Skip to Main Content

Top Five Reasons to Stop Animal Testing

Written by PETA | May 11, 2011

Poisoning, shocking, burning, and killing animals is all in a day’s work for vivisectors. If these atrocious acts were committed outside laboratories, they would be felonies. But animals suffer and die every day in laboratories with little or no protection from cruelty. Here are the top five reasons why it needs to stop:

1. It’s unethical to sentence 100 million thinking, feeling animals to life in a laboratory cage and intentionally cause them pain, loneliness, and fear.


2. It’s bad science. The Food and Drug Administration reports that 92 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal tests fail in humans.

Animal Research Quotes

3. It’s wasteful. Animal experiments prolong the suffering of people waiting for effective cures by misleading experimenters and squandering precious money, time, and resources that could have been spent on human-relevant research.

Animal Research Quotes

4. It’s archaic. Forward-thinking scientists have developed humane, modern, and effective non-animal research methods, including human-based microdosing, in vitro technology, human-patient simulators, and sophisticated computer modeling, that are cheaper, faster, and more accurate than animal tests.

5. The world doesn’t need another eyeliner, hand soap, food ingredient, drug for erectile dysfunction, or pesticide so badly that it should come at the expense of animals’ lives.

bunny used for animal testing

For everyday ways to keep animals out of cruel experiments, see PETA’s list of surprising ways to help animals in laboratories.

Commenting is closed.
  • Jingbo Wang-Tappe says:

    I would never work in a lab like that and this is not the way how we can benefit human species

  • MP says:

    Cruel act. Heartless human.

  • Get Real says:

    animal researcher, I truly hope Karma comes back to get you big time. How do you sleep at night with innocent blood on your hands?

  • SCzesak2 says:

    Human Volunteers. There are people who need the money and would test for the right price. Then, atleast, we’ll know it does or doesnt work on us. These animals feel. They can’t say what hurts anyway, not the way a person can. If you wouldn’t want it done to you, don’t do it to animals!

  • Concerned Citizen says:

    To be completely honest, anything that has to be tested on anything, whether it passes or not, should never be consumed by anything. I am a firm believer of consuming whole organically raised foods and drinking lots of fresh clean water. And most importantly stop consuming sugar. If you follow this lifestyle, you should live a pretty decent healthy life without the need for medicine.

  • Ann says:

    Animal testing is so sickening. We get so many diseases from eating meat and the hormones that factory farms feet to animals, and then we test animals to try to find a cure when the cure is already at the end of our forks. What kind of people are we?

  • MA Moore says:

    Enrichment? Really? What planet are you living on animal researcher? Why don’t you use prisoners and violent criminals for your research and leave the innocent, helpless and defenseless animals alone!

  • Linda says:

    It amazes me how many cruel two legged animals there are in this world. Makes me sick…..

  • Kalama Halamezad says:

    #4 doesn’t make a case against animal research either. In vitro methods are often extremely fallible. The majority of in vitro research actually requires harvesting cells from animals. There are cases where in vitro research has replaced or been validated as better indicators for very specific things though than old animal methods. If there were an accurate in vitro model for everything, then there would be no need for animal research–but that’s just not the case. IMHO animal research actually provides us with the knowledge we need to develop accurate in vitro models. Computer modeling is almost totally useless. Even in electrical engineering things which are designed in simulation software fails to operate as predicted. Also, in life sciences, models are based on known phenomenon and can only be used to study exactly what they are meant to model. If something new is detected as the result of running a simulation, then it needs to be tested in an empirical experiment to see if the result is real or simply the result of a model that is either inaccurate or too simple.

  • Kalama Halamezad says:

    #3 is also misleading. Animal research is not the only research that produces results that squander “precious time, money, and resources”. I’d estimate that in vitro experiments that produce results that contradict each other have been published in the thousands. To make matters worse the bulk of these studies often fail to produce the expected results in the organism of interest. I’ve seen no shortage of papers where the observed results end up being the exact opposite of what actually ends up happening in a living creature. Going from in vitro to the host animal is no less a predictive mess than going from an animal to a human.

  • Kalama Halamezad says:

    #2 is not an entirely true statement. The true part is that during the years of that were analyzed (which aren’t current, btw) 92% of drugs that went to clinical trials were not approved. The false part is that not all of these drugs were developed in animal models–many of them were deemed effective based on their performance in “high-tech/humane” in vitro (dish) models. Some were considered effective enough to try out simply because they were chemically similar to drugs that were already known to be effective. So put in layman’s terms–every model in use contributed to this failure–not animal models primarily. And the conclusion of the report where this quote came from? We needed to invest the time and money to validate better models that were already being used in academic research (many of which just happened to be animal models). This report even went as far as to point out specific animal models that had contributed to much better outcomes in the years just prior to the publication of the document. This quote is not used even remotely in its proper context, nor with its proper meaning.

