ANIMAL TESTING SHOULD BE BANNED Alternative testing methods have many advantages over traditional animal testsincluding being

more humanebut implementing an alternative from idea to acceptance can take years. Step 1: Defining The word "alternative" is used to describe any change in an animal test that achieves one or more of the "three R's": 1. Replaces a procedure that uses animals with a procedure that doesn't use animals 2. Reduces the number of animals used in a procedure 3. Refines a procedure to alleviate or minimize potential animal pain Step 2: Developing Scientists at private companies, universities, and government agencies are developing new cell and tissue tests, computer models and other sophisticated methods to replace existing animal tests. These alternatives are not only humane; they also tend to be more costeffective, rapid, and reliable than traditional animal tests. Step 3: Validating Once an alternative test has been developed by a scientist, it must be scientifically "validated," or evaluated in multiple laboratories to see if its results reliably predict outcomes in people. Validation is sometimes a frustratingly slow process, and the United States has unfortunately proved to be far slower at validating alternatives than the European Union. Step 4: Accepting After an alternative has been scientifically validated, it is then up to government authorities to decide whetherand to what extentthey will accept the use of the alternative to replace, reduce or refine animal use. The opinions of government regulators strongly influence the extent to which private companies use available alternatives instead of traditional animal tests. A few alternatives are: CELL CULTURE
It is possible to obtain human cells and tissues from biopsies, post-mortems, placentas, or as waste from surgery, and grow them in the laboratory. Drug testing can use cell culture to great advantage, and many forward thinking scientists use cell culture in tests that traditionally have used animals like screening drugs for a positive effect or the potential to do damage. In 1996 a team based at Uppsala, Sweden, compared animal test data, human experience and the results of cell culture tests for a range of chemicals. Their aim was to discover whether animals or cell culture were better predictors of what happens in humans. The cell culture results were found to be significantly more accurate.[2] Since then further advances have been made, such as the use of lasers in cell culture tests, and 3D tissue structures, making cell cultures superior by a greater margin.

Skin tests on animals cannot be justified given the existence of the EpiDerm test which uses human skin cells and is accepted as accurate, and Epipack which uses sheets of cloned human skin cells. The Human Keratinocyte Bioassay enables a computer to measure damage to the epithelial cells, which cover the skin and eyes. Corrositex detects skin damage using a membrane and a chemical detection fluid, and gives results in 4 hours compared with 4 weeks for animal tests.[3] The MatTek EpiOcular test has been using human cells since 1985 to evaluate eye irritancy, and is one of many that do the job.[4] Incredibly, animals are still used in these sorts of tests.

COMPUTERS
An area where animal use is particularly popular yet also especially flawed in predicting effective drugs and identifying dangerous ones yet HLS are still using this outdated, inaccurate method. Computers have revolutionised this area, as their ability to handle millions of interactions simultaneously enables them to model physical conditions. Among various models of the human heart is the one developed by Denis Noble at Oxford University. It beats, develops illnesses and reacts to drugs. Drug companies have been using it since 2001 to predict drug reactions and eliminate dangerous drugs.[12] It can replay reactions, show them in slow motion, and be subjected to extremes that animals and patients cant. Other computer packages predict drug effects one specialises in those in babies and children, an area animal tests have shown their failure with dramatic results for the children involved. [13] The goal of developing an entire virtual human is being achieved already, with organs and their interactions being simulated accurately along with reactions to drugs.[14] The sort of technology scientists are watching with great interest is micro dosing. Patients are given 1% of a test drug while their body is scanned using Accelerator Mass Spectrometry. This shows where the drug is and monitors its activity and effects. Evaluation of microdosing has shown it to be surprisingly accurate, even on drugs than have unusual, unexpected characteristics.[15] Its even been proven to work at lower test levels. Tests using one millionth (0.0001%) of therapeutic doses still enabled evaluation of drug concentrations in blood, saliva, urine, DNA and white blood cells. An expert explained "we can say with confidence that between 30 min and 45 minutes after dosing, 0.09% of the oral dose resided within the white blood cells in the blood. We were also able to show uptake of AZT into the genetic material of these cells, which is ultimately how antivirals like AZT inhibit viral replication. Such data could not have been obtained by any other method".[16] By comparison, animals are known to metabolise medicines along different routes in the body[17]. The majority of dangerous reactions are missed in animal tests [18], and most dangerous reactions predicted at that stage never happen in humans[19]. Part of the problem with animals studies is that straight away theres a complex animal with millions of interactions that are too complex to unravel. Now its increasingly obvious that we need to understand whats happening with individual cells, and even within individual cells. Proteomics is the study of how proteins are arranged in individual cells, and already this area has enabled advances: for example working out how to enable cancer dugs to interact with target cells.[20] Now projects have started to catalogue protein activity in cells to understand what happens to cause illnesses. An expert explains: Proteins are central to our understanding of cellular function and disease processes and without a concerted effort in proteomics the fruits of genomics will go unrealised. The necessity of proteomics cannot be avoided[21] No animal liver is similar to a human liver, which is a major problem because this organ is central to the way a drug is handled in the body. But now human liver has been grown in the lab, and can be used to test drugs. A report said that the discovery eliminates the need for animal experiments for drug testing. [22] With this wealth of scientific methodology available, there clearly isnt a need for animal testing. Ironically, HLS vehement defence of their animal testing practices could prove their undoing. As the industry moves on, the new methods are those that will enable commercial survival. The Chairman of Charles River, largest lab animal supplier in the world, was asked about the companys diversification which has reduced the animal trade from 80% to 40% of business activity in just five years. I dont want to sit here and say Hey, there goes our animal business he explained, while explaining a new n on animal test that was far superior to the old animal methods.[23] HLS obstinacy and refusal to embrace the new methods ignores the revolution which is leaving animal tests as scientifically undesirable and enabling scientists to gain a previously impossible understanding of medical science. This technology could also play a part in hastening the demise of HLS.

