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.
  • Random Girl says:

    I am writing an essay on the topic. I agree with what these people have to say.

  • BIgDickFaggot says:

    yay Animals!

  • An Angry Girl says:

    Sickening. Why don’t they use criminals instead of poor, harmless animals who just want love? I send all those horrid people who do this to animals to hell and i hope they die. They really are sick people.

  • Abbi says:

    you are all sick people if you work at facilities like this

  • Kassidy says:

    They should do these test on people who are on death row. Like rapist murders and other horrific sad excuses for human being.

  • Rawr says:

    Use people who ARE sick in testing D:<

  • Keirsten says:

    I think the scientists need to get the people out of the jails who are rapers, pedifiles, murders, and other horrible people and test on them instead of testing on poor innocent animals Who are really kind and loving.

  • Casey says:

    Use horrible prison inmates on death row that have murdered and raped innocent human beings instead of using innocent animals that have done nothing wrong.

  • Cyntia says:

    Why do we have to harm any living thing. I don’t think enough people are aware of what we are actually doing since they don’t get to see the process, most people only see the finished products..I believe awareness is key to a better co-existence with all earthlings and beyond.

  • animal lover says:

    This just makes me sick I would have said that we could use dead people but they are dead and do not show any type of sign of positive or negitive so they are worthless but I am sure of another way DO THE MATHS IDIOTS they only use animals because they can not be bothered to work out the possible outcomes, as a result millions of dead animals a day. It is just so sad but we can’t do anything but donate to people who can help write letters write news papers. Do anything you can do to help and we can make things right in this work all animals have the right to live a good life.

  • Victoria says:

    I am doing a research paper on this, any helpful links?

  • Iman says:

    There is an alternative way to test animals. Because we have done lots of research in the recent years, were have enough information to live without animal testing. For example, people from millions of years before us have lived using nature and other stuff to cure their people. Also they had less diseases because of the environment that they lived in. They.didn’t have pulsation circling there lungs. But on the other hand if wet didn’t have animal testing then for future diseases ( which are unknown) we won’t be able to cure them being 100 % sure it will work on the patients.thank you for reading this and I Iman for Duncombe primary school in the London urban debate mate league¡

  • lou says:

    I was watching an episode of Ancient Aliens (tv series) and they showed old photos of a two headed dog (it was actually a sick experiment of some scientist who transplanted the head and neck of one dog to a German Shepherd.) I can only imagine all the horrors that sicko scientists and their kind who think its NEAT to torture animals for their own amusement, etc. Too many animals die at the hands of humans. How are we the superior species? OMG

  • Karla says:

    It’s just plain disgusting that people do this to animals. Dont scientists imagine them in the animals place??? Show some empathy!!!

  • kristen says:

    their is no way i would be able to test on an innocent animal with all the testing materials that they have today. nobody should ever harm an animal, they are just as important as humans!

  • Tianna says:

    This just makes me sick… just because they are different and cannot speak to us does not mean that they are less important than us! I hate it, especially clinical testing!! i mean what the hell! do we really need more mascara/ lipstick/ eyeliner!!! ‘if we do not want blood on our hands why do we put it on our face?!’ please share that quote!

  • Brett says:

    I believe attacking scientists is the wrong way to go about this. People buy mice traps all the time. People use pesticides at stores to kill thousands of lifeforms. It just makes me a bit sick that people are so HYPOCRITICAL. Rats are pests, and animals that aren’t adopted are PUT DOWN. How is that anymore humane? I think it should be determined what is allowed by the population of a species. Rats are an extreme pest, i’d keep them on the list. Testing is important to animals as well. We learn all kinds of ways of healing their brethren too!

  • Cassidy Versen says:

    Animals should not be tested on like this! What about if we use a dead person’s organs that they donated to science instead? That would be a lot more safer instead if taking away innocent animals’ lives. They have just as many rights as we do! Plus, if we keep experimenting on animals like this, we could end up killing most of the animal species!

  • Person says:

    why can’t scientists find a way to do this testing on things other than animals?

  • peopleamiright says:

    Ignorance makes me cry!

