Dr. Robert Cornish of the University of California, Berkley dedicated his life to the study of reanimation of life. Through the 1930's he conducted experiments on dogs, finding success with keeping one alive after death for two weeks. However, his study was demolished because of the ethical concerns. (The Reanimator, Florida Three Toe, The Man Who Invented Martians). Animal testing, otherwise known as vivisection is "the activity or practice of doing scientific or medical experiments on live animals" (Merrianm-Webster). It is a practice that has developed and continued for hundreds of years on humans and other sentient beings alike. Although human rights regarding scientific research were globally defined in 1964 with the Declaration of Helsinki, other animals used in testing, such as rodents and primates do not have as well defined regulations. The growth of animal rights advocacy was just beginning to boom in the 1930's with Cornish being a prime target, and has continued to build over time. As a result, scientific research studies have been stunted or halted entirely. Through the twentieth century with public concern growing regarding animal testing, animal rights regulations have strengthened, and alternative testing methods have been developed to avoid using animals. Even with the global movement pushing for the abolishment of animal testing; does that mean science is advanced enough to do without? In the past 15 years the number of animals used in federally funded scientific testing has 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 scientific grants provided for animal experiments has increased, showing the need for animal testing. At the current state of the scientific field with alternative testing not being able to fully reflect animal and human physiology, and the methods and results not being widely accepted, animal testing is still currently necessary, but with proper regulations the procedures of animal testing will increase animal rights. 

Over the past 35 years the development of alternative methods for animal testing have produced 63 approved methods however, 28 of those methods still require the use of animals (Stokes). Much of the reasoning behind using animals in experiments is to reflect human biochemical reactions, "animals demonstrate coordinated responses to pain and many emotional states that are similar to those exhibited by humans." (qtd. in Beck). Alternative testing methods such as skin irritancy tests on lab created skin may be useful, however alternative methods 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 downfall of computer modeling results are that they are based on speculation, many of the figures and variables entered only reflect assumptions. The results then are unreliable due to the fact that every time the system is tested the results are the same, not aptly reflecting the variation of results as with physical testing (Shany). Ideally when doing an experiment it would only be done once because the results would be the same each time it was tested in the same sysytem. In the real world however, experiments must be done several times because it is almost impossible to recreate the exact same results each time. Computer modeling reflects the ideal, but the ideal does not produce realistic or precise results for the real world.Not only is there a lacking logistics component to alternative testing, but their results are not always widely accepted, nor is their implementation pushed.

The implementation of alternative testing methods is not effectively enforced. For example, China requires all imported chemical based products to be tested on animals. However, their domestically produced products, with some exclusions, are able to opt out of the mandatory animal testing and utilize alternative methods. Even with the option of using alternative testing methods, animal testing is still regularly done on domestic products because that is how is always has been done (Cohen). Though the alternative methods have been approved, they have not been implemented because, at least in China's case, a perceived laziness, and lack of wanting to change something that is already so effective. The other reason alternative methods are not widely in effect has to do with the fact scientists may not know that they are an option. There is a lack of education about alternative methods, they are still relatively new in the science field, so companies may not include them in their research policies. The same concept is true for government agencies, "US agencies must therefore signal their willingness to accept data from scientifically valid alternative methods by updating and incorporating accepted alternative methods in their regulations, guidelines and guidances." (Stokes). In order for results to be accepted by government agencies, like the the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the testing methods must fall under what they are willing to accept. In many cases government agencies have stated their willingness to accept result from alternative testing methods, but they have not formally been incorporated into regulations. As a result scientists are not aware of their availability.   Alternative testing methods are available, but without actively incorporating them into the testing regulations, they will not be the top priority to use.       

The ending point of the ethical controversy leans towards cruelty free testing. Currently, the usage of animals in scientific research is heavily regulated. Western animal testing methods, particularly in the United States are held up to the "3Rs" model, refine , reduce, and replace. WS Stokes explains the three ideas, refine encompasses the setting and standards of testing procedures, essentially the welfare of animal subjects. Reduce references the number of animals used in testing both as a whole and for individual projects, 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 unnecessary distress it allows for. Not only better welfare of the animals, but also an increase in quality of the experiment. It also allows for more accurate results because psychological and physiological distress can affect the biochemical reactions of the body. To reduce physiological distress actions include, "(1) using earlier more humane endpoints, (2) using pain relieving medications, and (3) providing appropriate veterinary and support active clinical care." (Stokes). There are also environmental factors that are included as well as to decrease distress, like optimal access to food and water, and providing a suitable clean and dry environment. By reflecting similar or the same conditions a human patient would have in a clinical setting it allows for a better representation of effects, producing more accurate results. The usage of animals, for things such as toxicology testing is limited. Ideally the number of animals used in individual research is kept to the bare minimum, but it is "estimated that at least 100 million [animals] are used each year world wide." (Qtd. in Beck). The usage of animals is regulated in a manner that I'd animals are used it is because of absolute necessity. Scientists are first encouraged to utilize alternative testing methods or previous tests, before applying to utilize live animal subjects. There is a method known as sequential testing, that still uses animals, but reduces the number of animal used in tests is reduced by about 80 percent. This type of testing calls for the experiment to be considered successful in the first three animals Develop strong negative reactions, thus stopping the experiment (Stokes).  The development of alternative methods is increasing in a manner that allows for animal usage in experiments to be null. However, alternative methods do not always provide a solid method for testing. 