  • Jim says:

    In the words of the great Mark Twain: I believe I am not interested to know whether Vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn’t. To know that the results are profitable to the race would not remove my hostility to it. The pains which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity towards it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further. It is so distinctly a matter of feeling with me, and is so strong and so deeply-rooted in my make and constitution, that I am sure I could not even see a vivisector vivisected with anything more than a sort of qualified satisfaction. I do not say I should not go and look on; I only mean that I should almost surely fail to get out of it the degree of contentment which it ought, of course, to be expected to furnish. – Letter to London Anti-Vivisection Society, May 26, 1899

  • pj56 says:

    I do not see any reason for this. Why can’t an end just be made for laboratory animal research.

  • Ele says:

    I with that I won’t even buy cosmetic that don’t say “Not test on animals” and I don’t buy cosmetics that often since I don’t use them that much and I can’t stand to use them if they’ve been tested on animals. My sister works for doctors so she knows how often something passes the animals test but then doesn’t work on humans the reason why they were tested in the first place. Most products are test once on difference non human living creatures then humans get them. They suffer going through that test and the Humans suffer by getting a product that might not work on them and having to wait for that test to finish for it to even go to a clinical test on humans

  • animal researcher says:

    1. Animal Welfare laws dictate that laboratory animals from social species be housed socially, unless there is a danger of disease. Most labs also provide enrichment for animals (toys, exercise materials) as well as pain management treatment. These animals are from laboratory strains and most are not viable for life in the wild (e.g., albino mice). These animals aren’t sentenced – they are born in captivity. 2. of course many drugs that pass animal testing fail in humans. that’s why we also have human trials. if we didn’t have animal trials, we could potentially be putting experimental medications in human patients that would kill animals. Animal trials ensure that human patients signing up for experimental treatments at least have some assurance that what they are taking won’t kill them outright. Would you take medicine that hadn’t been tested at all? probably not. 3. yes. testing medications before you put them on the market is a huge waste of time. What would you rather have us do? if you know a large population of human patients willing to let me remove and examine their organs, please let me know and i’ll get right in touch with them. 4. non-animal research methods can only take you so far. if i want to know what a certain type of cell looks like, how do you propose i find that out without looking at the cell itself? human based microdosing works for some types of medicine, but is extremely dangerous to the human. in vitro methods use animal tissue, bio 101 please. simulators and computer models are based on data acquired from animal testing in the first place, otherwise they wouldn’t be reliable simulators, and a simulator can’t show you anything *new*, only what’s programmed into the simulator. 5. the world does not need those things, true. but does the world need cancer treatments, HIV treatments, insulin, cures for malaria, understanding the causes and mechanisms of parkinson’s, alzheimers, MS, lupus, and glaucoma? does the world need a way to regenerate dead brain and spinal tissue? You may not think so, but when you or a loved one has one of these diseases, you’ll come running to a scientist or a doctor in a matter of minutes.

  • Algol60 says:

    For the tests to be really effective, we need an animal model that is as close as possible to you and me, having a near identical digestive-system, nervous-system, skeleton etc. If it is a small creature, easily handled in the laboratory, so much the better. Of course, it must not be in a position to sue us or have any means of deterring us in our tasks, which we realise are sort of nasty but which MUST be performed for the good of mankind and to satisfy laws etc. Actually, there is a vast population of suitable candidates, pretty well renewable and in excessive abundance. They can probably be shipped in by the thousand if we can strike a deal with the right people in the right countries. Yes, applying the same criteria as in use today by vivisectionists, they should any moment be placing an order for 100s of… of… babies.

  • animal researcher says:

    @Carla. you say there are simulators more accurate than using animals or animal tissue? please direct me to these simulators, because whoever made them didn’t do a good job of announcing to the scientific community how he or she managed to make a model that was more accurate than the real thing, achieving a logical impossibility as well as a massive cost reduction technique. I’ll interpret any lack of sending of such simulators as admitting that you are completely uninformed about scientific research using animals.

  • Julia from Germany says:


  • Aneliese says:

    @Cat Whether it’s in a laboratory for cosmetic testing or scientific research, animal testing is animal testing.

  • Denise says:

    @Cat: I agree that the comments regarding cosmetics testing don’t quite fit with an article about animal testing done in the name of medical research. That doesn’t, however, make the facts provided in the article false. Animal testing, even in medical research, is unnecessary when there are viable other testing options.

  • DNF says:

    BRAVO TO PETA !! STOP ANIMAL TESTING: If only these heartless animal abusers/murderers were given the ability to feel the pain of their 100 million innocent victims, maybe they would be shocked into decent, ethical, common sense, putting an end to these atrocities once and for all.

  • Sofie says:

    You guys kind of protect animals but you guys invited Kim kardashyan to be promos u guys and she still wear mink of poor animal coat what’s rung whith u guys protect animal but holly wood still. Buying the mink and the wearing it

  • Ioana Cristina Pop says:


  • Dunia says:

    STOP THIS HOLOCAUST, this is not human.

  • Heidi Lochmann says:

    Please Stop IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Mike Quinoa says:

    Cat, How about backing up your assertions and giving a few examples of info and facts you find untrue or misleading?