  • Chris says:

    Without animal testing human mortality rates would be exponentially higher than they are now. Animal testing as “cruel” as it may be, is directly responsible for saving millions of human lives every year. Pneumonia was the leading cause of death until the antibiotic properties of penicillin was discovered on animals. If you’ve ever caught pneumonia or any bacterial infection there is a good chance you’d be dead without animal testing. You can thank your furry little friends that they did not die in vain.

  • Naiad says:

    Do animals deserve to be treated less like property and more like co-existing agricultural equals? Significant medical advances in research have made animal testing for any purpose, a perverse and archaic action. Sadly, society still considers the life of an animal as property to be owned and used. Humans share close DNA with many species on this planet, and it is this “likeness” that has been the argument to support animal use for research. Do you know we share 50% of our DNA with a BANANA?? Medical research should be done using all the alternatives to animals available to us, including human volunteer donors who have been declared brain dead. I work in an area of medicine where I assist family members withdraw care or honor the patient’s request to donate life, and yet there still are no laws guiding us on the donation of living humans who are brain-dead!! These are optimal candidates for experimentation! Peter Singer once wrote “…given the choice between performing a painful medical experiment on a severely retarded orphaned child and a normal ape, we must sacrifice the child. Why? Because the ape has a greater capacity for pain”. Who can feel less pain than the brain dead?!?!?! Why are we still among the barbaric, is it the idea that many would loose jobs because they would no longer qualify for their jobs because the level of care of the research subjects would exceed their current practices?

  • Lizzy says:

    why dont they use it on human cells instead?

  • Jess says:

    Really wow

  • Kalama Halamezad says:

    Regardless of the inaccuracies of your statements, the point is that pumping out arguments that you put so little thought into that you ended up taking back what you passed off as fact while repeatedly identifying yourself as an “animal researcher” or a “neuroscientist” isn’t going to change anyone’s mind here. If people have an ethical objection to animal research, accept it and move on. That’s their right. If their objection is rooted in an inaccurate understanding of how animal research is conducted, what it is useful for, or the motivations of those who do it, then try to dispel the misconceptions. From my perspective as an animal researcher, there are definitely ways to improve the welfare of animals used in research, and if people who care about animals are stuck in a rut where they’re focused on attacking researchers who they think are either psychopathic or “in it for the money”, or insisting that animal research is fruitless and impedes medical progress, then the changes that can and should be made aren’t going to get made.

  • Kalama Halamezad says:

    4. I’m not even sure why you’re addressing this point with me, or why you need to capitalize every letter of “cortex”. I’m well-aware of prominent structural similarities between rats and humans. I’ve taught neuroanatomy before. Of course (putting aside the major structural difference you already realized your mistake on), you didn’t even need to look at a section to find a major difference since one is evident even at the macroscopic level. Lissencephalic humans are considered anomalies. Lissencephalic rats are not. And the only difference between a human and snail pyramidal neuron (ignoring the fact that pyramidal cells aren’t all motor neurons, while assuming you’re only referring to the corticospinal pyramidal neurons) is the length of the axon? Sorry, that’s just not the case. First, you forget one huge difference–that molluscs don’t have any myelinated axons, and thus their motor axons don’t convey signals to motor targets via saltatory conduction. Second, the simple fact that the genotype isn’t identical pretty much guarantees that the compared neuron is going to exhibit unique characteristics and behaviors when tested in a number of situations (Kind of hard for a receptor that doesn’t exist in a snail neuron to respond to its ligand, one would assume). Third, what exactly is the analagous snail pyramidal neuron you’re trying to compare human motor pyramidal cells to? I don’t work with invertebrates, so I could be wrong about this, but I’ve read in the past that pyramidal cells are generally only found in vertebrates. If any snail does have a pyramidal neuron, which one is only different in length when compared to a human pyramidal motor neuron? From a phenotypic perspective, I doubt even that pyramidal motor cells differ only in length within a single human individual. Otherwise, how would the axons find the right target to innervate? Doesn’t this require that they respond differently to chemotactic cues during development?

