So according Peta, FDA reported 92 out of every 100 drugs that successfully pass animal trials, failed in humans. If this is true, why are we then keep using animals for testing?

here's the link: http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/us-government-animal-testing-programs/food-drug-administration/

good news is as technology advances, human chips will eventually be used instead of animals in the future:
http://wyss.harvard.edu/viewpage/484/

 

So according Peta, FDA reported 92 out of every 100 drugs that successfully pass animal trials, failed in humans. If this is true, why are we then keep using animals for testing?

Because that's the wrong comparison to make.

How many compounds failed in animal testing and were then never given to humans and never caused harm to humans?

 

Incidentally, that 92:8 ratio could be improved enormously by using a larger range of animal species- especially if we used higher primates for testing.

Is that what you are hoping to achieve here?

 

Nobody ever said animal testing was perfect- or even good.

Plenty of people (I'm one of them) are working towards replacing it (at least as far as we can).

But the point is not that it's poor, but that it's infinitely better than nothing.