4.See Shanks N, Greek R, Greek J. Are animal models predictive for humans? Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2009;4:2 [CMP free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]. See also Wall RJ, Shani M. Are animal models as good as we think? Theriogenology 2008;69:2–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] Usually, when an animal model turns out to be deficient, various reasons are given for what went wrong – wrong methodology, publication bias, lack of pre-existing diseases and medications, wrong sex or age, etc. These factors certainly need to be taken into account, and recognition of any potential differences between the animal model and human disease motivates further efforts to eliminate these differences. As a result, scientific advances are sometimes achieved through such efforts. However, the high failure rate in drug screening and development despite attempts to improve animal testing suggests that these efforts are still insufficient to overcome the barriers to successful translation inherent in animal use. Too often, the well-founded notion that, for the reasons summarized here, these models are inherently irrelevant to human diseases and therefore very unlikely to provide useful information about human diseases is ignored.41 Animals in laboratories endure not only pain and anxiety in experiments, but also inhumane living conditions. For example, social animals are often isolated for long periods of time; Food and/or water may be preserved; mothers and babies are separated; Animals are confined in small, sterile cages that bear no resemblance to their natural environment; And animals are exposed to loud noises and bright lights that are unnatural and stressful for them.
Another example of missed opportunities is animal experiments that delayed acceptance of ciclosporin, a widely and successfully used drug to treat autoimmune diseases and prevent organ transplant rejection.75 Its immunosuppressive effects differed so markedly from species to species that the researchers concluded that the animal reached all direct conclusions about humans. restricted. Along with other examples, PharmaInformatic published a report describing how several blockbuster drugs, including aripiprazole (Abilify) and esomeprazole (Nexium), showed low oral bioavailability in animals. They probably wouldn`t be available on the market today if we relied solely on animal testing. PharmaInformatic understood the implications of its findings for drug development in general, asking, „What other blockbuster drugs would be on the market today if animal testing had not been used to pre-screen compounds and drug candidates for further development?” 76 These nearly missed opportunities and the overall error rate of 96% in clinical drug trials strongly suggest the unfounded nature of animal testing as a prerequisite for human clinical trials and provide strong evidence of the need for a new human paradigm in medical research and drug development. All proposals for the use of animals for research purposes must be approved by an Institutional Committee on Animal Care and Use (IACUC) established by each research institution. The programs of most major research institutions are voluntarily reviewed for humane practices by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC).   More than a third of women only buy cosmetics from brands that do not use animal testing.  The market for humane cosmetics (products that have not been tested on animals) is expected to reach $10 billion by 2024.
 At least 37 countries have banned or restricted the sale of cosmetics containing ingredients tested on animals, including countries in the European Union.  In the United States, California was the first state to make it illegal to sell most cosmetics tested on animals.  60.Allen A. Mice and humans: problems with animal experiments. Slate 2006 June 1; available at www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2006/06/of_mice_or_men.html (accessed December 10, 2014). The evidence showing the unreliability of animal testing and the resulting harm to humans (and animals) undermines long-standing claims that animal testing is necessary to improve human health and is therefore ethically justified. On the contrary, they show that animal experiments result in considerable costs and harm to humans. It is possible, as I have argued elsewhere, that animal testing is far more costly and harmful than it benefits human health.81 When we reflect on the ethical viability of animal testing, we should ask ourselves whether it is ethical to deprive people of resources, opportunities, hope, and even their lives by seeking answers in what might be the wrong place. In my opinion, it would be better to divert resources from animal testing and direct them towards the development of more precise human technologies.
The close relationship between dogs and humans may precede the recorded history. Over the millennia, dogs have become our favorite pets and also our hardest working partners. They guide people with special needs; support for police, fire and rescue services; and even help gather other animals. One of the most important outcomes of our partnership with dogs has been their contribution to our understanding of diseases and how to prevent and cure them. In fact, dogs and humans get many of the same diseases, from heart disease to cancer. What we can gain from studying dogs in medical and scientific research often leads to treatments that help not only people, but the dogs themselves. 21.van der Worp HB, Howells DW, Sena ES, Poritt MJ, Rewell S, O`Collins V, et al. PLoS Medicine 2010;7:e1000245. [PMC Free Article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar].
Government-mandated tests Some common animal studies and non-animal testing methods that have been scientifically validated to replace them include: According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are often subjected to force-feeding, deprivation of food and water, infliction of burns and other injuries to study the healing process, inflicting pain, studying their effects and remedies, and „killing by carbon dioxide suffocation, breaking the neck, beheading or by other means.”  The U.S. Department of Agriculture reported in January 2020 that research facilities used more than 300,000 animals for pain-related activities in just one year.  The way forward is to convince the world`s governments, both individually and through international organizations such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, to become more involved in the development and application of sophisticated methods of animal-free experimentation. For example, after decades of involvement by scientists from PETA and other organizations, the EPA announced that it would end its reliance on mammalian toxicity testing by 2035 and provide funding to researchers working to develop animal-free methods. Where humane methods are not yet available or fully validated, PETA encourages others to provide funding for the development and validation of test methods.