t that ôA computer canÆt generate blood to test the blood sugar of a diabetic patient,ö and ôA computer cannot feel pain or have a heart attackö (Chang 10). It was animal experimentation which allowed the discovery of insulin, a drug without which millions of diabetics would die every year. Animal experimentation has allowed the development of life-saving organ transplants, and many other medical discoveries.
In her Book, ôLethal Lawsö Alix Fano presents an analysis of both sides of the argument for animal toxicity testing, though it is heavily weighted against using animals as research subjects. She devotes only five pages of the entire 231-page book to the case for animal experimentation. Presenting the case for the use of animals, Fano cites toxicity testing in animals as necessary to determine safe levels in humans prior to exposing them to potentially harmful substances (44). She acknowledges that scientists appreciate the differences between animals and humans, and that these factors are taken into consideration, and that scaling is often used to correct for species differences in cross-species comparisons (45). She points to genetically controlled breeding, which allows for homogeneity in animal populations used for testing. Scientists stress that by using animals, they can see how an entire organism responds to a substance; how the substance interacts with different organs, cells, and tissues; and how the substance is absorbed, metabolized and utilized by the organism (46). At autopsy, the animal can be examined to see the route taken by the substance through the body, and where it may have caused damage. Such information cannot by obtained through any other means currently available.
The National Institutes of Health states that ôWithout laboratory animals, researchers would have no way of seeing how the body handles...toxins, where they are concentrating in the body, and what damage they may be causing...