# data[].attributes.headline
Thoughts on "% of animal testings that fail"

# data[].attributes.subject
Thoughts on "% of animal testings that fail"

# data[].attributes.body
If more than 90% of animals test fail, why are we still testing on animals? Since 95% of drugs used on animals during test that seem to be safe for the animals but fail in human trials are used, how do we know how many other trials may fail without testing on humans as well? How many other drugs seem to be safe for animals but not for humans and HAVEN'T been tested on humans?

Quotes:
"fewer than 10 percent of highly promising basic science discoveries enter routine clinical use within 20 years" -- most of them are tested on animals, so researchers are basically testing on animals for no reason since only 10% of them enter a clinical use.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Update: President Trump has laid out his list of priorities for 2018 in his State of the Union Address. PETA wants to add to that list. This must be the year that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) finally enters the 21 st century and slashes its funding of wasteful, dead-end experiments on animals. Our new, full-page newspaper ad, which was just published this week in The Washington Times and The Hill, shows why. It provides overwhelming proof- some of it in NIH's own words -that these experiments are epic failures that squander time, effort, animals' lives, and billions of taxpayer dollars.

If NIH won't willingly enter the modern era, we need Congress and the Trump administration to drag it there. You can add your voice to our effort by taking action below:
Originally posted on August 10, 2017:
The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the primary government agency responsible for funding scientific research. But it awards a full 40 percent of its grant money to animal experimenters. All sentient beings value life and liberty. That should be reason enough not to subject them to experiments, but here are five other important reasons why ending experiments on animals helps everyone.

1. More than 90 percent of basic science discoveries from experiments on animals fail to lead to human treatments.

A 2014 review published in the British Medical Journal found that "even the most promising findings from animal-based research often fail in human trials and are rarely adopted into clinical practice. For example, one study found that fewer than 10 percent of highly promising basic science discoveries enter routine clinical use within 20 years." Most experiments on animals are useless.

2. Eighty-nine percent of animal studies could not be reproduced.

This is regarded as a fundamental step used to confirm the validity of scientific results. A 2015 analysis concluded that, at the most conservative estimate, this equates to $28 billion per year spent on experimentation that is misleading.

3. NIH admits that 95 percent of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in tests on animals fail in human trials because they don't work or are dangerous.

As NIH's website states, "Therapeutic development is a costly, complex and time-consuming process. The average length of time from target discovery to approval of a new drug is about 14 years. The failure rate during this process exceeds 95 percent, and the cost per successful drug can be $1 billion or more." Not only do medications that work on animals fail in humans, there are also probably some-perhaps many-drugs that would help humans but are discarded because they fail in tests on animals.

4. Experiments on animals divert time and funding from better methods.

While there are several reasons why experimentation using animals can't reliably predict human outcomes, the most significant issue is the vast physiological differences between species. Compounding the problem, these experiments siphon economic and intellectual resources from research that is relevant to human disease and could lead to cures and treatments.

5. Non-animal methods are available.

Reliable, economical non-animal methods are readily available for a wide variety of testing applications, including antibody production, skin irritation and sensitization, eye irritation, endocrine disruption, and tobacco product development and testing. And many basic science and disease animal studies, which don't translate to humans, can be replaced with new organ-on-chip technology, sophisticated computer simulations, 3-D cultures of human cells, epidemiological studies, and other more modern methods. Experiments on animals are so pointless that they should just be stopped.
Learn more about experiments on animals on The PETA Podcast: Listen to more episodes on iTunes, Stitcher, and Spotify! Subscribe for new episodes.
Ask your congressional representatives to support efforts to curb the waste of taxpayer dollars at NIH and insist that the agency award its grant money to effective non-animal research.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This Ad Spells It Out: Animal Tests Are Going Nowhere

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Update: President Trump has laid out his list of priorities for 2018 in his State of the Union Address. PETA wants to add to that list. This must be the year that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) finally enters the 21 st century and slashes its funding of wasteful, dead-end experiments on animals.

# data[].attributes.body
It's crazy to think that around 26 MILLION animals are tested or experimented on in the U.S. every year. So, the AWA (Animal Welfare Act) only cares/regulates the animals during housing and transportation, but they don't care what happens to the animals during the experiments? So if they are trying to keep the animals safe, shouldn't they regulate them during testing as well? Why are cold-blooded animals and birds, mice, rats, and farm animals not included in the AWA. THEY HAVE FEELINGS TOO. They should be taken care of as well. And since they are not included, researchers mostly use them to test on. Animals are so stressed that they tend to harm themselves which isn't ok either.

