The United States spends approximately sixteen billion dollars of taxpayer money on animal testing each year. Many people think that animal testing is a good thing for society and should continue. However, some people disagree saying that it is inhumane and cruel to all animals used in the experiments. Animal testing is very misunderstood because people don't know the purpose, pros, cons, alternatives, or how animal testing has helped the medical field. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Many people don't understand why animals are used to test products that are primarily used on/for humans. Researchers usually use animals because they are very similar to humans. However, scientists recognize the limitations and differences between animals and humans. Experiments are conducted on animals because they are considered the closest and best match for applying the data to humans (“Using” by Murnaghan). So, where and why is animal testing performed? Animal testing is done everywhere for a variety of things. Animals are used for drug testing, creating vaccines and more. There are many regulations that companies and laboratories must follow in order to use animals for their experiments. For example, the United Kingdom has very strict standards. Animals can only be used if there is no other option. Universities, the military, medical schools, and pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies are the only places where it is permitted to use animals for research and testing (“What is it” by Murnaghan). There are some benefits to animal testing and people sometimes forget about them. One of the main benefits of animal testing has been the creation of vaccines and new drugs. Many treatments have been made possible by animal testing, including cancer and HIV drugs, insulin, antibiotics, vaccines, and many others. Many scientists believe that animal testing is essential to improving people's health. For this reason the scientific community supports animal testing. Pharmacologists use animals to test the safety of a new drug before allowing it to be used by the public. Drugs can pose serious dangers, but animal testing allows scientists to ensure a drug's safety. Drug testing on animals has prevented people from taking harmful drugs and increased the number of people saved, not by avoiding the dangers of drugs but by the fact that the drugs themselves save and improve human lives ("Murnaghan's Use") . Pharmacologists and scientists aren't the only ones using animals for testing. The Army uses animals to mimic combat injuries and evaluate the responses of operators used in a war. Animal testing will also be a key element in preventing a major disaster if there is ever a chemical attack on the country ("Controversy" by Murnaghan). Many people question whether the benefits of animal testing are worth the disadvantages or say that the benefits will never justify the use of animals in testing. One of the disadvantages of animal testing is that the animals will always live in captivity. Many animals die after being tested, and those that survive may be permanently "disabled" after the test and be euthanized. About 11% are used for toxicity testing, and about 10% die in tests looking for adverse effects of a product (Seiler 1363).Another disadvantage is that some products tested on animals are not used usefully if released to the public. . The sad truth is that many of the products tested on animals are never used by people because they are never approved. This is the aspect of animal testing that people see as bad because the animal is tested without any direct benefit to people (Murnaghan's "Using"). But what about the cost? Animals kept as pets can be expensive, as can animals used in experiments. Another reason why people think animal testing should be banned is that animal testing is not cheap. Animals must be housed, fed and cared for during experiments. Experiments can take anywhere from a couple of weeks to a couple of years. We must also include “the price of the animals in the equation. There are companies that breed animals specifically for testing and animals can be purchased through them” (Murnaghan “Using”). Many argue that the disadvantages of animal testing should be enough to ban it, but what are the alternatives that scientists and researchers would use instead of animals? There are many alternatives to animal testing, but what are the best substitutes? The most common are organs, tissues or cells grown in the laboratory. These alternatives have the ability to decrease animal testing; a cell line, once created, exhausts the need for animals in research (Watts). However, there are many other alternatives. Some standard frameworks are financially accessible. MatTek, for example, has been promoting human skin equivalents for over a decade. Its EpiDerm system includes a sheet of human skin cells that grows on the surface of a culture medium in a small plastic well. The solution is dripped onto the surface of the sheet and then washed away after a pre-established time. The reasonableness of the cells demonstrates the danger of the chemical substance connected to them (Watts). Mathematical models and computer simulations arouse the most inappropriate enthusiasm among activists. One of their basic standards is that a chemical's natural effects will depend on the size, shape, and varying qualities of its molecules, making it possible to predict toxicity without actual testing. The database on which such facilities depend will originate from animal testing. However, once the connection between subatomic structure and activity is understood, the toxicity of any new substance can be predicted with a PC rather than a living mouse (Watt). Microdosing is another alternative that some researchers are looking into. A more recent development is microdosing, which “brings experimental studies back into the bodies of human volunteers.” The process uses doses too small to create an adverse effect and was made possible by analytical methods capable of detecting substances in blood and plasma at concentrations in the pg/ml range” (Watt). This is another great alternative, but Seiler also provides a great example. Seiler provides another excellent example of an alternative testing method in this quote, “…with an estimated 64% of all animals used to test for reproductive and developmental toxicity. … Feeling this pressure, the OECD is currently adopting an extended 1-generation study that aims to replace the conventionally used 2-generation study by omitting the second generation and instead including more testing endpoints for the first and parental generations. If accepted, this could save 40-60% of animals per test and reduce the total number of animals tested.