Animal testing, otherwise known as vivisection is the activity or practice of doing scientific or medical experiments on live animals (Merriam-Webster). A practice that has developed and continued from the renaissance on through modern times. Animal testing has continually been applied to medications, cosmetics, and psychology, and the controversy has only continued to grow. The growth of animal rights advocacy was just beginning to boom in the 1930's and as a result scientific studies have been stunted, or just halted entirely. Robert Cornish, the biggest headliner from the beginning of the ethical questioning, devoted his life to reanimation of life, and was shockingly successful in his research; keeping a dead dog alive after its death. However, his entire life study was demolished because of the ethical concerns surrounding it, and the controversy continues to grow (The Reanimator, Florida Three Toes, The Man Who Invented Martians). At the beginning of the 20th century the relevancy and ethics of using sentient beings in experimentation was just starting to be questioned. A century plus later humans rights has significantly stopped human experimentation, but animal testing still continues in full force, and the question has persisted and just became more relevant, is animal testing really necessary?  

Throughout the twentieth century animal right regulations have continued to grow, and alternative methods have been developed to avoid using animals. Public concern has increased regarding the ethical treatment of animal in science which has resulted in a strong animal rights movement. With a global movement pushing for abolishment of animal testing, is the science field ready for full use of animal testing. However in the past 15 years the number of animals used in federally funded scientific testing has just continued to grow by 73 percent (Casey). This is due to increasing scientific development. Though the world is pushing for cruelty free procedures, the number of grants provided for animal experiments has increased. So, at the current state of scientific development animal testing is still a relevant and useful tool.

The ending point of the ethical controversy leads more towards not utilizing animal testing. Currently, the usage of animals in scientific testing is quite heavily regulated. Western animal testing methods, particularly in the United States are held up to model the "3Rs", refine, reduce, replace. WS Stokes explains the three ideas, refine being the setting, and standards of testing procedures, reduce is in regard to the number of specimens used, and replace hi-lights the usage of alternative methods. The biggest concern over animal testing lies in the welfare of the animal subjects. There are numerous steps that have been developed to increase the welfare of subjects. By avoiding distress of the subjects it allows for not only better welfare of the animals but also an increase in quality of the experiment and more accurate results because psychological distress can affect the biochemical reactions of the body. To reduce physiological distress actions include, "(1) using earlier more humane endotoxins, (2) using pain relieving medications, and (3) providing appropriate veterinary and supportive clinical care." (Stokes). There are also environmental factors that are included as well to decreed distress, these include optimal access to food and water, and providing a suitable clean and dry environment. By reflecting similar or the same conditions that a human would face in the same clinical environment it allows for a better representation of effects. The usage of animals, for things such as toxicology testing is limited. Ideally the number of animals used in tests is kept at the bare minimum but "[it is] estimated that at least 100 million are used each year worldwide" (qtd. In Beck). The usage of animals is regulated in a manner that if animals are used it is because of absolute necessity. Scientist are first encourage to utilize alternative testing methods or previous tests. The development of alternative methods is increasing in a manner that allows for animal usage in experiments to be null. However, alternative methods to not cover the extensive benefits of animal testing. 

Alternative Testing methods have continued to develop to over the past 35 years with 63 approved alternative methods available, 28 of which still require the use of animals (Stokes). They are useful tests for issues such as skin sensitivity, however they cannot fully replicate biochemical pathways that may be affected with the introduction of chemicals. Much of the alternative testing methods rely on computer modeling. The down fall of computer results is that they are based on speculation. Many of the figures and variables entered only reflect assumptions, which can ultimately result in speculative results. This is due to the fact that every time the subject is tested, the results are the same, not aptly reflecting the variation of physical testing (Shany). Aside from irritancy testing, much of the root of animal testing reasoning is to reflect human biological reactions, "animals demonstrate coordinated responses to pain and many emotional states that are similar to those exhibited by humans" (qtd. in Beck). The current state of scientific research can not totally replicate human biochemical pathways simply because they are not fully understood (Stokes). Not only is there a lacking logistics component to alternative testing, but their results are not always widely accepted, nor is their implementation pushed. For example China requires all imported chemical based products to be tested on animals, but their domestically produced products, with some exclusions, are able to be alternatively tested not using animals. Even with the option to opt out of testing, it is still regularly done on domestic products, because that is how it's always been done (Cohen). Though the alternative methods have been approved they have not been implemented in many cases do to what seems like laziness. Animal testing has always been done, why would procedures be changed to reflect alternative procedures that are produce results that are not necessarily widely accepted? 

