I could go on and on about the reasons why animal testing is archaic and unnecessary, but instead of babbling like a brook, I'm just going to leave it at Exhibit A: the technological breakthrough at Hµrel. This company relies on its expertise in engineering and cell cultures to provide scientists with alternatives to animal testing. Hµrel has developed a three-dimensional surrogate human liver that scientists can use to study the breakdown of chemicals in the human body. This in vitro (test tube) human cell–based technology effectively mimics human organs and can be used to test cosmetics, drugs, and chemicals. By providing an accurate substitute for countless animals who are experimented on and killed each year, Hµrel's 3D liver not only marks a major advancement in the scientific community, it has also made Hµrel the recipient of our Proggy Award for the Best Scientific Innovation of 2010—the first Proggy of the new year!

examiner / CC

We're not the only ones wowed by Hµrel's humane technology. The folks at L'Oréal are so impressed with the potential of this human surrogate that they're collaborating with Hµrel to develop a model to test chemicals for their potential to cause skin allergies. Allergic reactions in the skin involve the interaction of cells from two tissues—skin and lymph nodes—and this has complicated efforts to develop a non-animal model. Hµrel's technology is perfectly suited for this complex task, and an accurate, non-animal skin sensitivity test will ensure consumer safety without harming animals.

Fortunately for us, many companies out there have ditched animal testing for good. So tell us, what cruelty-free companies are you supporting?

Written by Logan Scherer

After receiving a frantic e-mail that was being circulated by a Purdue student who was desperate to find a home for one of the dogs used in her class, we dug up some extremely disturbing information about Purdue University’s Veterinary Technology Program. As part of this program, catheters are inserted into perfectly healthy dogs, who are killed following the experiment if students are unable to find homes for them.

According to the information we received, the students themselves are burdened with the task of finding homes for the animals used in these unnecessary procedures—and the penalty for failure is death for the dogs. "It became our responsibility to find all 10 of these dogs homes by the end of the semester or else they would be euthanized," wrote the student in her e-mail.

There’s so much wrong with this whole hideous program that it’s difficult to know where to begin, but the most obvious starting point is this: Vet-tech students can easily learn this stuff without hurting healthy animals—so how about making that the new SOP? We contacted Purdue this morning to make exactly that point, and ask the school to perform the procedures only on animals who are living in homes and who will receive a direct medical benefit from them, and to begin working with veterinarians in a clinical setting and with mannequins.

Or, as PETA’s Director of Research puts it,

You can read PETA’s letter to Purdue here.