  • Kalama Halamezad says:

    @animal researcher: Didn’t have any luck getting the whole post through, so I’m breaking it into four posts so that at least some of the stuff might get approved for display. I’m saying your concrete arguments are easily rebutted. What ethical strategy individuals use to rationalize their beliefs is of no consequence to me as long as they’re consistent. Point-by-point: 1. Check most dictionaries and thesauri–the majority of definitions and synonyms of “creatures” do not include anything remotely associated with plants. That aside, Chelly (the individual who you accused of not respecting creatures by equating animals to plants) was clearly not using a definition of “creature” that included plants. It is fair to ask Chelly why her ethics don’t apply to nematodes or plants, but you don’t need imply her own words are insensible, since by most definitions, her statement does not mean what you insisted it did. I did not argue that “I” believe animals with “human-like” nervous systems deserve rights. I said that most animal rights activists are going to give this type of response to your “plant/nematode argument”. Vegetarians don’t consider it ethical to eat or intentionally kill aplysia or squid, so your new point still wouldn’t address the issue. If you used an insect as an example you’d at least have a leg to stand on since it is something that has both a nervous system, and is sometimes intentionally killed by vegetarians. Then maybe you’d be able to have a worthwhile debate of some sort instead of making arguments that are hardly any more applicable than “You can’t get enough protein if you don’t eat meat.” I mean, really, what was the point of humanizing an animal that AR activists probably afford the same respect as any other animal? They don’t eat calamari, so why would they harm a squid?

  • Marion Nolte says:

    Der Mensch glaubt manchmal, er sei zum Besitzer, zum Herrscher erhoben worden. Das ist ein Irrtum. Er ist nur ein Teil des Ganzen. Seine Aufgabe ist die eines Hüters, eines Verwalters, nicht die des Ausbeuters. Der Mensch hat Verantwortung, nicht Macht. (Onondaga)

  • Justice says:

    Animal testers can say whatever they like. Let them ramble on about the science behind their cruel practice. At the end of the day its cruelty. Human slavery was highly beneficial to the economy of the Southern United States. It did not make it right. Abolitionists would not stand for human slavery when it existed just as those of us who do what is right will not stand for the slavery and abuse of other species either. This will end.

  • Debz Jones says:

    Animal testing DOES NOT stand up, it’s unethical, disgraceful and **** right CRUEL, if humans want things tested, do it on humans, not creatures who have to suffer thousands of these tests for medicines & the vanity of those who use cosmetics tested on them. It is 2011 and time everyone was accountable for their actions, animals are NOT ours to use and abuse!!!!

  • Mary says:

    Pro-vivisection arguments generally claim that because animals were used for most medical and scientific advancements, these advancements necessarily depended on animal use. If you only try one method you will erroneously assume your work depended on that method. It’s like claiming that all humans must smoke to be healthy just because you’ve never met an unhealthy smoker. It makes no sense, and it obscures the issue. But, the public believes these arguments, and until more people get upset over what goes on in labs-and use their money to influence policy-the animals will continue to suffer for nothing.

  • Norma Santomauro says:

    Stop that cruelty

  • animal researcher says:

    as i also realize i have the names of ethical systems backwards. rule deontological is the opposite of what i said, which should be consequentialist.

  • animal researcher says:

    ah sorry, my previous (as yet unpublished) post is in slight error. the rat cortex and human cortex have major macrostructural differences, rendering the rat ineligible for many (but not all) studies relating to cortical structure and function, most notably in layers 4-6 which are nonexistent in the rat. Cortically intensive study is best performed with primate models, since they are, of course, much more closely related to, and share more of the same structures with, us.

