Is animal testing that crucial for scientific progress?

[RichardD]

For one, I believe that animal testing is cruel. A question that I've had recently though, is if it is even that reliable. Due to the facts that we test on animals that are not our own species, the outcomes of these experiments cannot always be applied to humans. The whole concept that something effecting an animal will cause the same effects in humans is scientifically flawed. Various substances have been introduced to the general public as "safe" simply because they were safe on other species, only to end up being detrimental to humans and causing serious illnesses. Thalidomide is the first thing that comes to mind, being introduced to humans because it was safe in animals, and ended up causing tens of thousands of birth defects for humans. On the other side, various substances that are beneficial for human medicinal advancements may be bad for animals but good for us. With the technology that we have today, is this even necessary? Don't we have better alternatives? I hear a lot of people proposing testing on death row inmates, although controversial, there is no doubt that results from that will be a lot more accurate and beneficial to medical advancements. But through epidemiology, technology and other sciences, can we get better results than animal testing?