8 Reasons Why Animal Testing Doesn’t Help Humans

Right now, millions of animals are imprisoned in laboratories, where they are experimented on and live in constant pain as well as fear of when the next horrible procedure will occur.  In addition to being cruel, these experiments are irrelevant to humans. The following esteemed scientists, government officials, and doctors explain exactly why:
Animal Research Quotes

Animal Research Quotes

Animal Research Quotes

Animal Research Quotes

Animal Research Quotes

Animal Research Quotes

Animal Research Quotes

Animal Research Quotes

Animal Testing: Inhumane AND Inaccurate

Earlier this month, an account from Paul Gazda, a former experimenter who conducted punishment research on animals, appeared on the front page of the New York Times website. Punishment research is just what it sounds like — it entails giving painful electric shocks to pigeons or rats, for example, and then recording what happens to them in an attempt to draw conclusions about human punishments. Today, Gazda has had a change of heart, or a realisation of the cruelty and futility of what he was doing, and is also now a vegetarian.


It’s World Week for Animals in Laboratories (with April 24 marked as the day dedicated to these animals) — the perfect time for us to question, as Gazda ultimately did, what animal experiments mean for the animals themselves, and for science.

“A major moral issue”

The Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics recently released a report on animal experimentation. Endorsed by Nobel laureate J M Coetzee and more than 150 other academics, intellectuals and well respected writers, the report concludes that experimenting on animals is “unthinkable” and that, “In terms of harm, pain, suffering, and death, this constitutes one of the major moral issues of our time.”

In 2003, many inspectors with the Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CPCSEA), the Indian government body that monitors the use of animals in experiments here, were not animal experimenters themselves, thereby not under undue influence to keep quiet. Back then, a report was released about the findings of CPCSEA inspections of 467 laboratories in India by two animal protection groups. It is the only comprehensive report ever released of conditions in Indian laboratories.

“[A]nimal experiments still continue essentially without experimenters having to prove their merit, while non-animal methods undergo a rigorous validation process. ”

The damning report revealed many abuses in laboratories: sick and dying animals left with no care (including those that had been blinded, mutilated or suffered open wounds); rats and mice infested with worms and mites; horses with maggot-infested hooves; and the decayed bodies of newborn animals left lying on the ground. It also revealed experiments where sheep had holes drilled into their skulls and were injected with rabies, rats who were blinded after having glass tubes pushed behind their eyes to extract blood, and the plight of one 27-year-old monkey who had been kept alone in a filthy, cramped cage for 19 long years, all for unnecessary reproduction tests.

The cruelty witnessed in Indian laboratories back then and that have come to light in other investigations have caused such an uproar in the experimentation business that, today, many of the former CPCSEA inspectors have been replaced with animal experimenters. Laboratories around the world, in fact, are often guarded like high-security prisons. Nevertheless, with great difficulty, undercover investigations of laboratories still take place, revealing, among other horrors, the stress animals endurewhen confined in a laboratory cage and experimented on. This stress leads many animals to self-harm and display stereotypical behaviours, including spinning endlessly in their cages or constantly pacing — behaviours not seen in animals in nature.

Unnecessary suffering

“Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?” This is the question that was posed in 2004 in an article in the British Medical Journal. It reads:

“Clinicians and the public often consider it axiomatic that animal research has contributed to the treatment of human disease, yet little evidence is available to support this view.” It further states, “Anecdotal evidence or unsupported claims are often used as justification–for example, statements that the need for animal research is ‘self evident’ or that ‘Animal experimentation is a valuable research method which has proved itself over time.’ Such statements are an inadequate form of evidence for such a controversial area of research.” It concluded, “The contribution of animal studies to clinical medicine requires urgent formal evaluation.”

Yet, more than a decade later, animal experiments still continue essentially without experimenters having to prove their merit, while non-animal methods undergo a rigorous validation process.

