes you really think about what happens when any clinical trial is rushed through the gates because of wide spread panic...

We have to test novel drugs on something, and animal testing seems better than going straight to human testing. (If there are even enough humans are willing to be guinea pigs)

Animal testing has positives . For example veterinary medicine has come a long way because of it. Humans aren’t the only ones benefiting.

Animal testing raises serious ethical concerns about causing suffering to sentient beings, often for purposes that may not directly benefit the animals or humanity. Advances in alternative research methods—such as in vitro testing, computer modeling, and organ-on-chip technologies—are increasingly effective and reduce the need for animal use. However, some argue that certain complex biological interactions still require animal models to ensure safety and efficacy, especially in medical research. A gradual phase-out with investment in alternatives may balance ethical and scientific needs.