Quotes:
"animals are so different from human beings that research on animals often yields irrelevant results"

""the avoidance or minimization of discomfort, distress, and pain when consistent with sound scientific practices, is imperative."- This is what the The Guide of the Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals says, but as the experiments are shown, they don't look very humane or safe for the animals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
History of Animal Testing - Animal Testing - ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A comprehensive background to Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?

# data[].attributes.headline
Thoughts on "Alternatives to Animal Testing"

# data[].attributes.subject
Thoughts on "Alternatives to Animal Testing"

# data[].attributes.body
Based on the experiments that could replace animal testing, I think they sound a lot safer and more cost efficient, so why are we still testing on animals? The alternative tests also sound a lot safer. Why are we still testing on animals if there's ALL KINDS of safer, easier, more cost efficient, and more effective alternatives?

Alternative Examples:
- "organs on chips" ; they contain human cells that are grown to mimic the structure and function of human organs and organ systems
-cell-based test and tissue models
-human cell derived skin model
-test human blood cells
-computer modeling (simulates human biology)
-human volunteers (many different types of tests used)

Quotes:

“We have moved away from studying human disease in humans. … we all drank the kool-aid on that one, me included. … the problem is that [animal testing] hasn’t worked, and it’s time we stopped dancing around the problem. … we need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans.” —Dr. Elias Zerhouni

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
During a government meeting about funding for research, former U.S. National Institutes of Health director Dr. Elias Zerhouni admitted to his colleagues that experimenting on animals to help humans has been a major failure:

"We have moved away from studying human disease in humans. ... We all drank the Kool-Aid on that one, me included. ... The problem is that [animal testing] hasn't worked, and it's time we stopped dancing around the problem. ... We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans." -Dr. Elias Zerhouni

Today-because experiments on animals are cruel, time-consuming, and generally inapplicable to humans-the world's most forward-thinking scientists are developing and using animal-free methods that are actually relevant to human health for studying diseases and testing products. These alternatives to animal testing include sophisticated tests using human cells and tissues (also known as in vitro methods), advanced computer-modeling techniques (often referred to as in silico models), and studies with human volunteers. These and other non-animal methods are not hindered by species differences that make applying animal test results to humans difficult or impossible, and they usually take less time to complete.

PETA and our affiliates fund the development of many of these alternatives to animal testing, vigorously promote their use to governments and companies around the world, and publish research on their superiority to traditional animal tests.

Here are just a few examples of the numerous state-of-the-art, non-animal methods available and their demonstrated benefits:

Researchers have created "organs-on-chips" that contain human cells grown in a state-of-the-art system to mimic the structure and function of human organs and organ systems. The chips can be used instead of animals in disease research, drug testing, and toxicity testing and have been shown to replicate human physiology, diseases, and drug responses more accurately than crude animal experiments do. Some companies, such as AlveoliX, MIMETAS, and Emulate, Inc., have already turned these chips into products that other researchers can use in place of animals.

A variety of cell-based tests and tissue models can be used to assess the safety of drugs, chemicals, cosmetics, and consumer products. For example, MatTek Life Sciences' EpiDerm™ Tissue Model is a 3-dimensional, human cell-derived model that can be used to replace rabbits in painful, prolonged experiments that have traditionally been used to evaluate chemicals for their ability to corrode or irritate the skin.

The PETA International Science Consortium Ltd. helped fund the development of MatTek Life Sciences' EpiAlveolar, a first-of-its-kind 3-dimensional model of the deepest part of the human lung. The model, composed of human cells, can be used to study the effects of inhaling different kinds of chemicals, pathogens, and (e-)cigarette smoke.

Devices made by German-based manufacturer VITROCELL are used to expose human lung cells in a dish to chemicals in order to test the health effects of inhaled substances. Every day, humans inhale numerous chemicals-some intentionally (such as cigarette smoke) and some inadvertently (such as pesticides). Using the VITROCELL machines, human cells are exposed to the airborne chemical on one side while receiving nutrients from a blood-like liquid on the other-mimicking what actually occurs when a chemical enters a human lung. These devices, as well as EpiAlveolar, can replace the current method of confining rats to tiny tubes and forcing them to inhale toxic substances for hours before they are eventually killed.

Researchers developed tests that use human blood cells to detect contaminants in drugs that cause a potentially dangerous fever response when they enter the body. The non-animal methods replace the crude methods of bleeding horseshoe crabs or restraining rabbits, injecting them with drugs or extracts from medical devices, and taking their temperature rectally to monitor if they develop a fever.