” It’s time to stop viewing animals as nothing more than living test tubes, for the animals’ sake, of course, but also for the sake of scientific progress and advancement. ”

Alternative to animal experiments

But because of growing concern for animals, and the need for better science, times are steadily changing. For example, Harvard’s Wyss Institute has created “organs-on-chips” that mimic human organs and organ systems. The chips can be used — more accurately than animals — in disease research, to understand how drugs can affect our bodies, how our bodies react to chemicals, and more.

Research laboratory CeeTox’s skin model accurately replicates key traits of normal human skin and can correctly identify chemicals that cause allergic responses in people.

Other modern replacements for animal experiments include human clinical and epidemiological studies, cadavers, sophisticated high-fidelity human patient simulators and computational models.

It’s time to stop viewing animals as nothing more than living test tubes, for the animals’ sake, of course, but also for the sake of scientific progress and advancement.

Minister wants end to animal testing


Norman Baker

The minister in charge of regulating animal experiments in the UK has said he wants to see an end to all testing.

Lib Dem MP Norman Baker – a longstanding anti-vivisection campaigner – said a ban on animal testing “would not happen tomorrow”.

But he claimed the government was moving in the right direction.

The coalition is committed to reducing the number of live animal experiments – but animal rights campaigners say they have broken that promise.

Mr Baker, who as crime prevention minister at the Home Office has responsibility for regulating the use of animals in science, said he was trying to persuade the industry to accept the economic case for ending tests.

“I am firmly of the belief it is not simply a moral issue but that we as a nation can get a strategic advantage from this – something that will be good for the economy,” Mr Baker told BBC News.

“I have been encouraging the industry to come up with alternatives to animal testing.”

‘Privacy clause’

The scientific community says research on live animals is vital to understanding disease and has resulted in new vaccines and also treatments for cancer, Parkinson’s disease, asthma and HIV – but opponents say it is cruel and pointless, as alternative research methods are available.

Mr Baker has also promised legislation before the next election to increase transparency – potentially giving the public the chance to obtain details about what happens to animals in laboratories.

At the moment, the Home Office blocks requests for data on research contracts and the justification for using live animals as the issue is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

Laboratory mice

Researchers are protected by a “privacy clause” in Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

Mr Baker has carried out a review of the Section 24 following a high profile campaign by the National Anti-Vivisection Society and celebrities including Joanna Lumley and Eddie Izzard.

In a statement, Mr Baker said: “The coalition government is committed to enhancing openness and transparency about the use of animals in scientific research to improve public understanding of this work. It is also a personal priority of mine.

“The consultation on Section 24 of the Animals in Science Act has now concluded and we are currently analysing responses in preparation for pursuing potential legislative change.”

The number of experiments on animals in the UK increased by 52% between 1995 and 2013, according to official statistics.

Latest figure show show 4.12 million procedures were carried out with animals in 2013, a rise of 0.3% on the previous year.

‘Suffer and die’

There was a 6% increase in breeding genetically modified animals and a 5% decrease in other procedures.

Mice, fish and rats were the most commonly used species in 2013, with 3.08 million procedures carried out on them.

Animal stats
The rise in the total number of procedures was 0.03% between 2012 and 2013

There was an increase in testing of guinea pigs (+13,602); sheep (+2,919); rabbits (+1,233); pigs (+350); gerbils (+279); monkeys (+216) and reptiles (+183).

But there was a fall in experiments on birds (-13,259); amphibians (-3,338); cattle (-1,167); goats (-969) and hamsters (-354).

British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection chief executive Michelle Thew said: ‘We continue to be disappointed that the government has failed to deliver on its 2010 pledge to reduce animal experiments and to end the use of animals to test household products.

“Millions of animals continue to suffer and die in our laboratories.

“The UK should be leading the way in reducing animal testing, yet we remain one of the world’s largest users of animals in experiments and the numbers continue to rise.

“We have, however, been encouraged by recent statements from Home Office Minister, Norman Baker, that increased transparency regarding animal experiments will be dealt with within this Parliament.”