  • animal researcher says:

    @Kalama Halamezad – if the rule deontological argument is so easily rebutted and invalid, why is it still taught and applied so often? Now for the point-by-point. 1. Since when do people not categorize plants as creatures? Plants are alive just like an animal. You argue that the animals that deserve rights are those animals with “human-like” nervous systems. What characterizes “human-like”? Molluscs, most notably Aplysia and the giant squid, are regularly studied in neuroscience, yet their nervous systems are far simpler than ours. Do you not care about them? Nematodes *do* have a nervous system, and are aware of their surroundings. Like all animals, they are capable of sensing their environment and acting upon it in meaningful ways. This is part of the definition of an animal. All too often people only seem to care about “cute” animals – but you seem reasonable and i will not assume you are one of these. 2. Of course I can call someone who is against animal research, and is calling for animal research to end, a hypocrite if they are using the products of that research. It comes back to the rule deontological argument – if they do not believe that “the ends justify the means” in animal research, then surely they cannot benefit from those “ends” if they disagree so strongly with the “means” – it means that they do *not* believe what they are saying; they “under-believe” – translate to latin = hypo-crite. Buying products that were once tested on animals but are no longer used on them won’t change anything – it’s the premarket testing phase that requires the use of animals anyway. Drug companies use many non-animal assays when appropriate, but there are simply some things that can only be tested with a real animal. 3. About those neurons – you’re discoursing with a neuroscientist, sorry if I tried to simplify an argument for the laypeople. A GABA-ergic retinal cell is basically the same between all species, a pyramidal motor cell is basically the same between all species. What i am getting at is that though there are many thousands of different kinds of neuron, almost all animals *share the exact same types* and these types are quite uniform between species or even phyla. Of course a neuron in the brain or eye is different from a neuron in a dish – that’s actually one of the main reasons we must examine the structure and function of neurons in live or freshly dead animals; in vitro methods simply do not always give you the same information as in situ or in vivo methods. 4. As far as similarity to humans is concerned… If you look at a section of rat retina, or even as far as a section of rat CORTEX, you will see that it is remarkably similar to that of a human. Granted, rats are intelligent mammals and you would of course not see the same macrostructural similarities in, say, a snail brain. That’s why some experiments require the use of higher-order animals. On the other hand, if you looked at a single pyramidal cell (a common and easily found type of motor neuron) in a snail vs. a human, the only difference is that the human one is much longer. Once again, animal models are never going to be perfect, differences exist and it cannot be known how systematic these might be. However, they are currently the best models available since large scale human testing is still (and probably always will be) illegal.

  • Kalama Halamezad says:

    @animal researcher Why waste time with petty ethical arguments with rebuttals so poorly thought out that 90% of animal rights activists can easily rebut you? 1. Putting aside that plants are almost never categorized as “creatures”, you know that most people are going to declare the animals that deserve rights have a human-like central nervous system that possesses characteristics that make it feasible for the animal to possibly be aware of its circumstances. Nematodes aren’t generally going to fall into this category. As for the list of animal-tested products–I know that some of those have been produced and quality-assured without resorting to animal testing for many years now. Some of them would not exist without animal research, but you can’t really call someone willing to buy something that was formerly tested on animals a hypocrite if they buy it once the use of animals for production is abolished. It’d be like calling someone who wears cotton clothing a hypocrite since clothing was initially invented and produced using bone needles and animal hides. Plus, a person who makes a conscientious decision to purchase only medicines currently produced and tested using non-animal methods is basically making a statement to a drug company that it should develop and validate more non-animal assays for drug production and testing in the same way that buying organic encourages Big Ag to implement and improve organic farming methods despite it being a more expensive means of producing. And a neuron is a neuron? In the dictionary sense, yes–but one neuron in the brain is (vastly) functionally and morphologically different than the same neuron in a dish. This isn’t to say that you can’t gain valuable information provided you appreciate how to interpret the information gathered in each situation correctly, but you’re not going to convince anyone that it’s okay to do translational studies using rat nervous systems because “a neuron is a neuron”. People need to appreciate why it’s logical to use models that aren’t human despite the fact that they aren’t identical–not have someone berating while telling them A = B.