Through research funded by the PETA International Science Consortium Ltd. and carried out at the Institute for Biochemistry, Biotechnology and Bioinformatics at the Technische Universität Braunschweig in Germany, scientists created fully human-derived antibodies capable of blocking the poisonous toxin that causes diphtheria. This method can end the practice of injecting horses repeatedly with the diphtheria toxin and draining huge amounts of their blood in order to collect the antibodies that their immune systems produce to fight the disease.

Computer (in Silico) Modeling

Researchers have developed a wide range of sophisticated computer models that simulate human biology and the progression of developing diseases. Studies show that these models can accurately predict the ways that new drugs will react in the human body and replace the use of animals in exploratory research and many standard drug tests.

Quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs) are computer-based techniques that can replace animal tests by making sophisticated estimates of a substance's likelihood of being hazardous, based on its similarity to existing substances and our knowledge of human biology. Companies and governments are increasingly using QSAR tools to avoid testing chemicals on animals.

Research With Human Volunteers

A method called "microdosing" can provide vital information on the safety of an experimental drug and how it is metabolized in humans prior to large-scale human trials. Volunteers are given an extremely small one-time drug dose, and sophisticated imaging techniques are used to monitor how the drug behaves in the body. Microdosing can replace certain tests on animals and help screen out drug compounds that won't work in humans so that they are never tested in animals.

Advanced brain imaging and recording techniques-such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)-with human volunteers can be used to replace archaic experiments in which rats, cats, and monkeys have their brains damaged. These modern techniques allow the human brain to be safely studied down to the level of a single neuron (as in the case of intracranial electroencephalography), and researchers can even temporarily and reversibly induce brain disorders using transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Human-Patient Simulators

Strikingly lifelike computerized human-patient simulators that breathe, bleed, convulse, talk, and even "die" have been shown to teach students physiology and pharmacology better than crude exercises that involve cutting up animals. The most high-tech simulators mimic illnesses and injuries and give the appropriate biological response to medical interventions and medication injections. All medical schools across the U.S., Canada, and India have completely replaced the use of animal laboratories in medical training with simulators as well as virtual reality systems, computer simulators, and supervised clinical experience.

For more advanced medical training, systems like TraumaMan-which replicates a breathing, bleeding human torso and has realistic layers of skin and tissue, ribs, and internal organs-are widely used to teach emergency surgical procedures and have been shown in numerous studies to impart lifesaving skills better than courses that require students to cut into live pigs, goats, or dogs.

Although scientists have state-of-the-art, effective, non-animal methods available, experimenters continue to torture countless animals anyway. " Without Consent," PETA's interactive timeline, features almost 200 stories of twisted experiments from the past century, including ones in which dogs were forced to inhale cigarette smoke for months, mice were cut up while still conscious, and cats were deafened, paralyzed, and drowned. Visit " Without Consent " to learn about more harrowing animal experiments throughout history and how you can help create a better future for living, feeling beings.
Without Consent
Donate now to help end animal tests!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In Vitro Methods and More Animal Testing Alternatives | PETA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cruel animal tests are wasteful and often fail. Learn more about state-of-the-art animal testing alternatives like in vitro and in silico methods.

# data[].attributes.headline
Just shows some examples of cruelty free items. And some thoughts...

# data[].attributes.subject
Just shows some examples of cruelty free items. And some thoughts...

# data[].attributes.body
I think we need to convince or persuade more people to buy cruelty free things. There are so many options now days so it's so simple to easily start buying curly free items. If people were educated somewhat on the issues behind animal testing, more people would buy cruelty free items. Commercials on t.v. is a simple way to help educate people on the issue.

Quotes:
"By purchasing products solely from cruelty-free companies, you’ll be helping to end cruel tests on animals, while sending a powerful message to the companies that still test."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Published by PETA.

The makeup companies in the graphic below don't support tests on sensitive, intelligent animals. These are just a few of the thousands of companies in our cruelty-free database. By purchasing products solely from cruelty-free makeup companies, you'll be helping to end cruel tests on animals, while sending a powerful message to the companies that still test.

Here's a list of vegan and cruelty-free makeup products that we love from the brands above:

Dermablend's entire product line is completely cruelty-free, so you can conceal and correct blemishes with its award-winning lightweight foundation while knowing that no animals were harmed for your beauty routine.

Whatever shade you pick, your lips will be poppin'.

