In addition to animals being ineffective test subjects and their moral rights being infringed upon, there are several alternatives to animal experimentation. The main alternatives are in-vitro testing, computer modeling, and research with human volunteers. These alternatives do not harm animals in any way. In-vitro testing has made large strides recently through the research being done at Harvard University. They have developed “organ-on-chips” which is a small chip that contains human cells and replicates the structure of an organ system. This can take the place of animal toxicity tests and drug responses as it can be used as a platform to get more accurate data without harming innocent animals. Computer modeling is also very effective because scientists are always developing new models that depict how diseases progress and react to new drugs. Additionally, human volunteering is a great way to test a drug; instead of receiving the full dosage, volunteers are given a very small dosage so that they are not harmed, but the effects of the drug are tracked to see how it would affect a human if given to them in a larger quantity (“Alternatives to Animal Testing”).  In addition to the large number of these alternative methods, they are more effective than experiments performed on animals.  For example, “Crude skin allergy tests in guinea pigs only predict human reactions 72% of the time. But a combination of chemistry and cell-based alternative methods has been shown to accurately predict human reactions 90% of the time” (“Alternatives to Animal Testing”). Furthermore, when Draize skin irritation is tested in rabbits, only 60% of the time can it predict how it would react in humans. However, by using cell cultures to represent human skin, it is 86% accurate (“Alternatives to Animal Testing”).  These statistics are only a few of the various examples of how alternative testing methods are more effective than animal experiments. Isn’t it only logical to choose the method that gives more accurate data for humans? The cost of animal testing is also much greater compared to the cost of alternative testing methods. Around 12 billion taxpayer dollars per year are allocated towards animal experiments ("More Than $12 Billion in Taxpayer Money Wasted Annually on Animal Testing"). Spending that much money is absurd when using alternative techniques could cut that number down tremendously. For example the Draize test that was mentioned previously costs $1,800 while using animal testing methods. However, if in-vitro testing were used, it would only cost $1400 ("Costs of Animal and Non-Animal Testing: Humane Society International"). This 400-dollar difference in price will make a huge impact when thinking about how many times this test is done per year. By making the switch in just this one test, hundreds of thousands of dollars could be saved. This is only one example of where alternative methods are cheaper than animal experiments; the money that potentially could be saved if animal testing is banned can be used in other facets of our lives such as hiring more teachers to educate the youth of this country or provide more money to veterans who are homeless ("More Than $12 Billion in Taxpayer Money Wasted Annually on Animal Testing").