Animal tests are scientifically invalid, giving unpredictable and misleading results, whether applied inter-species or between members of the same species, due to genetic, physiological metabolic and psychological differences between species, as well as variances between individual organisms of the same species.
Inconsistent results from animal research have caused an on-going history of health damage and deaths since vivisection became the preferred method of research. For example in 2006, the Diabetes Research Institute (DRI) announced that after over thirty years of experiments on mice and rats(1) , researchers discovered that the internal structure and function of the human pancreatic islet cell, which is central to the development of diabetes, are dramatically different from that in the “well-studied rodent”(2).
DRI now consider the use of the rodent model as “no longer relevant for human studies”. One of the researchers, Per-Olof Berggren, adjunct professor at the Diabetes Research Institute and professor at the Rolf Luft Center for Diabetes Research at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, stated:
“We can no longer rely on studies on mice and rats. It is now imperative that we focus on human islets. At the end of the day, it is the only way to understand how they function.”
Vivisectionists justify the practice by claiming its necessity for human health and medical progress, when history has proved that vivisection has caused innumerable iatrogenic disasters, and that it has hindered rather than abetted medical progress.
The vivisection lobby begins its brainwashing process early in life with programmes in schools designed to convince children that vivisection is a blessing to humanity, and a painless experience for animals. It is therefore easy for people to become desensitized at an early age, and for the general public to accept vivisection as beneficial and normal, especially as the media reinforces this mind-set with regular accounts on new breakthroughs thanks to pre-clinical trials on mice, monkeys et al. These ‘breakthroughs’ have consistently led nowhere when the results have been applied in practice to human patients.
There have been many media reports of successes in animal research relating to the development of HIV vaccines for example. Yet all of the about 90 vaccines developed successfully for chimpanzees have failed in humans(3). This has also occurred in research to find cures for sepsis infections, where all of the 150 cures developed successfully for mice failed, and even caused the infection to worsen in some cases, when used in humans(4).
Multiple scientific, non-animal tests are available for both medical and recreational purposes. Animal testing for toxicology is no longer international standard practice having been replaced by more reliable scientific techniques using human cells and human proteins in in vitro studies. For example, in 2008 the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institute of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration in the U.S.A. announced a joint plan to replace all toxicity testing on animals with more modern, robust testing methods.
More non-animal tests for medical research are being developed all the time. Huge amounts of resources are being devoted to the development on non-animal tests as the failures of animal models become widely accepted and acknowledged. An example of this is in asthma research. Asthma does not occur naturally in non-human animals and research has relied on treating asthma-like symptoms artificially induced in animals. Unsurprisingly this has resulted in a huge failure rate of asthma treatments when they are trialled in humans. Now leading researchers in asthma are turning to silicon chip models of the human lung(5). They correlate to the actual human organ a lot better than any animal lung as respiratory systems between animals differ significantly. As the referenced article points out, the only thing slowing adoption of this new technology is the reluctance of the regulatory bodies.