This shows that not using animals can be just as effective as using animals most of the time. This quote can also go to show that most scientists are open to new ideas and ways of testing the products so things can still change here in the near future. The 92% statistic comes from an earlier report which showed only 8% of those drugs passing animal testing stages would go on successfully to be FDA approved (Understanding Animal Research) Is even just one life worth an 8% chance that a drug will pass and be approved by the FDA? With these other methods of testing the same products the passing rate may be higher or about the same. Either way taking the route of not using animals is best for now and for the long run. It will save the government money, save animals and human lives, and it will allow for us to move forward and discover new ways to help fight off diseases and look our best. Another alternative to testing on animals is using human skin leftovers from surgical procedures or donated cadavers can be used as test subjects (Alternatives: Testing Without Torture). This would be a very useful way of testing, because there are so many procedures each day the skin could be donated and used to research the safety of products.
Even though there are pros and cons to each way of testing products if it does or does not include animals. I believe that it is best not to use animals in research labs to test vaccinations and other various products because it is inhumane and better overall. It will save the government money, save animals and human lives, and it will allow for us to move forward and discover new ways to help fight off diseases and look our