- in vitro (test tube) test methods and models based on human cell and tissue cultures- this alternative ultimately produces more reliable results because it is tested directly on human cell tissue, increasing the overall conclusion that a chemical would have on humans.
- computerized patient-drug databases and virtual drug trials, which is advanced software created to replicate the human body and it's reactions
- stem cell and genetic testing methods have proven time and again to be effective in producing reliable results, because again it is directly testing the effect chemicals have on aspects of humans
- microdosing (in which humans are given very low quantities of a drug to test the effects on the body on the cellular level, without affecting the whole body system)- which may be argued may also be affecting a living thing, however even after animal tests of complete in terms of medication, human trials are conducted too.
EpiSkin process
In Vitro testing
With the evidence presented both for and again animal testing, I believe these alternatives described is where science should be heading towards. They are cost effective, more reliable and do not harm any living creatures. We are the voice for these animals, public awareness and people making a stand against animal testing has forced governments to take action, and cosmetic companies to seek alternatives. This needs to continue happening, we need to continue being their voice and seeking more effective and humane alternatives.
It is so hard and painful to see and learn about, and I can't help but feel so torn, being a wide consumer of "beauty" products, the reality is that every single thing I use has been tested on animals, I think I can do my bit by shopping animal friendly etc but it doesn't change the fact that this is something that is still being done.
ReplyDeleteI hope we can advance enough, passed this and I think its a very unfair call to make when people argue that testing on humans is still testing on a living thing because what those animals are subjected to is nothing less then TORTURE, the difference is very marked and I know no amount of human testing would ever cross that line.
As a consumer, I do not like the idea of testing chemicals on animals, especially if it's going to hurt them but if I have to choose between testing humans and animals, I would rather let the animals used. Sure, there are alternatives ( http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-to-animal-testing.aspx ) to it and various simulators, but there are things that can't technology cannot imitate from nature. As long as it does not involve pain or any long term effect on health, I think it should be fine.
ReplyDeleteI can't say I agree with animal testing, but that being said, the other alternative would be human testing (which I would imagine happens anyway although a little more discreetly) because there will always be people in the world who do not care about the damage the cause as long as they profit in the end. If it was necessary for the good health of many I would have a different opinion on the subject, but for cosmetic purposes or just general experimenting, animal testing is just cruel and unessessary.
ReplyDelete