1.Technology

The technology in this time is very advanced and can offer a great alternative to animal testing. Sure, using a computer might not be as good as using real organisms but it can help and reduce the amount of animals being tested on enormously. Computers can be an effective tool for conducting certain experiments and research. Technology is also advancing rapidly each year offering more and more reliable testing techniques. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is also a great piece of technology that can be used to help examine diseases through human scans.

The technology does exist now but it just isn't has advanced as it will be in years to come. However, we do have some advance technology now, that is how scientist are able to experiment with cell culture and create human tissue. What's wrong with looking into the future? I don't see how it is irrelevant just because it doesn't deal with animal testing right now. It's not going to take that long for technology to get upgraded and completely take away animals testing for good.

The biggest issue with animal testing is the fact we are testing on animals while trying to get human results, animals are not human and aren't made up the same way we are there for the drugs with affect us differently. Yes, maybe some drug might work on a mouse that might also work on a human but that drug never does the full job of completely curing the disease without there being painful or any side effects at all. If we can stick to human genes for experiments we can have a better understanding of how the different drugs will affect us and fix the problem before we actually give it to human trial. That will lessen the fatal effects the drug could cause us. At least we will have some idea on how the drug will affect the human body unlike going from animal testing to human testing we don't know the effects it will have on us. Conclusion Since animal testing has become such a controversial topic in our society now that just shows that more and more people are taking into effect that animal testing is wrong for both humans and animals and want more non-animal testing methods. There are many people out there that will never change their minds about animal testing but most eventually will because they're going to want more reliable and faster testing results for humans that you can't get from animals. In our society now we want fast results, so using non-animal methods have generally been reserving faster results. Other alternatives not involving animal testing are also cheaper to do

as well. Donated human bodies and skin leftovers from surgical procedures can be used to test how certain chemical effect our skin without actually causing pain to us. While using human trails, Micro dosing is an effective and safe way to achieve information on the safety of a drug and how it processed in our bodies by giving very small one time doses that is well below the brink necessary for any possible pharmacologic effect to take place because it is able to provide the information on how safe a drug is for us without actually harming us. More researchers are using advanced brain imaging and are recording techniques like MRI and CT that allow the human brain to be actually being studied on safely without causing any harm to humans. That is a much better form of testing method rather than what researchers would do o animals by cutting and damaging the brain of countless animals like rats and monkeys that will result in death. Since more researchers are using advance technology they are saving millions of animal's lives while at the same time they are getting more trustworthy results. Overall, there are better techniques that we can us rather than animal testing that will give us bigger and better results. If we are going to want to start advancing with the researcher with drugs and diseases we need to update our testing methods rather than keep using animal testing that will only get us so far. Since, diseases and cancers are developing and changing at a faster rate we need to keep up with it with faster and better techniques involving technology because technology is always developing, so we can keep up with the diseases. We have the reliable resources, technology and other dependable methods that will get us further in the discovery of how to cure a lot more diseases and cancers we just need more and more researchers to join in with these more cutting-edge experiments. Alternatives: Testing Without Torture
Besides saving countless animal lives, alternatives to animal tests are efficient and reliable. Unlike crude, archaic animal tests, non-animal methods usually take less time to complete, cost only a fraction of what the animal experiments that they replace cost, and are not plagued with species differences that make extrapolation difficult or impossible. Effective, affordable, and humane research methods include studies of human populations, volunteers, and patients as well as sophisticated in vitro, genomic, and computer-modeling techniques.

