dies. Such a case is determining the lethal dose of radiation used in cancer therapy. No matter what the test is or how it is performed, there is always an alternative to hurting and killing an innocent animal. Another thing wrong with animal testing is a lot of times the tests are wrong or inconclusive. There are several issues that effect test results. A reason test are inconclusive is because animals cannot describe their experiences including the aches and pains that are sometimes the side effects of drugs. Without the results of controlled clinical trials, it is impossible to be sure whether a treatment developed through animal research is really effective in man, or is it actually doing the patient more harm than good? Others are because without humans having the same susceptibility as animals, the drug may actually turn out to be bad for humans. With different susceptibilities, of 19 chemicals known to cause cancer in humans when ingested, only seven caused cancer in mice and rats. Considering cancer is one of the biggest tests done on animals, I think that is a huge factor that should be considered every time researchers get their results. An example is the drug fialuridine which was safe in animal trials, yet caused liver failure in seven of 15 humans taking the drug. Five died and the other two had transplants. Other factors that cause test to be inaccurate are many of the apparent anomalies seen in animal experiments merely reflect the unique biology of the species being studied, the unnatural means by which the disease was introduced or the stressful environment of the laboratory can change results. I personally think that in many cases the lab results are inconclusive or harmful to humans. I just showed a couple situations when drugs were supposed to help humans but instead did the opposite. With all the animal right activist groups out there, many alternatives are being found instead of using animals. In the curren...
