Animals are abundant in the world and are used to satisfy the human species every single day. People use animals for nutrition and even to research frequently used items and also medical experiments. Animal testing is an extremely common research method used in the field of science but it has started to get many opposing views to its use.  The overall question that was researched was how the use of animals in scientific research was affecting people? During the research, many sources were found for and against this type of exploration in science but advancements have been made and a new profound way to research is becoming more prevalent. This research paper will support the views, ideas and use of the three Rs to reduce the usage of animals in studies.

Animals have been used in research during times dated back to BC and AD. Greek physicians and scientists like Aristotle, Erasistratus, Galen, and Ibn Zuhr were a few that did practices on animals in different areas of the world (Hajar). These researchers mapped the road for the use of animals in science by helping advance the understanding of anatomy, physiology, pathology and testing surgical procedures before applying them to patients (Hajar). When the twentieth century came around, the use of animals was very important. They were used for testing drugs to help many diagnoses (Hajar). Hajar also mentions that because those drugs that were used were not tested on animals thousands of children were born with malformations in many countries around the world. She also states that the practice of using animals in research had led to significant advances in the treatment of different diseases (Hajar). As years went on, people who were animal activists were not fans of the effects it left on animals. The three Rs became predominant which promotes for the replacement, reduction, and refinement of animals that are used in different practices (Hajar). This movement is predicted to end animal research techniques in the future real soon (Abzug).

PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, states that the use of animals in federally-funded labs has increased practically seventy- five percent in the decade and a half (Casey). That's a lot of animals that are being used for medical experiments. This group of activists, along with others like the Humane Society International, have been campaigning for the reduction of animal use for many years. Reduction is part of the three Rs and is the most focused on out of the three. The other two Rs, replacement and refinement, just fall into place with the works of reduction. PETA has gotten a shift away from animals in Europe by getting cosmetics with ingredients tested on animals banned in the country (Casey). The Carolina Rhetoric mentions in an article about how mascara is made, that groups like the Humane Society International along with multiple types of consumer participations also got the use of animal tested cosmetics banned. Reduction projects have also been completed by different crowds of researchers and they all seemed to follow the same categories: improved study design, method development and coordination.  These three types of reduction methods overall contributed to a significant amount of reduction of animal use in the labs (Tornqvist et al.).

Animals have rights just like humans and are like individuals in many ways. Animals can feel, think, behave, and even feel pain (Lone Star College). Animal's rights are regulated by the AWA, Animal Welfare Act, and this has been used since 1966 (ProCon). Even though this may be good for the animal activist's ears, only five percent of animals are really protected under this act. Animals like rats, mice, fish, and birds make up majority of the test subjects in medical research. ProCon indicates that only about one point one million animals were covered by the year 2010 and left around twenty five million other species uncovered. Is the AWA really doing what it needs to or just settling for the bare minimum? This Act can only do so much though. With so many different animals, it really covers the ones that are in typical households and requires regular veterinarian inspections. The AWA also gets more conformation from the IACUC, Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, by having all proposals to use animals for research be approved by them also (ProCon). Overall, humans are more similar to animals than what is thought and the AWA, IACUC, and many other regulations and committees are being set and are working to make animals have rights just like human beings.

Animal activists like Simone Reyes, talk about the morality of animal testing. She comments on how people are either watchers or do-ers. This is true and can be seen in all types of subjects. She was not a person with characteristics of a leader but it soon changed when she encountered a man trying to kill two bats. This was a spark of her becoming the voice for animals. Lone Star College author also states something similar to what Reyes did. This article talks about how animal experimentation is morally wrong because no matter how much humans benefit, animal's rights have been inflicted. Animals do not freely victimize themselves (Lone Star College). Reyes also discusses how society labels animals as property or machinery. Is that really fair to animals? By giving a voice to animals, many people including Simone Reyes, will not feel isolated and ignored. Reyes' goal is to keep protesting and fighting for animals until every imprisoned animal is unrestricted. Society does have people with the mindset like Reyes and the only way the right thing can be done is to keep working and fighting to save the animals because it is the ethical thing to do.

There is obviously another side to this argument. The people who are for animal experimentation and research. ProCon states that animals often make better research components than humans. Animals do have shorter life cycles than humans but is that really reliable for the research? To get the best results on any product made for human consumption, it should be researched on humans. Six percent of drugs tested on animals are actually reliable for further use, while the other ninety four percent failed in human clinical trial (ProCon). Drugs for very harmful diseases like strokes and HIV were a part of the ninety four percent that were not effective (ProCon). Ineffectiveness is not what humans need. Animals have extremely different backgrounds than humans and really do not make good test subjects for them (National Anti-Vision Society). Humans have twenty three pairs of chromosomes while animal's amounts of chromosomes can vary. The National Anti-Vision Society also discusses how illnesses that develop in people do differ expressively from the synthetic ways that are implemented on animals in labs. The most logical thing researchers can do is figure out a way to interpret their research upon humans to get the best results and have everyone content with the research.

Another topic that the animal testing supporters did not really reference is the religious aspect of animal research and the actions. ProCon makes a reference to the Bible verse Genesis chapter one verse twenty six. This verse states that man has dominion over fish, birds, cattle and anything thing that walked the earth (The Holy Bible). The religious views of Christians, Muslims, and Jews allows for animal research as long as there is no "unnecessary" pain and a benefit to humans (ProCon). This can be proved wrong by all the animals that have been put through unconsented pain. Animals should not have to be tortured to get human benefit. If the procedures done are against these beliefs of these religions, then why do researchers that may be one of those religions continue to go against the beliefs? The Bible verse Proverbs chapter twelve verse ten was also referenced on ProCon. This verse states that a righteous man regardeth the life of his beast (The Holy Bible). The religious views of Hindu and Buddhists talks about how they teach not to do harm to other living things (ProCon). This verse can also support things talked about in the previous paragraphs about how ending animal testing is ethically right. If researchers want to continue their motives then they have to find a way to satisfy the religious aspect of the animal testing dispute.

In conclusion, the purpose of this paper is to support the views, ideas and use of the three Rs to reduce animal usage throughout scientific research. The main R, reduction, was discussed along with how the other two about how much it has made a difference. Many people support the fact that animals have rights just like humans and the AWA should do a better job of regulating what animals are covered under the act because every animal should be treated with the same respect. The views of animal activist Simone Reyes was mentioned to show that ordinary people like her can do things to make a difference in animals' lives. Counterarguments were mentioned also just to see some of the things that the people for animal research are trying to retaliate with. They were easily proven to be false because to get the best results humans need to test on other humans since human beings are the ones actually using the products. Bible references were also made to Genesis and Proverbs to give the religious aspect of animal experimentation. As you can see, animals testing is slowly declining and the only way it can be stopped is by the petition of animal experimentation.

