The topic of animal testing within the field of medical research has been deeply controversial within history. The latter possess the subjected testing as a violation of animal rights; yet scientists such as Andrew Rowan embodies the sense that animals distinctly do not have the same rights as humans and if their pain is what leads to technological advancements then so be it. The two opposing sides to the argument manifested into physical violence as Lorna Colliers cites, within her proposition to the American Psychological Association, that over two-hundred and twenty reported acts of aggression coupled alongside bomb threats and arson took place against scientists and labs that had all been accused of animal testing between 1990 and 2012. The official stance to date for the American Psychological Association on animal testing within the medical community leans in favor of the laboratories and scientists performing the tests. The Association emphasized a controlled as well as a safe environment for animals who have to undergo the testing. The APA can not turn a blind eye to the innovative research which has been utilized to save or better an insurmountable number of Americans lives over spans of decades.  Thousands of lives have been saved due to the intense time and effort American workers have put into finding cures and ailments  for medical diseases, most notably Parkinson's disease. The benefits of animal testing heavily outweighs the negative publicity and sometimes dangerous conditions in which testing must be endured by scientists who are breaking through medical barriers. 

       While animal research may not be the most ethically sound way of gathering medical data and learning new procedures there is no parallel to how how many life saving procedures that have been created and discovered due to testing on live animal subjects. In ,"The Benefits and Ethics of Animal Research",  Andrew Rowan points out many examples as to why animal research is vital to humans as well as animals in developing procedures and medical treatments for the animals that are being testing on. Rowan also uses examples of some of the major life saving medical achievements that have come about due to testing on animals such as Herceptin and HAART which has helped to combat AIDS over the last 30 years, and explains that while not researching on the animals would save the lives of many animals, the medical advancements they have enabled would all be lost and those who rely on these medical practices and vaccines to survive would most likely not survive. Animals lives have no voice of reason which leads to the issue of consent and mental awareness. While Rowan stands on the side of animal testing, he openly acknowledges a plethora of counter arguments such as why animals are valued as less than humans and why the animals must endure such cruel testing in the laboratories to broaden his mind. However, the majority of animal rights activists are not as accepting to Rowan's field of thought. 

Critics of animal testing will claim that there is not enough being done to try to replace the testing done on animals by other methods. There are currently few known operations and methods of data gathering that can provide as much and as accurate as the information that is gathered from animal testing. Within Laura Blues article, 'How Much Does Animal Testing Tell Us" there is no question that, despite the excellent results that come out of lots of preclinical trials the human is the ultimate animal model. Medical drugs and ointments would have never been deemed as safe until tested on animals. Yet, animals are not always the most accurate model of the human anatomy and testing certain drugs on specific animals can lead to a negative reaction and skew the results from the lab. Dogs can not be given chocolate, and cats can flare up when exposed to aspirin. Yet, despite the minor setback animals have and continue to be a surrogate for laboratories in lieu of human cruelty.  Animals are able to alert scientists early on of medical issues due to around the clock monitoring, ensuring all data taken in is as accurate as possible. The usage of an animal within research is such an asset to medical advancements that the real testing within the laboratories begins to form early on, even with no animals present. Scientists must have a deep rooted understanding of medications for humans and how the medicine will collide with human anatomy in a safe, ethical manner. The testing on animals or humans is complex as well as deeply in depth and animals offer the most viable option for sustained long-term research. While animal anatomy is not perfectly aligned with human anatomy, the benefits of a similar replica have led to massive breakthroughs within the medical community.  The lack of progress for animal safety frustrates champions for the cause. Many biologists argue that there isn't enough being done to try to find alternatives to animal testing, while other medical professionals claim that there are few possibilities to replace the animals used in laboratories because the animals replicate humans very closely and there are few computer or physical models that can accurately recreate that authenticity. The article "The Ethics of Animal Research" by EMBO Reports talks about how while animal testing may be inhumane to some, it is one of the most vital and accurate methods of gathering knowledge in data in the medical field. EMBO also clearly states that while animal testing may not be the most ideal way to gather medical information, the testing done is by far the most accurate, useful, and direct ways to advance medical science. "Animal Testing and its Gifts To Humans" in the Washington State Journal is a non biased article that simply states the facts behind the positives of animal research. This article points out that while animal testing is not always the most ethically sound way to collect medical data it is by far the most effective rendering it irreplaceable in the field of medical research and technology. There are many scientists and doctors working tirelessly to search for and come up with alternatives to testing on live animals but there are few if any other options that exist with the current technology available. At the end of this article, there is a section that talks about some of the legal restrictions that have been implemented over the past several decades to hinder and regulate animal testing. In "Ethical and Scientific Considerations Regarding Animal Testing and Research", Hope Ferdowsian talks about how while animal testing is a necessary evil in the field of medical research. Ferdowsian uses what he calls the three r's which stand for the reduction, refinement, and replacement of testing on animals. Reduction is the reduction of the use of live animals in laboratories for testing as well as the reduction of the uncomfortable conditions of the animals. Refinement refers to the focus of scientists on bettering the methods which these scientists use to test on animals. Refinement pertains not only to the methods themselves, but the health and comfort of the animals being tested on. Replacement quite blatantly refers to the replacement of animals by computer modeling software or algorithms in the near future. While the three r's can seamlessly be integrated within a professional laboratory with technological advances that only time can bring, Ferdowsian mentions that the reader should take care to pay attention to the fact that there are now alternatives to live animal testing at this period in time [the 21st century].

