Pros and Cons of Animal Testing
More than 2.5 million live animal experiments were authorised in Great Britain in 2000. This number has halved since the 1970s.
Around the world, animals are used to test products ranging from shampoo to new cancer drugs
British law requires that any new drug must be tested on at least two different species of live mammal. One must be a large non-rodent
UK regulations are considered some of the most rigorous in the world - the Animals Act of 1986 insists that no animal experiments be conducted if there is a realistic alternative
Almost every medical treatment you use has been tested on animals. Animals were also used to develop anesthetics to prevent human pain and suffering during surgery
Does animal testing work?
Animal testing has helped to develop vaccines against diseases like rabies, polio, measles, mumps, rubella and TB Animal experiments can be misleading. An animal's response to a drug can be different to a human's
Antibiotics, HIV drugs, insulin and cancer treatments rely on animal tests. Other testing methods aren't advanced enough. Successful alternatives include test tube studies on human tissue cultures, statistics and computer models
Scientists claim there are no differences in lab animals and humans that cannot be factored into tests
The stress that animals endure in labs can affect experiments, making the results meaningless
Operations on animals helped to develop organ transplant and open-heart surgery techniques Animals are still used to test items like cleaning products, which benefit mankind less than medicines or surgery
Is animal testing morally right?
Human life has greater intrinsic value than animal life Animals have as much right to life as human beings
Legislation protects all lab animals from cruelty or mistreatment Strict controls have not prevented researchers from abusing animals - although such instances are rare
Millions of animals are killed for food every year - if anything,...