Brighten your skin, and clear up your look with this oil-free foundation by e.l.f.

The Pacifica brand is 100 percent vegan and cruelty-free. We adore its line of hydrating lip balms.

With 12 palettes to choose from, you're bound to find the right shades to complement the windows to your soul.

Urban Decay's website has a page for vegan products, so it's easy to find items like this brow-taming gel.

Nothing will smudge the looks that this iconic eyeliner creates-it's waterproof, bold, and drop-dead gorgeous.

This awesome bleach-free whitening pen brightens your teeth without harming their enamel.

Glow up and rejuvenate your skin with this cream and serum set.
To see some companies that, unfortunately, still test on animals, click below. Which Companies Still Test on Animals? Also, take a second to encourage Mary Kay, Estée Lauder, and Revlon to stop supporting cruelty. Urge Mary Kay, Estée Lauder, and Revlon to Stop Paying for Cruel Tests on Animals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cruelty-Free Makeup: These Brands DON'T Test on Animals | PETA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cruelty-free makeup is easy to find! Here are just some of the makeup brands that DON'T test on animals. Help stop animal testing by supporting them!

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, so why don't we just use human volunteers to get to 100% rather than testing on an animal that would be out living their life in the wild life they are supposed to be.

Quotes:
" Animals do not have rights, therefore it is acceptable to experiment on them." - Umm excuse me? They might not have the same rights as humans but they still have to full right to live their lives peacefully without the pain and torture of being experimented on. They were put on earth for the same reason on humans. To live a happy and healthy life without being tortured almost daily and put into extremely stressful situations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An estimated 26 million animals are used every year in the United States for scientific and commercial testing. Animals are used to develop medical treatments, determine the toxicity of medications, check the safety of products destined for human use, and other biomedical, commercial, and health care uses. Research on living animals has been practiced since at least 500 BC.

Proponents of animal testing say that it has enabled the development of many life-saving treatments for both humans and animals, that there is no alternative method for researching a complete living organism, and that strict regulations prevent the mistreatment of animals in laboratories.

Opponents of animal testing say that it is cruel and inhumane to experiment on animals, that alternative methods available to researchers can replace animal testing, and that animals are so different from human beings that research on animals often yields irrelevant results. Read more background...

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1

Animal testing contributes to life-saving cures and treatments.

The California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals. Animal research has contributed to major advances in treating conditions such as breast cancer, brain injury, childhood leukemia, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis, and more, and was instrumental in the development of pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes, and anesthetics.
Read More

Pro 2

Animal testing is crucial to ensure that vaccines are safe.
Read More

Pro 3

There is no adequate alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system.
Read More

Pro 4

Animals are appropriate research subjects because they are similar to human beings in many ways.
Read More

Pro 6

Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing.
Read More

Pro 7

Animal research is highly regulated, with laws in place to protect animals from mistreatment.

In addition to local and state laws and guidelines, animal research has been regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) since 1966. As well as stipulating minimum housing standards for research animals (enclosure size, temperature, access to clean food and water, and others), the AWA also requires regular inspections by veterinarians.
Read More

Pro 8

Animals often make better research subjects than human beings because of their shorter life cycles.
Read More

Pro 11

The vast majority of biologists and several of the largest biomedical and health organizations in the United States endorse animal testing.

A poll of 3,748 scientists by the Pew Research Center found that 89% favored the use of animals in scientific research. The American Cancer Society, American Physiological Society, National Association for Biomedical Research, American Heart Association, and the Society of Toxicology all advocate the use of animals in scientific research.
Read More

Pro 12

Some cosmetics and health care products must be tested on animals to ensure their safety.
Read More

Con 2

Scientists are able to test vaccines on humans volunteers.
Read More

Con 3

Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals.

Other research methods such as in vitro testing (tests done on human cells or tissue in a petri dish) offer opportunities to reduce or replace animal testing. Technological advancements in 3D printing allow the possibility for tissue bioprinting: a French company is working to bioprint a liver that can test the toxicity of a drug. Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and ThinCert, can be made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and may produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin.
Read More

Con 4

Animals are very different from human beings and therefore make poor test subjects.
Read More

Con 5

Drugs that pass animal tests are not necessarily safe.

The 1950s sleeping pill thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities, was tested on animals prior to its commercial release. Later tests on pregnant mice, rats, guinea pigs, cats, and hamsters did not result in birth defects unless the drug was administered at extremely high doses. Animal tests on the arthritis drug Vioxx showed that it had a protective effect on the hearts of mice, yet the drug went on to cause more than 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market.
Read More

Con 6

Animal tests may mislead researchers into ignoring potential cures and treatments.
Read More

Con 7

Only 5% of animals used in experiments are protected by US law.