The developments thus far in regards to the cruelty free movement relate back to stopping animal testing because of a disregard for animal welfare. Though the usage of animals in scientific testing is regulated, only certain animals fall under jurisdiction of the Animal Welfare Act, "[it] excludes purpose-bred birds, rats, or mice, which comprise of more than 90% of animals used in research" (Beck). Animals such as dog and cats fall under the Animal Welfare Act and 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 lack of coverage for all animals is a loophole in animal testing that many scientists take advantage of.  Since certain animals do not fall under the Animal Welfare Act, their welfare does not always meet regulations. Using purpose bred laboratory animals is a way for scientists to avoid the strict regulations put upon animal research. In order to use an animal covered under federal agencies, thorough reasoning and explanation must be provided in order to be approved (Stokes).  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. The general public is subjected to vivid and morbid photos of procedures that cause an instinctual outcry for bettering the well being of animals used in research. People have an instinctual psychological connection to animals that makes human care for them. When subjected to images of mistreatment red flags are raised. Not only does testing raise ethical concerns, but the psychological distress resulting from many tests cause results to be inconclusive.

The biochemical responses in animals does not always reflect humans. Pre-clinical trials are done predominantly on animals. In many cases the results of a pre clinical trial will show one 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 occurrence is becoming more and more common, raising question to the validity of animal testing. The lack of differing 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 human. "Test animals are often young ... and not exposed to the range of competing (and interacting) interventions that humans often receive," (Hackman), which results in the inadequacy of results. The second issue 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 regulated, and as a result, results can not be replicated as easily. One of the key factors for irregularities in testing is lack of randomization. Daniel Hackman reflects on the lack of randomization in animal testing, and the variation in test group sizes which results in skewed outcomes. Essentially there is a bias in pre-clinical animal testing. In order to produce desired results, test groups lack proper statistical framework. Any elementary statistics course will teach about the importance of randomization and a large subject pool. In many pre-clinical trials tests incorporate non randomized tests on a small subject pool. These variables cause result to reflect desired outcomes. Then, when a preclinical trials are considered to go through clinical trials, it is likely that more positive results from tests are likely to be considered while ignoring negative results creating a "optimism bias."   

 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, animal tested products, increase development of cruelty free research, or some combination of the three. The progress made is made through increasing public pressure. The Be Cruelty Free Campaign in one of the leading projects for cruelty free advocacy, and it focuses its efforts on public education (Cohen). 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 public pressure the European Union banned animal testing and cosmetics tested on animals marking, "The beginning of the end of global cosmetics cruelty." (qtd. in Cohen). The Be Cruelty free campaign is taking global strides to stop animals testing, and after dominating the European Union, they have set their sights on the United States. Backed by scientists, celebrities, companies, and a large portion of the general public their progress thus far has been strengthened through education and the prospects of cruelty free business. There is an exponentially growing market for cruelty free products, and a number of companies have been founded on cruelty free framework. Companied such as Burt's Bees, and Lush have become astoundingly successful with their cruelty free missions. Lush alone has dominated the cruelty free campaign and become a globally known company because of their dedication to the movement through their products and outreach. 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 movement, but it is also resulting in an economic growth as well as positive reputation growth.

Scientific testing on sentient beings has progressed through the years. Scientific research on humans used humans and animals but, 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, because of the inhuman experiments put upon people in Nazi concentration camps, explicitly defined human rights through the treatment of an the need for total consent of a human subject in an experiment (Beck). Because of the limitations upon human testing, scientists then rely solely on other animals. Animals, being sentient beings, show similar reactions to humans when subjected to psychological and physiological distress making them perfect subjects for biological testing. However, with reactionary similarities should animal rights not reflect human rights? There are shocking visuals that correlate to animals testing, pictures of blind lesioned rats, rabbits with a hole going right through them, but those images do not aptly reflect all of animal testing. The fact that there is leniency in animal rights for scientific research compare human rights though 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 does not allow scientist to reproduce synthetic systems that accurately reflect humans responses without the use of animals. The results from alternative testing are also not always accepted because of their lack of incorporation into federal regulations. So, to placate outsiders and anti-animal testing scientists, animal welfare advancement and regulations using animals in testing has been put into place. Public pressures are increasing and governments are taking action to the progressing cruelty free future. However, it is still understood, especially regarding animal tested drugs, that "animal testing [is] a necessary evil." (Masterton et. al.)  