But Chris Magee, of the Understanding Animal Research campaign, expressed reservations about Mr Baker’s call for an end to testing.

He said: “I think we all agree that alternatives should be developed and used wherever possible, and it should be noted that more than 15,000 fewer animals were used in 2013 than 2012. It is already against the law to use an animal for research if there’s an alternative method available.

“We should also be clear that it is illegal to test cosmetics or their ingredients on animals. Experiments are for medical, scientific, veterinary and environmental research, and over half of experiments are the breeding of genetically altered animals, mainly mice.

“We have long argued for increased funding for developing alternatives and reform of Section 24, however a hurdle to the minister’s vision may be that a great deal of research is about discovering how biological systems work in the first place. You cannot simulate the unknown.”

Ill Italian denounces ‘death wishes’

Nude mice in research lab

Several million animal experiments are carried out each year

Related Stories

  • An Italian student suffering from a rare disease has denounced death threats she received after defending medical experiments on animals.

Caterina Simonsen said more than 30 “death wishes” and 500 abusive messages were sent to on her Facebook page.

The messages came after she uploaded a photo of herself with a message: “I am 25 thanks to genuine research that includes experiments on animals.”

In response to the abuse, she has posted videos of her condition online.

Caterina Simonsen, 25, lives in Padua and studies veterinary medicine at Bologna University.

She says she suffers from four rare genetic disorders and cannot breathe unaided.

“Without research, I would have been dead at nine,” she said in her initial message on 21 December. “You have gifted me a future.”

But a torrent of comments followed – some suggesting the world would be better off with her dead.

She has forwarded the details to the Italian authorities.

Animal research has always been controversial.

Many people strongly oppose the use of any animals in experiments arguing it is cruel and unethical.

Please share your views on experiments on animals.

India Moves to Ban Tests on Animals for Household Products.

It’s been a banner year for PETA India. First, after lengthy discussions with PETA India’s scientists, the nation banned tests on animals for cosmetics and their ingredients. And now, thanks to the hard work of PETA India and scientists with our international affiliates, decision makers in India have officially proposed a ban on testing household products and their ingredients on animals, too!

Baby Rabbit with blue Eye looking through Grass

 PETA India Science Policy Adviser Dr. Chaitanya Koduri is a member of the Bureau of Indian Standards committee on household products. With his guidance, the committee recently proposed an amendment to testing regulations that would ban the last cruel test on animals still required and replace it with a superior non-animal testing method. This means that the days of smearing chemicals on guinea pigs are nearly over. The test will be replaced with the more sophisticated—and humane—Human Repeat Insult Patch Test. The committee also proposed that household product manufacturers submit safety data based on non-animal test methods for new ingredients.

The final approval for the ban is expected soon from the Drugs Controller General of India. PETA India, with the help of scientists from PETA and PETA U.K., used a similar strategy when itsucceeded in getting cosmetics testing on animals banned.

n the U.S., tests on animals for cosmetics and household products are still legal, although not required for cosmetics and most household products. However, more than 1,300 compassionate companies have pledged never to harm an animal anywhere in the world for their products, so until North America is cruelty-free, at least your household can be.

Source: http://www.peta.org

DCGI Ends Cosmetic Testing on Animals

Following an intense campaign by PETA India and work by MP Maneka Gandhi, Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) Dr GN Singh announced that testing cosmetics and their ingredients on animals will not be permitted in India. The landmark announcement was made during the Bureau of Indian Standards PCD 19 Cosmetics Sectional Committee meeting, on which PETA India’s science policy advisor, Dr Chaitanya Koduri, has an official seat. Earlier this week, Dr Koduri had held a private meeting with Dr Singh urging him to implement this ban.