The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) does not apply to rats, mice, fish, and birds, which account for 95% of the animals used in research. The types of animals covered by the AWA account for fewer than one million animals used in research facilities each year, which leaves around 25 million other animals without protection from mistreatment. The US Department of Agriculture, which inspects facilities for AWA compliance, compiles annual statistics on animal testing but they only include data on the small percentage of animals subject to the Act.
Read More

Con 8

Animal tests do not reliably predict results in human beings.

94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials. According to neurologist Aysha Akhtar, MD, MPH, over 100 stroke drugs that were effective when tested on animals have failed in humans, and over 85 HIV vaccines failed in humans after working well in non-human primates. A study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) found that nearly 150 clinical trials (human tests) of treatments to reduce inflammation in critically ill patients have been undertaken, and all of them failed, despite being successful in animal tests.
Read More

Con 9

There is increasing demand for cruelty-free products.

Michael Bachelor, Senior Scientist and Product Manager at biotech company MatTek, stated, "We can now create a model from human skin cells - keratinocytes - and produce normal skin or even a model that mimics a skin disease like psoriasis. Or we can use human pigment-producing cells - melanocytes - to create a pigmented skin model that is similar to human skin from different ethnicities. You can't do that on a mouse or a rabbit."
Read More

Con 11

The Animal Welfare Act has not succeeded in preventing horrific cases of animal abuse in research laboratories.

Violations of the Animal Welfare Act at the federally funded New Iberia Research Center (NIRC) in Louisiana included maltreatment of primates who were suffering such severe psychological stress that they engaged in self-mutilation, infant primates awake and alert during painful experiments, and chimpanzees being intimidated and shot with a dart gun.
Read More

Con 12

Medical breakthroughs involving animal research may still have been made without the use of animals.
Read More

Did You Know?

1. 95% of animals used in experiments are not protected by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which excludes birds, rats and mice bred for research, and cold-blooded animals such as reptiles and most fish.

2. 89% of scientists surveyed by the Pew Research Center were in favor of animal testing for scientific research.

3. Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans. The US National Institutes of Health announced it would retire its remaining 50 research chimpanzees to the Federal Chimpanzee Sanctuary System in 2015, leaving Gabon as the only country to still experiment on chimps.

4. A Jan. 2020 report from the USDA showed that in one year of research, California used more cats (1,682) for testing than any other state. Ohio used the most guinea pigs (35,206), and Massachusetts used the most dogs (6,771) and primates (11,795).

5. Researchers Joseph and Charles Vacanti grew a human "ear" seeded from implanted cow cartilage cells on the back of a living mouse to explore the possibility of fabricating body parts for plastic and reconstructive surgery.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animal Testing | Pros & Cons | ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An estimated 26 million animals are used every year in the United States for scientific and commercial testing. Animals are used to develop medical treatments, determine the toxicity of medications, check the safety of products destined for human use, and other biomedical, commercial, and health care uses.

# data[].attributes.body
It's crazy to think that animals testing has gone up by 73% within the last 15 years. I thought there were more alternatives to animals testing now? In this article it says 17-100 million animals are tested worldwide, wayyyy to many.

Quotes:
"Despite new research technology, evidence that animal experiments often don't faithfully translate to humans, and the fact that a growing majority of the public opposes experiments on animals, laboratories are abusing more animals than ever before" said PETA Director of Laboratory Investigations Justin Goodman

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The use of animals in experiments at leading federally-funded labs has increased nearly 73 percent in the past 15 years, according to a new study conducted by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

The study, in the Journal of Medical Ethics, found the number of animals tested rose from 1,566,994 in 1997 to 2,705,772 in 2012 in testing by the top 25 institutional recipients of National Institute of Health grants.

Mice represented the largest increase in research with their numbers going from 1.2 million to nearly 1.9 million in that period. Other animals also saw increases. Nonhuman primates, for example, increased from 7,292 to 11,167, though the change was not statistically significant. Cats and dogs saw their numbers decline slightly.

PETA has long campaigned for a reduction in animals used experiments and there has been a shift way from using them for such things as chemical toxicity testing and medical education. Europe, for example, has banned the sale of cosmetics with ingredients tested on animals.

The study estimated that 17 million to 100 million animals are still used in laboratories.