There are many people who oppose animal testing in the field of cosmetic as well as medical research. Doctor Rachel Hajar claims that there are many alternative methods to testing on live animals such as computer modelling software and physical representations rather than live subjects. Hajar also goes on to state that there has been a lot of misinformation provided about animal testing and that most of it is done and paid for by the companies, such as In Vitro technologies, who carry out animal testing. Friends thought Paul Silber had bet the farm when he ditched a secure job as a toxicologist with Dallas-based Mary Kay Cosmetics, packed everything into a U-Haul van and headed for Maryland to start a company based on an obscure, yet promising, field of biotechnology. Five years later, Mr. Silber relishes the memory as his Baltimore-based company, In Vitro Technologies, announced that in 1995 it turned a profit for the first time on revenues of almost $1 million. And he's expecting big growth in the next several years. Five years later, Mr. Silber relishes the memory as his Baltimore-based company, In Vitro Technologies, announced that in 1995 it turned a profit for the first time on revenues of almost $1 million. And he's expecting big growth in the next several years. Mr. Silber and his company are the number one investor in animal testing in the United States and Silber now openly flows his money into companies who are known to release information, true or not, to help defend animal testing. Those against, contend that the benefit to humans does not justify the harm to animals. Many people also believe that animals are inferior to humans and very different from them, hence results from animals cannot be applied to humans. Those in favor of animal testing argue that experiments on animals are necessary to advance medical and biological knowledge. Claude Bernard, known as the father of physiology, stated that "experiments on animals are entirely conclusive for the toxicology and hygiene of man. The effects of these substances are the same on man as on animals, save for differences in degree". Bernard established animal experimentation as part of the standard scientific method.

Though there are educated peaceful opposers such as Doctor Hajar who use information and facts to back up their argument, there are also brutish violent protesters who commit random acts of violence toward scientists who are known for animal testing. In Lorna Colliers "Defending Animal Research" Collier begins by stating that over two-hundred and twenty  illegal incidents, where extremists targeted scientists who are known for their success due to animal research, occurred between 1990 and 2012. Collier goes on to describe the severity of some of these attacks stating that acts of arson and bombings were included in these incidents. These incidents do not include the inconsiderate protests and aggravation that impeded on these scientists daily lives. Throughout the rest of the journal Collier lists and describes many examples of why this violence is so unnecessary; such as the fact that many of the researchers go to extreme measures to ensure the comfort and well being of these animals throughout the research process and that these researchers look to use alternatives to live animals in every case that they possibly can but there are few opportunities to use substitutions. At the end of the article, Collier presents the American Psychological Association's personal stance on animal research which was essentially based on the conviction that research with nonhuman animals has been and continues to be integral to scientific progress and improving the health of people and other animals, APA strongly supports humanely conducted, ethically and scientifically sound research with nonhuman animals. For nearly 100 years, through its Committee on Animal Research and Ethics, APA has promoted educated, serious and civil dialogue about the role of nonhuman animal research in science.

As has been illustrated by the many articles and their scientific data, animal testing is a necessary evil if humans are to survive and evolve to the changing world in which they live. Animal testing has posed many ethical and moral dilemmas throughout history and into the present day but is ultimately justified by the plethora of medical procedures and medicines that have been discovered as a product of live animal testing. Animal testing is a necessary evil but an evil nonetheless as pointed out by scientists such as Doctor Hajar in his research article. The stipulations against animal research will never be accepted because of the mass amounts of violent and brash attempts to avenge the animals used in labs by randomly attacking and harassing scientists and doctors who test on animals. 

