OVERVIEW

Definition/History
Pros and cons of animal testing
PETA
Science behind animal testing
Case studies
Laws that protect animals
Future of animal testing
Videos

DEFINITION OF IN VIVO
In Vivo means within the organism. Animals are
injected with harmful products that have a negative
affect on their health and also causes excruciating
pain. These test are conducted by several companies
such as:
- Cosmetic, Chemical, Drug and Food Companies

- Medical Research Laboratories

- University Laboratories
- Medical Training Exercises

http://www.animal-rights-action.com/animal-experimentation.html

PROS AND CONS

PROS:

CONS:

1.) Companies state that testing on

animals protects the consumer.
2.) Companies that test on animals
are more credible then those who
do not test on animals.
3.) Believe they are protecting the
environment through cosmetic
testing on animals.
4.) Companies feel that consumers
are pressuring them for safe and
improve products.

1.) animals that are experimented on and killed after

their use. Others are injured and are held in captivity
2.) Causes severe allergic reactions to the animals.

3.) Leads to other medical issues such as liver

problems, swollen eyelids, ulceration, and bleeding.
4.) Animals endure inhumane treatment.
5.) Animals blood vessels are different from humans
therefore the results are not credible.

6.) Cosmetic experiments on animals are expensive

because the animals have to be fed, housed, cared,
and treated with chemical substance.

PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL

TREATMENTS OF ANIMALS (PETA)
one group that has led the way in animal rights
campaigns as well as spurring on the creation of many
other groups.
Their campaigns promote vegetarianism and try to
end the killing of animals for fur.

http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk/background-history-animal-testing.html

SCIENCE BEHIND IN VIVO TESTING

How animals are selected?

Why are certain animals used?

How long are animals tested/kept for?

What is the welfare of the animals during the testing duration?

What kind of test are run on animals?

-Eye Irritancy Tests
-US. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tests
-The Food and Drug Administration (DA) Tests

http://www.thenazareneway.com/vegetarian/animal_testing_toxic__tragic.htm

FUTURE OF ANIMAL TESTING

Alternative are available to test products:

human cell-based in vitro (test tube)- toxicity screening to test drugs, chemicals, cosmetics, and consumer
products. These humane tests replace cruel tests that involve pumping substances into animals' stomachs and
lungs and dripping chemicals into animals' eyes or onto their raw, shaved skin.

3-D in vitro (test tube)-human "liver" that scientists can use to study the breakdown of chemicals in the
human body. This technology effectively mimics human organs and can be used to test cosmetics, drugs, and
chemicals.

VaxDesign's groundbreaking Modular IMmune In vitro Construct (MIMIC) system uses human cells to create a
working dime-sized human immune system for testing the safety and effectiveness of HIV/AIDS vaccines. This
in vitro method is faster than animal tests, can be used to test vaccines on the immune systems of many
different human populations at once, and can replace cruel, ineffective tests on animals in which monkeys are
infected with HIV-like diseases and forced to endure acute weight loss, major organ failure, breathing
problems, and neurological disorders before they die excruciating deaths or are killed.

scientists and engineers at Harvard's Wyss Institute have created "organs-on-a-chip," including the "lung-on-achip" and "gut-on-a-chip." These tiny devices contain human cells in a 3-dimensional system that mimics
human organs. The chips can be usedinstead of animalsin disease research, drug testing, and toxicity
testing.

http://www.navs.org/science/ethical-argument-against-vivisection#.UjBT2X_vvDk
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-to-animal-

ETHICAL ARGUMENTS REGARDING ANIMAL TESTING

"Every major medical advance is attributable to experiments on

animals.

"If we didn't use animals, we'd have to test new drugs on people.

"We have to observe the complex interactions of cells, tissues, and

organs in living animals.

"Science has a responsibility to use animals to keep looking for cures

for all the horrible diseases that people suffer from.

"Many experiments are not painful to animals and are therefore

justified.

"We don't want to use animals, but we don't have any other options.

"Animals are here for humans to use. If we have to sacrifice 1,000 or

100,000 animals in the hope of benefiting one child, it's worth it."

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-bad-science.aspx