Forward-thinking companies are exploring modern alternatives. For example, Pharmagene Laboratories, based in Royston, England, is the first company to use only human tissues and sophisticated computer technology in the process of drug development and testing. With tools from molecular biology, biochemistry, and analytical pharmacology, Pharmagene conducts extensive studies of human genes and how drugs affect those genes or the proteins they make. While some companies have used animal tissues for this purpose, Pharmagene scientists believe that the

discovery process is much more efficient with human tissues. If you have information on human genes, whats the point of going back to animals? says Pharmagene cofounder Gordon Baxter.(1) Alternatives to Animals in Research Comparative studies of human populations allow doctors and scientists to discover the root causes of human diseases and disorders so that preventive action can be taken. Epidemiological studies led to the discoveries of the relationship between smoking and cancer and to the identification of heart disease risk factors.(2) Conversely, tobacco company executives relied on misleading animal-based studies to deny the link between smoking and cancer as recently as 1994.(3) Population studies demonstrated the mechanism of the transmission of AIDS and other infectious diseases and also showed how these diseases can be prevented, whereas animal studies have produced no real results in terms of preventing or treating AIDS.(4) The National Institutes of Health have reported that more than 80 HIV/AIDS vaccines that have passed animal testing have failed in human clinical trials.(5) As the associate editor of the British Medical Journal stated, When it comes to testing HIV vaccines, only humans will do.(6) In the course of treating patients, much has been learned about the causes of diseases and disorders. Studies of human patients using sophisticated scanning technology (e.g., MRI, fMRI, PET, and CT) have isolated abnormalities in the brains of patients with schizophrenia and other disorders.(7) Cell and tissue culture (in vitro) studies are used to screen for anti-cancer, anti-AIDS, and other types of drugs, and they are also a means of producing and testing a number of other pharmaceutical products, including vaccines, antibiotics, and therapeutic proteins. The U.S. National Disease Research Interchange provides human tissue to scientists investigating diabetes, cancer, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, glaucoma, and other human diseases. In vitro genetic research has isolated specific markers, genes, and proteins associated with Alzheim ers disease, muscular dystrophy, schizophrenia, and other inherited diseases. A 3-dimensional model of breast cancer has recently been developed that will allow investigators to study the earliest stages of breast cancer and test potential treatments. Rather than studying cancer in rodents, this model, which uses both healthy and cancerous human tissue, effectively allows the study of cancer as it develops in humans.(8) Those who experiment on animals artificially induce disease; clinical investigators study people who are already ill with naturally occurring diseases or who have died. Animal experimenters want a disposable research subject who can be manipulated as desired and killed when convenient; clinicians must do no harm to their patients or study participants. Animal experimenters face the unavoidable fact that their artificially created animal model can never fully replicate the human condition, whereas clinical investigators know that the results of their work are directly relevant to people.

Alternatives to Animals in Testing Alternatives to the use of animals in toxicity testing include replacing animal tests with non-animal methods, as well as modifying animal-based tests to reduce the number of animals used and to minimize pain and distress. Non-animal tests are generally faster and less expensive than the animal tests they replace and improve upon. To date, several non-animal test methods have been formally validated and accepted by some countries as replacements for an existing animal test. Examples include the following: An embryonic stem cell test, using mouse-derived cells to assess potential toxicity to developing embryos, has been validated as a partial replacement for birth-defect testing in rats and rabbits.(9) The 3T3 Neutral Red Uptake Phototoxicity Test uses cells grown in culture to assess the potential for sunlightinduced (photo) irritation to the skin. Human skin model tests are now in use, including the validated EpiDerm test, which has been accepted almost universally as a total replacement for skin corrosion studies in rabbits.(10) The use of human skin leftover from surgical procedures or donated cadavers can be used to measure the rate at which a chemical is able to penetrate the skin. Microdosing can provide information on the safety of an experimental drug and how it is metabolized in the body by administering an extremely small one-time dose that is well below the threshold necessary for any potential pharmacologic effect to take place.(11) While effective non-animal test methods become more and more numerous, animal-based toxicology remains, as researcher Thomas Hartung wrote, frozen in time, using and accepting the same old animal models again and again, often without stringent examination of their validity.(12) For more detailed information about non-animal test methods that are available or under development, visit ECVAM.jrc.it.

-INTRODUCTION TO SOLUTION 1. CELL CULTURE, eg define - human cells and tissues from biopsies, post-mortems, placentas, or as waste from surgery,
and grow them in the laboratory - Drug testing - Skin tests

2. COMPUTER/TECHNOLOGY, - models of the human heart

- predict drug effects

- micro dosing