  • animal researcher says:

    @LAPEGUE – to avoid buying any products tested on animals, just don’t use any of the following medicinal products: day/ny-quill, aspirin, tylenol, band aids, rubbing alcohol, hydrogen peroxide, penicillin, insulin, vaccines, topical antiseptics or analgesics. Basically, if you are seriously injured or sick, you will simply die. If you use these products but are against animal research, you are a hypocrite. [email protected] – plants are living creatures too, why don’t you respect them? why don’t you respect the nematodes (a type of worm) that you kill by the thousands every time you take a step? if you have a parasite, will you respect it and not kill it? [email protected] Khennaf – willingness to expose some creatures to pain or death in order to benefit our own species is not morally reprehensible. It is a commonly held rule-deontological position best demonstrated by the following – would you kill one person to save a hundred? rule deontological morality dictates yes. Brush up on your basic ethics before you call someone a cretin. [email protected] – of course animal models are not perfect. as I’ve stated here before, the scientific community would jump at the opportunity to safely, legally, and cost-effectively experiment on humans. As it stands, we use the “closest” animal allowable for the experimental paradigm. animals and humans share many genes, use the same proteins and have the same basic types of cells. Some animals even have the same senses as we do. a neuron is a neuron, regardless of where it came from, and can tell us quite a bit even if it isn’t human. If it means so much to you, perhaps you can lobby your congressperson to allow human cloning and lab colonies and see where that takes us.

  • Kalama Halamezad says:

    Samuela, Your assumption proves exactly how misleading the information is. What makes you think that the major point of animal research is to test whether something is poisonous? What makes you think that in vitro research is any less fallible? How do you prove a computer model makes accurate predictions of untested hypotheses without confirming findings in actual organisms? You can’t. The fact here is that research isn’t as simple as you’re trying to make it. For instance, if we note that chocolate is poisonous in dogs, but not in man, does not learning “why” it is poisonous to dogs teach us more about our own biology? Knowing when things “are not” the case is vital to figuring out what “is” the case. Noting the differences between species is often how we reach valid conclusions, and the only way to avoid this would be to have access to a huge pool of humans that have all kinds of diseases (at all points of progression) who were willing to die in order to be subjected to the most advanced biological research methods….or to have infallible models. Clearly since we can’t even predict something as simple as all the metabolic products of high-fructose corn syrup, our models have much to be desired.

  • neusa maria gon&#231;alves e castro says:

    A ciência que usa dessa prática é retrógrada, pois já existe material sintético para uso em experiências de laboratório. O que dificulta a prática é a questão econômica, pois é muito mais barato usar o sadismo e a crueldade em testes com animais. Abomino totalmente a prática!

  • Chuenchien says:

    poor thing~ seriously shouldn’t try on them.. =(

  • Samuela says:

    The information contained in the article is far from misleading – it is quite correct. In fact, animal testing is so flawed, that in many, many occasions, it has been proven that what is poisonous for one species is beneficial for another. Aspirine is one of them: good for humans, poisonous for cats, for example. Conclusion: vivisection is not a scientific method, because the results obtained on one specie cannot be replicated on another. From this: vivisection endangers human health!!! Even doctors and researchers say so. People, access this information and make up your own mind. Peace and love.

  • Tammy Karaba says:

    Animal testing is cruel and I agree it should end.

  • Charlotte Khennaf says:

    These so-called scientists are lacking moral fibre and glaring social ineptitude. Willing to expose other living creatures to endless torture makes them nothing but obnoxious cretins.

  • Chelly says:

    Horrible !! No words can describe the horror that they go trough…. WE humans need to go to the next level and respect ANY living creature!!!!!!!!

  • LAPEGUE says:

    I am definitively against animal testing, how to avoid buying or using bad products which are tested on animal, when the information is missing on those products, only a few brands specify these informations

  • PuppyLover says:

    After reading this I was so sickened that I almost threw up my KFC Hot Wings. After taking a swig of milk (from slave cows) it shot out of my nose. I can’t type much more because my arms are tired from clubbing baby seals. When I go to a hospital, I will insist that my treatment be based on animal experimentation rather than a real cool computer model written by a geek in his basement as he chomped on tofu and downed carrot juice. Humans Rule. Get a life and a burger and you will be O.K.

  • wim says:

    stop animal testing, there are prisioners enough to do it on

  • noelle schiller says:

    Please help stop animal testing. It is cruel and in human.

  • noelle schiller says:

    Animal testing is cruel and it should end.