Alternatives: From Test Tubes to Computers

Are animal models necessary in all research, or are there alternative methods that are better suited to the situation at hand? First and foremost, one must discover what the alternatives to animal testing are. 

One is in vitro testing, which is testing drugs or a vaccine in test tubes using human cell and tissues cultures. Computerized models are also used, as well as stem cell and genetic testing methods. Non-invasive imaging techniques, like MRI, are another example. And a final one is micro dosing, which is when “humans are given very low quantities of a drug to test the effects on the body on the cellular level, without affecting the whole body system” (Neavs.org). (Click here to link to the source used for this post.)

These alternative tests all have their own benefits. Animal models may not always be the most accurate models for research, such as in drug testing. Many animals have a different response to medication than humans do. Not only were many drugs not passed because they did not pass animal testing, but there are some drugs that were successful in animals, but failed in clinical trials with humans.

In vitro testing is often used because it tests drugs on human cell and tissue cultures so that researchers can have a better idea of how the drug works on humans. Computerized models are also very accurate and can be used to predict the outcome of drug or vaccine testing. In addition to being more reliable, alternative tests are also more cost-efficient.

Because of this, many people feel that alternatives are a better option for testing. In "Alternatives to Animal Testing Should be Pursued," an article in the book Animal Experimentation, Pardue quotes Dr. Martin Stephens, who agrees that animal testing is "expensive, time consuming and often have dubious applicability to humans" (Pardue 79). Pardue additionally states in her article that there are alternatives, such as cell cultures, that are more accurate and should be used in place of animals.

I agree with some of the points that the article makes, especially where it states that as long as researchers use animals respectfully and try to replace them when needed. However, I am still skeptical about how it claims that animal experimentation can and should be completely replaced. (Remember, always be skeptical and question what you read!)

So are there any disadvantages to alternative testing methods? What are the pros and cons, and how do they compare with the advantages and disadvantages of animal models?