. These programs are like encyclopedias of chemical information. They can only run simulations based on information on chemicals and reactions that are already known. This is an obvious problem with this "alternative." Computer simulation software cannot accurately predict the effects of enough situations and theoretical chemical combinations to be heavily relied on. What it comes down to is that there currently is no viable replacement for live, responsive cells. Jack H. Botting and Adrian R. Morrison point out that "there are no basic differences between the physiology of laboratory animals and humans" (Botting, Morrison 85). These similarities are what scientists need for experiments to be accurate. The matches are never perfect, but animal experiments are a good place for researchers to start looking for answers to questions that are important to human health care. Another proposed alternative to animal testing is to use human subjects. PETA suggests using people who have particular ailments who would be willing to participate in experiments. The problem with this alternative is that it is not scientifically sound. When conducting a scientific experiment, all variables must be controlled, and running tests on random human subjects does not give reliable results. Assuming that a researcher could find enough people to run an experiment, there would be too many extraneous variables, such as the subject's environment, genes, and other pre-existing conditions. With lab animals the complete medical history is known, the entire life of each animal is documented. Also they are selectively bred to produce genetically similar subjects. Simply put, lab animals are a cheap, reliable source of information. The benefits gained from animal testing are too widespread to ignore. Everyday life has been changed for the better because of this testing. As 1990 Nobel Prize Laureate Joseph E. Murray, M.D. said, "Animal experimentation has been essential t...