 The developments thus far in regards to animal testing related back to stopping animal testing. Though the usage of animals in scientific testing is regulated, only certain animals fall under jurisdiction of the Animal Welfare Act, "[it] exclude purpose-bred birds, rats, or mice, which comprise f more than 90% of animals used in research" (Beck). Animals such as dogs, cats are not used because of their human companion status and certain primates are not widely used because of their genetic relationship to humans (Casey). 

The main target of cruelty free advocacy is the welfare of animals in testing. Ethical concerns have risen because of both the physical and psychological distress put upon animals in testing. Not only does testing raise ethical concerns, but the psychological distress resulting from many tests cause results to be inconclusive. Not only that but, the biochemical responses in animals does not always reflect humans. Pre-clinical trials are done animals, in many cases the results of a trial with show on result, say a drug effectively cured or decreased a medical issue in an animal. However, when the new drug is put into clinical trials on humans the results are not the same at all, either the the drug had no effect, or the effect was so minor and sparse that the results are inconclusive. This occurrences is becoming more and more common, raising question to the validity of animal testing. The in comparable results could stem from a number of different factors. The first, is that the test animals do not adequately reflect human physiology, specifically meaning they are not subjected to the same environment and mental stimulations as humans are, which results in the inadequacy of results. The second issues then lies with the procedures. There is a question as to the transparency of animal testing procedures. Since only certain animals fall under animal protection acts, the documentation of procedures is not always adequate, and as a result results can not be replicated as easily. There is also the issue of lack of randomization. Any elementary statistics course will teach about the importance of randomization. Micheal Brooks reflects on the lack of randomization in animal testing, and the variation in test group sizes with results in skewed outcomes. 

There is a global push for cruelty free scientific testing. Countries like India, South Korea, and the collection of countries making up the European Union have all moved to ban animal testing, or animal tested products or increase development of cruelty free research. The progress is made through increasing public pressure. The Be Cruelty Free Campaign is the leading project for cruelty free advocacy, and it focuses its efforts on public education. By educating the general public it is opening the eyes of consumers and outsiders of the scientific field to the ethical controversy of animal testing. Public pressures are determining factors for the success of almost anything, whether it be a product or a political topic. Through the public pressure the European Union banned animal tested cosmetics marking "the beginning of the end of global cosmetics cruelty" (qtd. in Cohen). There is an exponentially growing market for cruelty free products. There has been a number of companies founded on cruelty free framework, such as Lush and Burt's Bees that have become astoundingly successful. By companies being influenced by the success of the cruelty free movement they are tapping into the ethical market, and not only is it progressing the cruelty free movement, but it is also result in economic growth. 

Scientific testing on sentient beings has progressed through the years. The testing started on humans, what better way to see the effects of something on a human than to test on a human. World War II brought about the Nuremberg Code which explicitly defines human rights through the treatment of and the need for total consent of a human subject in an experiment because of the in humane experiments put upon people in Nazi concentration camps (Beck). Because of the limitations upon human testing, scientists rely on other animals. Being sentient being animals still feel similar is not the same psychological and physiological distress as humans. With that being the case would animal rights not reflect human rights? The fact that there is leniency in animal rights is because of scientific restraint. The science field is not developed enough to fully do away with animal testing.  Even with the increasing development and availability of alternative testing methods,the given state of scientific advancement dose not allow scientists to produce results that accurately reflect human responses without the used of animals. So, to placate outsiders, animal welfare advancement and regulations using animals in testing is put into place. Public pressures are increasing and governments are taking action to the progressing cruelty free future. However, it is still understood, especially reliant on animal tested drugs, "animal testing [is] a necessary evil." (Masterton et al.) 