"Despite new research technology, evidence that animal experiments often don't faithfully translate to humans, and the fact that a growing majority of the public opposes experiments on animals, laboratories are abusing more animals than ever before," said PETA Director of Laboratory Investigations Justin Goodman, who was a co-author on the study.

He and the other authors said the sharp increase in mice used in experiments that their study revealed could be driven by federal restrictions on the use of chimpanzees, dogs and cats due to growing public pressure, and the fact that mice and other smaller animals are not included in the Animal Welfare Act.

The use of mice "reflects scientists' and laypersons' greater moral concern for animals in laboratories who are typical viewed as companion animals or as being human-like or having higher mental abilities," the authors wrote. "This bias persists despite extensive evidence that - like dogs, cats and primates - animals such as mice, rats and fish experience pain, stress and distress."

A spokesman for the National Institute of Health dismissed the study, saying the methods could not be used to quantify the numbers of animals being used in research.

"It is data from reports gathered every four years regarding an average daily inventory to get a snapshot of the numbers of animals in a facility at a given time," Megan Columbus, the communications director for the NIH Office of Extramural Research, told CBS News. "It is inappropriate to use the data in the way the authors suggest."

Columbus also said the increased numbers of animals could simply be due to the fact that "research grant awards has increased over the time period reported in the paper."

"Thus, while the numbers of some species reported in the Animal Welfare Assurances have risen, this may reflect the overall increase in research and not that a larger proportion of the funded research involves animals," she said.

The study accused the federally-funded labs of breeding mice to carry genes that "predispose them to crippling diseases and other maladies."

"Because 95 percent of mice bred for these cruel experiments don't carry the desired gene, they're typically killed right after birth," PETA said in a statement accompanying the study. "The spread of this inefficient and inhumane practice has caused animal use to skyrocket."

PETA also alleged that individuals on testing oversight committees are often involved in animal research themselves, which creates a potential conflict of interest.

In an article accompanying the study, Lisa Hara Levin of the animal welfare group Animal Care and Control of New York and William Reppy of Duke University said the study illustrated the need to reform policies related to animal research.

They called for avoiding the use of animals in experiments when a non-animal alternative is available, increased transparency regarding animal experiments and a greater willingness to negotiate with responsible representatives of the animal rights and welfare community about problems they have concerning animals in institutions.

"Inviting collaboration with people having broad intellectual backgrounds could result in sensible dialogue regarding the use of animals in research," they wrote. "Ideally, this would replace poorly informed debate, minimize invective and balance the world's drive for scientific advance with the need to ensure animal protections."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animal experimentation up 73 percent, study says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The use of animals in experiments at leading federally-funded labs has increased nearly 73 percent in the past 15 years, according to a new study conducted by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

# data[].attributes.headline
My Thoughts on "Is Animal Testing Justified":

# data[].attributes.subject
My Thoughts on "Is Animal Testing Justified":

# data[].attributes.body
-Why is he saying that animals don't suffer? Is he just lying and saying that so people don't go against animal testing?
-I feel like the experiments they are talking about is unacceptable. Example: keeping the animals eyes open for 5 days, cutting their skull, etc.
-How do people think that it is morally right to treat animals like objects and not living beings?
-I think based on the information given with good points that we shouldn't ever test on animals when WE as well are animals.

Quotes:
"I do accept that there is certainly going to be some level of discomfort to animals and I think we have a duty that animal welfare is prioritized" - Then why are you still testing on animals if you believe in animal welfare???

" Well first of all we humans are animals to suggest there's some great gulf between us and other animals is nonsense. Of course we are more civilized and cultured and have greater intellectual capacity but the essence is that we are part of the animal kingdom and other animals have sentence, they can feel pain and suffering, they have basic emotions, they have cognizance, you know to treat them as objects for our benefit is morally wrong and the argument of the other side is that suffering is justified for the greater good well the logic of that argument is that we should them experiment on humans because humans should be sacrificed for the greater good and I don't believe that for one moment"

"I thinks it's unacceptable initially to think that somehow animals don't have the same level of pain and suffering emotionally and physically in the same way that we do. Why is it acceptable to allow one animal to suffer so that we can. We are all animals, why is our health any more important than the animals (being tested)?"

"Suffering is suffering, it doesn't matter who is suffering."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is Animal Testing Justified? (The Big Questions)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nicky Campbell hosts the topical debate show from Samworth Enterprise Academy in Leicester. The 'Big Question' is: Is Animal Testing Justified. Among those taking part are John Stein, Kailah Eglinton, Tom Holder, Alistair Currie, Christina Rees, Peter Tatchell, Ashley Mortimer, Jay Lakhani and Rev Canon Chris Sugden.