7840.DCGI cosmetic testing ban blog.jpg-550x0

PETA India’s campaign received support from high places. Congress President Smt Sonia Gandhi recently urged the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare to consider PETA India’s request for a ban on the testing of cosmetics and their ingredients through the National Advisory Council Office, while senior leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Lal Krishna Advani had sought the same through his office. Santosh Chowdhury, the newly appointed Minister of State for Health & Family Welfare; Dr Mirza Mehboob, former Cabinet Minister of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare for the government of Jammu and Kashmir; and Yashodhara Raje Scindia, former Minister for Tourism, Sports and Youth Welfare for the government of Madhya Pradesh had all sent strong appeals to the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare in favour of a total ban on the testing of cosmetics and their ingredients on animals. Mehboob is also a medical practitioner who did his MBBS at Srinagar Medical College in Jammu and Kashmir. MP Maneka Gandhi has been working closely with PETA India’s science policy advisor, Dr Chaitanya Koduri, to push for this ban.

Multinational companies The Body Shop and LUSH as well as Indian companies such as Omved Lifestyle, Shahnaz Husain and others had also written to the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare in full support of a ban after hearing from PETA. Officials from the Indian Council of Medical Research, the Mahatma Gandhi–Doerenkamp Center for Alternatives to Use of Animals in Life Science Education and theAnimal Welfare Board of India, a statutory advisory body, had also all expressed support for the ban.

In 2012, the cast and crew of Farah Khan’s Joker, directed by Shirish Kunder and starring Akshay Kumar, Sonakshi Sinha and Chitrangda Singh, had joined PETA in urging the government to ban cosmetic testing on animals. Chitrangda posed on behalf of PETA and Joker with the aliens from the film for the campaign. The ad was shot by ace photographer Atul Kasbekar.

DCGI’s announcement comes in the wake of the European Union’s and Israel’s bans on the testing of cosmetics products and their ingredients on animals, which includes a ban on sales of animal-tested cosmetics, regardless of where those tests were conducted. Israel has also banned the testing of household products and their ingredients on animals as well as the sale of such products if they have been tested on animals. Household products include cleaners and detergents. PETA India is also campaigning for an end to the testing of household products and their ingredients on animals in India.

Please note, however, that at present, cosmetics and personal-care products tested on animals can still be sold in India. Please do checkPETA’s list of companies that do not test on animals before you go shopping.

Congratulations to everyone who worked so hard on this campaign, from celebrities, politicians and compassionate businesses who lent their support to the many PETA India supporters who raised their voices and donated time and money to make this achievement possible. Celebrations are in order all around!

Source:  PETA


Will we ever… eliminate animal experimentation?.


Arguably one of the most heated debates in science, efforts to reduce the number of animals used in studies face many barriers, says Alla Katsnelson.

One of the most, if not the most, contentious issues in science is the use of animals in research. Scientists experiment on animals for a host of different reasons, including basic research to explore how organisms function, investigating potential treatments for human disease, and safety and quality control testing of drugs, devices and other products. Its proponents point to the long list of medical advances made possible with the help of animal research. Opponents believe it is cruel and meaningless, as observations in animals often do not translate directly to humans.

In 1959, William Russell and Rex Burch proposed their “3Rs” guidelinesfor making the use of animals in scientific research more humane: restrict the use of animals; refine experiments to minimise distress; and replace tests with alternative techniques. Over the course of five decades their guidelines have become widely accepted worldwide, and while the reliability of published reports on the numbers used varies, they do at least provide a snapshot of historical trends. Around 29 million animals per year are currently used in experiments in the US and European Union countries. (Rats and mice make up around 80% of the total.) This is less than half the total in the mid-1970s – a significant drop, but one that has plateaued in the last decade.

“In the late 1980s, people thought animal research was singing its swan song,” says Larry Carbone, a senior veterinarian at the University of California in San Francisco. Fresh out of veterinary school in 1987, Carbone landed a job as an animal vet at Cornell University, in New York State. At that time the numbers of animals being used in experiments and testing was on the decline: the campus was building a new multi-storey biotechnology facility, with just three rooms containing animal breeding and living facilities.

