In addition, an example, according to a former head of U.S. national cancer institute was a cure for cancer that worked for mice but did not work for animals (Cohen & Regan 2001: 108). Laboratory animals are bred for predisposition to certain types of diseases, kept in conditions that would be considered unnatural and exposed to disproportionately large amounts of chemicals and other substances used for testing. This therefore means that animal research adds little to our understanding of diagnosis and treating patients. The third argument raised is the benefits to human beings from animal testing are very minimal and that alternative methods could be employed because they are efficient (Yarri 2005: 151). Alternative methods include computer modeling and testing human tissues. Statistics from the National Institute for Medical Research, London reveled that approximately ninety-two percent of drugs that were successful during animal testing failed during clinical trials on human beings (Lovell-Badge 2013). Thus, this wastes time that could be used on alternative drug testing; as the DNA of humans and animals is very different. Personally, I agree with prohibition of animal experimentation for medical products as it is unethical. Scientists should endeavor to find logical and ethically acceptable ways of animal experimentation. If it is also possible to employ anesthesia and derive the same results, the same should be done. Buffalo, NY says that all animal experiments are untenable on a statistical.