# data[].attributes.headline
Thoughts based on "The Truth about Animals Used for Experiments" by PETA

# data[].attributes.subject
Thoughts based on "The Truth about Animals Used for Experiments" by PETA

# data[].attributes.body
I just don't understand why people think it is acceptable to harm LIVING animals. Do they not know that the animals are conscious and can feel most of the pain. Do they not understand the suffering the animals go through, or the stress involved? I think it's crazy that over 17-100 million animals suffer yearly from animal testing. I think it's awful that the animals have to live their whole lives under so much stress, pressure, and pain.

Quotes:
"After enduring a life of pain, loneliness, and terror, almost all of them will be killed."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Right now, millions of mice, rats, rabbits, primates, cats, dogs, and other animals are locked inside barren cages in laboratories across the country. They languish in pain, suffer from extreme frustration, ache with loneliness, and long to be free.

Instead, all they can do is sit and wait in fear of the next terrifying and painful procedure that will be performed on them. The complete lack of environmental enrichment and the stress of their living situation cause some animals to develop neurotic types of behavior such as incessantly spinning in circles, rocking back and forth, pulling out their own fur, and even biting themselves. After enduring a life of pain, loneliness, and terror, almost all of them will be killed.

There are many non-animal test methods that can be used in place of animal testing. Not only are these non-animal tests more humane, they also have the potential to be cheaper, faster, and more relevant to humans.

While some of the experimentation conducted on animals today is required by law, most of it isn't. In fact, a number of countries have implemented bans on the testing of certain types of consumer goods on animals, such as the cosmetics-testing bans in the European Union, India, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, and elsewhere.

Millions of Animals Suffer and Die in Testing, Training, and Other Experiments

More than 100 million animals suffer and die in the U.S. every year in cruel chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics tests as well as in medical training exercisesand curiosity-driven medical experiments at universities. Animals also suffer and die in classroom biology experiments and dissection, even though modern non-animal tests have repeatedly been shown to have more educational value, save teachers time, and save schools money. Exact numbers aren't available because mice, rats, birds, and cold-blooded animals-who make up more than 99 percent of animals used in experiments-are not covered by even the minimal protections of the Animal Welfare Act and therefore go uncounted.

Examples of animal tests include forcing mice and rats to inhale toxic fumes, force-feeding dogs pesticides, and dripping corrosive chemicals into rabbits' sensitive eyes. Even if a product harms animals, it can still be marketed to consumers. Conversely, just because a product was shown to be safe in animals does not guarantee that it will be safe to use in humans.

Taxpayer and Health Charities' Dollars Fund Experiments on Animals

Animals are also used in toxicity tests conducted as part of massive regulatory testing programs that are often funded by U.S. taxpayers' money. The Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Toxicology Program, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture are just a few of the government agencies that subject animals to crude, painful tests.

The federal government and many health charities waste precious dollars from taxpayers and well-meaning donors on animal experiments at universities and private laboratories, instead of supporting promising clinical, in vitro, epidemiological, and other non-animal studies that could actually benefit humans.

A Century of Suffering

Experimenters have tortured animals in laboratories throughout history. " Without Consent," PETA's interactive timeline, features almost 200 stories of twisted experiments, including ones in which dogs were forced to inhale cigarette smoke for months, mice were cut up while still conscious, and cats were deafened, paralyzed, and drowned. Visit " Without Consent " to learn about more harrowing animal experiments throughout history and how you can help create a better future for living, feeling beings.

What You Can Do

Each of us can help prevent animal suffering and deaths by buying cruelty-free products, donating only to charities that don't experiment on animals, requesting alternatives to animal dissection, demanding the immediate implementation of humane, effective non-animal tests by government agencies and corporations, and calling on our alma maters to stop experimenting on animals.

With the help of our members and supporters, PETA campaigns globally to expose and end the use of animals in experiments. Some of our efforts include the following:

This multifaceted approach yields scores of victories for animals imprisoned in laboratories every year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Right now, millions of animals are locked inside cages in laboratories across the country. They languish in pain, suffer from frustration, ache with loneliness, and long to be free.