But then came the development of tools that could selectively modify individual genes in mice. This proved to be such a powerful and popular technique that the decreasing trend in animal use ground to a halt.

Now, a raft of novel experimental techniques may help to push numbers down again. Improvements in imaging methods that offer a peek inside the bodies of animals allow scientists to get more and better data from each experiment than before. For example, researchers previously had to cull multiple mice at different stages of tumour development, but now they can non-invasively watch the disease unfold in a single living animal using a fluorescent dye. Similarly, as brain-imaging techniques become more advanced, some questions that are now addressed with experiments in monkeys might be better answered by peering into the human brain. “My prediction is that human volunteers will be able to replace monkeys more and more in the next 10-20 years,” says Carbone.

Meanwhile in vitro advances are also pointing towards reliable alternative methods. One such advance is the ability to re-program human skin cells into a primordial, stem cell-like state. These “induced pluripotent cells” could be converted into any specialised cell in the body, like liver or kidney cells, and these could be generated from people with a particular illness, giving researchers a potent and patient-specific model of that disease in a dish. Lab-on-a-chip technologies – and perhaps one day,lab-grown organs – could also provide increasingly sophisticated ways to identify disease mechanisms or test prospective medicines.

Finding alternatives

Trends also show that some sectors are doing more than others to reduce animal use. Some believe technological advances will one day make animal studies unnecessary, while others argue that “non-living” models will never be capable of reliably replicating all of the uses of laboratory mice and other creatures.

When many people think about animal testing, they imagine rows of rodent cages in a pharmaceutical company lab. But according to data from European Union countries, the pharmaceutical sector uses almost half the number of animals that academic labs do, and animal use in drug development dropped significantly between 2005 and 2008 – the most recent statistics available. There are two reasons for this, says Thomas Hartung, Director of the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing at Johns Hopkins University, in Baltimore, Maryland. First, drugs are increasingly designed to target specific molecular mechanisms, and these are best identified in culture dishes rather than live animals. Second, conducting experiments in 1,536-well cell culture dishes is vastly less expensive than in animals, so companies are motivated to use alternatives whenever they are available.

In the US and the EU, a drug’s efficacy and safety must be tested in animals before it enters human testing, though a 2010 directive from the EU calls for alternatives to be used when possible. Jan Ottesen, vice president of lab animal science at Danish company Novo Nordisk, which makes insulin and other drugs for diabetes and haemophilia, says his company actively seeks out tests that can replace animal use without compromising patient safety. Novo Nordisk decided 15 years ago to replace animal tests with cell cultures to verify the quality of each batch of drugs before it goes to market. The company had to provide the authorities with data proving that other tests worked just as well. It took until 2011 for the company to complete the switch. 

However, for some types of experiments there are no equivalent non-animal options, says Ottesen. For example, in searching for new drugs that decrease joint pain due to arthritis, you need a model that mimics the human condition. The important thing, he stressed, is to set up the experiment so as to avoid unnecessary pain. For safety and toxicological testing of drugs, he adds, “I cannot see for the foreseeable future how we can completely avoid it. Having said that, all the replacements that can be implemented should be implemented.”

Under pressure

Safety testing of substances other than human and veterinary drugs, such as cosmetics, toiletries, household cleaning products and industrial chemicals might be a different story. Currently, says Hartung, such tests are outdated and inaccurate, with toxicity in rodents predicting problems in humans just 43% of the time. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of these substances have undergone no toxicity testing at all.

Addressing this gap with animal studies alone would be expensive and impractical. An overhaul of chemical safety regulations in the EU calledREACH and a toxicology modernisation initiative led by the US National Institutes of Health, are driving the search for alternatives.

Hartung believes that with enough investment and coordination, animal tests on products in this category can be replaced completely. He is leading the Human Toxome Project, an initiative that aims to map the ways substances disrupt hormones and endanger health, as well as to develop advanced, non-animal lab tests for toxicity testing. It’s slow going, Hartung concedes. “We don’t have human data to compare with, or really high-quality animal data,” he says, adding that this makes it tough to evaluate the quality of the tests.

