no, as animals are still animals and are equal to us so what gives us the right to take innocent lives away. If we killed another human being then we would be locked Dear Sir I think you are very right SPIFFING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
anser
well if the testing is from animal haters the animal will die but if they are good it will live......
There is no alternative. Every day, thousands of peopleare saved from painful diseases. However, we simply do not have alternative methods of testing. Until we have a better system, we must use animal testing.
There are quite a few good thesis statements for pro animal testing viewpoints. One thesis statement is 'Animal Testing Helps Improve Quality of Life in Humans'.
WHats a good thesis statement against animal testing
Proctor and Gamble, the makers of Head and Shoulders, say that 99 percent of their safety evaluations are done without animal testing. The final percent is performed on animals because the law requires it or when there are no other alternatives.
is the testing really worth it
Inside a Playboy
animal testing is good and bad. its good to help solve serious diseases and bad because it makes animals suffer in pain.
Jamie A. Davies has written: 'Mechanisms of morphogenesis' -- subject(s): Morphogenesis 'Replacing animal models' -- subject(s): Biomimetics, Animal Models, Methods, Animal Testing Alternatives
I guess not. It might kill the animal.
The percentage decrease in animal testing would depend on the specific alternatives adopted and the context in which they are applied. For instance, using in vitro methods, computer modeling, or human cell-based assays could significantly reduce reliance on animal testing in certain fields, potentially decreasing it by 30-50% or more in the short term. However, the actual reduction would vary based on regulatory acceptance, the complexity of the tests, and industry adaptation. Ongoing research and validation of these alternatives are crucial for achieving substantial reductions.