# data[].attributes.headline
Thoughts on "7 ways to Help Animals in Experiments"

# data[].attributes.subject
Thoughts on "7 ways to Help Animals in Experiments"

# data[].attributes.body
These simple ways are so easy so I don't understand why more people do it;
1. Always buy cruelty-free products
2. Educate others (convince them why animal testing is bad)
3. Help stop cosmetic testing in the U.S ( go to the PETA website and click the "Take Action" button to send a letter to the cosmetic companies, the letter is already written for you!"
4. Always speak up about classroom direction! And don't take apart of it!
5. Make a donation
6. Consider leaving YOUR body to science, it's really up to you
7. Share the PETA page and spread the word! Simple.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Why are millions of animals STILL suffering in laboratories? There's no justifiable reason. Companies do not need to torture animals in order to test mascara, shampoo, detergent, or other household products. Scientists do not have to torment monkeys in order to cure a disease. Educators do not need to buy fetal pigs to teach students physiology.

There are easy ways to lend your voice to animals suffering in experiments, and together we can stop animal testing. Here are six ways you can help them (and if you haven't already, join PETA's Action Team to help even more animals!).

1. Always buy cruelty-free products.

Cruelty-free cosmetics and household products abound. If you aren't sure whether or not your favorite brands drip chemicals into rabbits' eyes, check out PETA's comprehensive database. There have been a number of advancements in non-animal research methods, so there's no excuse for sick and twisted experiments on animals. Also, you can order PETA's cruelty-free shopping guide, which is great to hand out to friends, family, local salons, spas, and hotels.

2. Educate others.

Don't leave people in the dark about the horrors of the animal experimentation industry. Knowledge is power, so educate them by sharing PETA's " Animal Testing in 60 Seconds Flat" video. Brush up on the facts so that if any questions arise, you'll be the best animal defender you can be.

3. Always speak up about classroom dissection.

If someone you know is asked to cut up an animal in a class, encourage him or her to say NO! Humane, more cost-effective, and superior alternatives are available, and schools everywhere are catching on. If an educator gives him or her a hard time, let us help. We're pretty good at standing up for animals!

4. Make a donation.

Lots of charities ask for money and say they're working on a cure for a disease. However, behind the scenes, that money could be contributing to immense suffering. If you have money to give, make certain you only donate to charities that don't fund or conduct experiments on animals.

5. Leave your body to science.

Speaking of donating, consider leaving your body to science to help scientists, doctors, and medical students advance their research and training without hurting animals. You won't have any use for it, and wouldn't it be lovely to know that even after you're gone, you can still help animals? PETA President Ingrid Newkirk thinks so, and she's donating her body to help animals as well-although in a much more gruesome fashion.

6. Share this page!

Imagine the impact if all your friends and family did everything on this page. By sharing this information on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites, you'll have the potential to reach thousands of people and help stop animal testing! Let's make that dream a reality. So please, for the animals, share this page using the buttons below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
6 Ways to Help Animals in Experiments | Action | PETA.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are easy steps to reduce the number of animals needlessly killed in experiments-how many will you take? Act now to stop animal testing!

# data[].attributes.headline
Thoughts on "Animal Testing in 60 seconds Flat"

# data[].attributes.subject
Thoughts on "Animal Testing in 60 seconds Flat"

# data[].attributes.body
It absolutely breaks my heart to see the pain the animals go through. They are LIVING BEINGS. They deserve to have happiness in their lives just as much as we do. They have feelings just like us, imagine the stress they endure. I wonder if that makes them go crazy? They might not necessarily always feel the pain only because they are high off of drugs which is pretty bad too.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Go behind the locked doors of the animal-testing industry to see what animal experimenters are hiding from the public: http://features.peta.org/stop-animal-testing/ Pledge to be cruelty-free: https://secure.peta.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2061 Which companies test on animals?: http://www.peta.org/living/beauty-and-personal-care/companies/default.aspx Which charities test on animals?: http://www.humaneseal.org/search.cfm Subscribe and never miss another video: http://www.peta.vg/g4

# data[].attributes.body
I can't believe that because of the stress they are put under, that the animals tend to harm themselves as well. I think it's awful how animal testing is legal in 80% of countries. Why do some countries MAKE others test on animals before it can be sold? There are so many more methods other than animal testing.

Quotes:
" The 1.6% difference in our DNA actually means a lot" - If it means a lot, why are they still testing on primates if it can't be 100% accurate. What if it ends up harming humans even if it's safe for the primates?

"Students don't need to cut up animals to understand basic anatomy and physiology" - I 100% agree with this, and by doing this it was make students believe that it's alright to test/use animals as objects instead of living things.