If something requires the testing on animals because it could be harmful to humans, then it's probably not right to use it on humans. Why bother testing on animals? Why are the other companies able to do No Animal Testing? Why can't the others do the same? We are also not the same as animals. Being close enough is no exuse in my opinion. We know that chocolates aren't safe for animals, so that shows we aren't like the animals to compare.
Well, in behavioral studies, one studies reactions. A computer cannot react. An animal can. All experiments do not involve potentially harmful substances. Many, many psychological experiements involve nothing more than behavioral tendencies and reactions.
One human is not the same as the other. No one, except identical twins, shares exactly the same DNA. So being close is the best we can achieve, whether we are discussing animals or humans.
It's difficult for me to say that it's better to use it on an animal than on a human because animals suffer. How can these people sit there and watch animals be stressed out? Back in the ages we used natural elements than chemicals. I believe we would have evolved without making animals suffer for a new face cream because we now have technologies that could test out those natural elements or those that can be tested with technologies that we didn't have back then. Back then, we lacked technologies.
Testing begins with animals. The hallmark of valid research is that it is replicable. In other words, the beginning stages are done with animals, and then the same research design is used for human testing, once we have learned what we need to know from animal testing.
I saw on tv about a woman who volunteers to have the HIV virus injected to her while testing things to find a cure. She said she was fine with it and probably passionate about finding a cure. There's probably volunteers out there who would do this. Animals are probably used ignorantly because they are probably cheaper to use while humans you have to pay them.