Meanwhile, almost four in ten animals are used in basic, as opposed to applied, biological research – and this proportion is growing. Sarah Wolfensohn, a veterinary surgeon who heads Seventeen Eighty Nine, a consultancy advising researchers on animal welfare, based in Swindon, UK, says this is in part because a lot of this type of work is carried out in academia where the financial and performance pressures that motivate interest in non-animal-based techniques are weaker than in the commercial sector.

Other factors play a role too, she says. “For example, if a senior professor in academia has spent his entire career developing experimental techniques on monkeys’ brains and young researchers now tell him ‘actually we don’t need to do this, we can do it on a computer’, it undermines his approach.”

But just as important as reducing the numbers of animals used, adds Wolfensohn, is “to make sure they are being used in the best way and that their welfare is maximised, so as to get the best quality results, to make sure they are not wasted.”

Overall, pressure to limit the use of animals in research – either for financial, scientific or moral reasons – is rising. Meanwhile, the use of animals in many areas of life-science research is on the decline, experts note, even if genetic work in mice is still keeping numbers up. “I think this is temporary,” says Andrew Rowan, President and Chief Executive Officer of animal protection group Humane Society International. “I think it is going to start going down again as we improve our technologies.” How soon this might happen is too difficult to tell.

Source: BBC






EU Confirms Ban on Marketing of Animal Tested Cosmetics and Ingredients.


The European Union has confirmed that—taking effect March 11, 2013—the marketing, import, and sale of animal-tested cosmetics and their ingredients will no longer be legal in the EU. Congratulations to Kristie Sullivan, M.P.H., PCRM’s director of regulatory testing issues, and Aryenish Birdie, PCRM’s regulatory testing policy coordinator, who have spent years rallying support for the ban that will save the lives of countless rabbits, guinea pigs, mice, and rats who suffer and die each year for cosmetics testing.

Last year, PCRM delivered nearly 25,000 letters from EU residents and people around the world to the European Commission. The letters called on the EC to maintain its 2013 deadline for a ban on the marketing of cosmetic products tested on animals. PCRM supporters Alicia Silverstone and True Blood’s Kristin Bauer also wrote letters calling for the ban.

This ban follows Israel’s Jan. 1 ban that no longer allows the import and marketing of cosmetics, toiletries, or detergents that were tested on animals.

But we’re not resting until the United States joins the EU and Israel. We’re talking with U.S. lawmakers and working cosmetics manufacturers. Our new Come Clean campaign is working to end excruciating skin irritation and corrosion tests on animals. Come Clean asks cosmetics companies to reveal whether they perform these tests, so PCRM scientists can help them transition to superior, cruelty-free test methods.
Source: PCRM ( Physician Committee for Responsible Medicine)


Right now, millions of sensitive animals—including dogs and cats much like those with whom we share our homes—are suffering in painful and often deadly experiments. But with your help, we can change that.

Watch the video on Youtube. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiFrnRLVL0o&feature=player_embedded

Source: PETA


Banana has the best anti-cancer effects over other fruits.

Japanese scientists have found that a fully ripe banana produces a substance called TNF which has the ability to combat abnormal cells and enhance immunity against cancer.

They have pointed out that as the banana ripens it develops dark spots and or patches in the banana skin and the more patches it has the higher will be its immunity enhancement quality.

According the Japanese scientists who have carried out this research state that banana contains TNF which has anti-cancer properties. They say that the degree of anti-cancer effect corresponds to the degree of ripeness of the fruit.

In an animal experiment carried by them at the Tokyo University comparing various health benefits of different fruits, using banana, grape, apple, water melon. Pineapple, pears they have found banana with best results. Banana, produces anti-cancer substance, increases the number of white cells and has the ability to enhance the immunity of the body.

Source: http://myscienceacademy.org