Animal testing is used to see the effects of products before the products are put up for human consumption. With this testing, thousands and thousands of animals are kept in cages and subjected to pain and isolation every year. Even though these animals endure this extreme pain for the safety of humans, results are rarely the same in animals as they are in humans. Even though animal testing is deemed as bad science, people say that every major medical advance is because of animal testing. This is not true, since we have vaccines, CAT scans, MRI, and many more advances that are not due to animal testing. Do we even need animal testing? Animal testing is misleading, cruel, archaic, and is not essential to medical research. First of all, animal research is unreliable and misleading. In various experiments, animal testing has led to opposite results then what the results are in humans. For example, there was an experiment using animals to research the relationship between cancer and smoking. The results came out that experiments on animals did not find any link between smoking and cancer. Cancer research has an enormous record of failures when using mice, rats, and other animals. (Greek and Greek) It is a well-known fact that smoking cigarettes causes cancer in humans but when these tests were performed on animals, the outcome was the opposite. This helps reach the conclusion that animal testing is misleading. Another example, is when experiments on animals did not link high blood pressure to strokes, or heart disease to cholesterol. (Greek and Greek). In humans, cholesterol links to heart disease and high blood pressure links to strokes. Lastly, there was an experimentation where they used a drug on mice that was supposed to raise cardiac output. This experiment concluded that, “The drug milrinone, which raises cardiac output, increased survival of rats with artificially induced heart failure; humans with severe chronic heart failure taking this drug had a 30 percent increase in mortality” (Barnard). Through these three examples, there is no possible way to conclude that animal testing is not at all misleading. If these experiments had been tested using another device or substance, these outcomes would not have happened. The idea of animal testing is that animals are used so that humans are not harmed, but these experiments caused more harm than anything to humans in the long run due to the misleading outcomes of experiments conducted on animals. Animal testing is remarkably cruel and inhumane. Animals that are used for testing are put in cages and isolated. They are usually, they are taken almost casually, housed appallingly, and denied anything close to a life (Newkirk). These animals are trapped their whole life and are stripped of their ways of life. Not to mention that within some of these laboratories, universities, and every other place that animal testing is conducted in, researchers treat animals very poorly. In one place, “workers were caught punching dogs in the face, screaming at the animals, and even simulating sex with each other while trying to inject a frightened beagle” (Newkirk). Not only do researchers do those cruel actions, but some “experimenters force-feed chemicals to animals, conduct repeated surgeries on them, implant wires in their brains, crush their spines, and much more” (PETA). Some may say that this does not happen and that animals do not experience pain anymore due to new laws, like the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). But, the truth is, these “laws” do barely anything, if nothing, to help stop the cruel acts that are inflicted upon these animals. Even with a law like the AWA, some animals are excluded, and some pain relief options for animals are optional. Therefore, animal testing is still cruel and inhumane. It may not be this way in every experiment, but it is this way in more than enough to raise attention. People in support of animal testing say that we have no other options and that animal testing is the only way to conduct research. However, in recent years, there have been many improvements on various testing objects. These other ways of testing products are better than animal testing. Animal testing has become archaic. These new testing alternatives provide clear outcomes that would affect humans the same way and do not give misleading results. One of these alternatives is called epidemiology. Using epidemiology medications, that were used to treat heart disease and high blood pressure, were developed despite misleading results of animal experiments. (Greek and Greek). Using cell-culture technology, researchers were able to test “eight substances in a number of high-throughput assays that probed a variety of biological pathways, including endocrine disruption and cytotoxicity, and produced a report identifying the toxicity profiles of the dispersants” (Rowan). Just using these two different alternatives, there are already a variety of different ways that testing could be conducted instead of animal testing. A third alternative of many are models. In one test, researchers made a model of the human a model epithelium. These researchers used a computer-based model to conduct the experiment and got results better than animal testing could be produced. These computer-based models are called Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship (QSAR) models. These models predict skin corrosivity and irritation by means of correspond a new drug or chemical with its probable activity, effects, and properties with classification accuracy between 90 and 95 percent (Animals). The accuracy of these models beats animal testing accuracy, yet we still use animal testing. Animal testing is archaic, unethical, and misleading. There are so many alternatives to animal testing that do not involve torture or give misleading results. These other alternatives are also ethical and use new technology.