  • Sammi says:

    Cat, unfortunately this information is quite correct. This is to do with human safety before it is about animal cruelty – animal testing IS dangerous for humans, and there is a long list of reasons why the scientific community fosters animal research, two above all: it eliminates the risk of being taken to court if things go wrong (and they do go wrong); and each individual “project” is funded, can bring more money to the institutions and prestige to the researchers. I would suggest, if you are interested and would like to see where PETA have taken those figures, that you read one of many interesting books on the subject, possibly VIVISECTION OR SCIENCE? by Pietro Croce. It contains quite a few chilling notions. It will hopefully make you re-evaluate your position? Or at least see that the statements above are not lies. At your service, Sam

  • Linda says:

    CAT: Animal testing is animal testing regardless if it’s for scientific research or products or not.

  • Shell says:

    I am on the fence about animal testing. The thing that concerns me is, if it were to be stopped, how do we test these drugs created for the well being of the human race? Are there alternative and effective ways to do so. This is the kind of information that needs to be put out there.

  • dore elisabeth says:


  • antonio says:

    Cat, what exactly isn’t “true info and facts?”

  • vivianne viscione says:

    i think, it is a big shame that we do with innocent animals.and nobody will care of these words, until it wont be ended by something, maybe an apocalipse.i feel a deep shame that i am a human, like you all, and you have courage to abuse the weaker creature.everyhting will be given back, but for now my words does not need for anyhting.please, try to feel how they feel..every living being want to live without suffering.every single living being.we dont need to kill, to use these products, it is known that it is not nesseceray.

  • Carla* says:

    There are simulators that are more accurate then using live animals that have a completely different gene pool then we humans do!! Shame on those vivisectors that are only using the word “research” to carry out their sadistic ways and getting away with it… ON OUR TAX PAYING DOLLARS!! SHUT THEM DOWN!!

  • AnnaJackson says:

    This is disgusting and barbaric. STOP IT!!

  • Twiglet says:

    @Cat – it’s not misleading, the title says “stop animal testing”. Make up, as well as drugs, is tested on animals.

  • patti says:

    Cat…you dont think that makeup is tested on animals? it is…and alot of animal by products are used in makeup as well. these facts are true.

  • Jan says:

    Cat, are you saying there’s some kind of conflation? Is one, say animal testing in the name of drug invention, justified; testing for make-up wasteful? BOTH cases run together in that, from the number of animals tortured and killed, the results are the same. Are you, perhaps, being inconsistent?

  • Tracye says:

    I truly believe that vivesectors are just children in grown up’s bodies that never grew up mentally. I was first introduced to vivesection in a mall where i grew up as a child, i believe i was about 16 and the posters showed one surgery that actually had a cat’s head sewn onto a dog’s head to see how long the both of them would live ????? WHAT KIND OF RESEARCH WAS THIS PROVING ??? Tell me what came of this ??? It is disgusting to say the least. If the proven facts are 92 out of every 100 products that are tested on animals FAIL ON HUMANS THEN WHAT ARE WE DOING PEOPLE ? WHAT ARE WE DOING this is 2011 for god’s sakes, GROW UP . Why don’t we do the RIGHT THING and do our testing on murderers in prison on death’s row, they are scum of the earth, but not innocent animals that cannot speak or help themselves, you are all just HUGE COWARDS

  • Jo Ellen Hoffman says:

    @Cat-How is this misleading? Obviously you are misinformed. If you are against animal abuse than you should be against animal testing. There are other ways to test, including using live cells which is more effective than putting helpless animals in torturous living conditions. Stop perpetuating that this is necessary or even ideologically correct behavior.

  • Jon says:

    #’s 2-4 above should have Peta fund groups like who focus on Science ONLY. Why is Peta not funding Dr. Ray Greek(world’s top expert) to speak around the country??? This makes no sense at all. Answers anyone?

  • kim says:

    Hey Cat. What is misleading about pointing out that cosmetics are tested on animals? What science can you point to that shows unequivocally that animal testing saves human lives? I have one word for you – thalidomide!

  • Elisa Purvis says:

    I am against animal cruelty and believe that other methods available should be used. Animals should not suffer in this way.

  • laila vandenbemden says:

    dit moet stoppen

  • madeleene says:

    I feel so sick and sad about that….all the world shut his eyes because Humans are the only ones who have the right to live…and all the world must be dedicated to this postulat….I DO NOT AGREE and I think that humans are so pretentious and dishonest to rule the world from their interests…. I’m often ashamed….and I feel so helpless ….

  • JosieJansen says:

    This information is misleading. I am against animal cruelty, but I wish you would use true info and facts rather than confusing scientific research and makeup testing.

  • Yvonne Hansen says:

    Animal Testing is murder!!

  • Dee says:

    Cat, what is misleading about this? Just wondering, i’m not disagreeing with you at all.

  • carla balsimelli says:

    I am against animal cruelty, but I wish you would use true info and facts rather than confusing scientific research and makeup testing.

  • erika acevedo says:

    If people thinks animal don’t have right, is bicoz your forgut you are the animal, we are the animal’s too…If you have right, they have right…

  • Cat says:

    This information is misleading. I am against animal cruelty, but I wish you would use true info and facts rather than confusing scientific research and makeup testing.