Mahatma Gandhi once said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." (Gandhi) The way we treat animals is a direct reflection on our society. There has been a long history of animal testing that dates back to ancient civilizations.  For many years, animals have been subjected to harsh testing in the name of research and advancement. By the mid to late nineteenth century, advocacy for animals steadily increased as activist groups emerged. More than 100 million animals are crippled, burned, abused, and poisoned in U.S. labs every year, according to PETA (PETA). Animal testing is not a form of research but instead a form of animal cruelty. By definition animal abuse is considered the human infliction of suffering or harm upon any animal, for purposes other than self defense or survival. This definition clearly correlates with the events that take place inside of the laboratories in which animal are tested. Animal testing is morally and ethically wrong and should be defined as a form of animal abuse. Alternatives to animal testing are proven to be more effective and humane, making it the logical solution to completely replace animal testing. 

Many unnecessary animal experiments are being used to this day, and some the public are usually not even aware of. The first form of experiments is the most commonly used form known as cosmetic testing. The Federal, Food Drug and Cosmetic Act does not require that animal are to be tested upon in order to prove that a cosmetic is safe (FDA). Companies still choose to use animals in their tests to assess the safety of new products. The most common animals that are seen in laboratories are mice, guinea pigs, rats and rabbits. Various chemicals are tested on rabbits or rats in order to test the toxicity. The chemicals cause skin and eye irritations and other tests often cause illness and sometimes result in death. The widely controversial "lethal dose" test is done by researchers feeding the animals large amounts of chemicals to determine at what amount is too much, in which case will cause death. The most commonly used products such as top make-up brands like M.A.C or Neutrogena are guilty of subjecting animals in order to develop their products. As a consumer, buying these products is helping support the company and in turn allowing more testing to take place. This does not mean that every consumer that buys these products are supporting the use of animals but, it definitely does not help in the fight against this issue. 

 How would one describe pain to someone who has never experienced it before? They would probably say that it is an uncomfortable sensation that can be associated with injury or any damage to the body. The thing about pain is that people are able to express the levels of discomfort that they feel but, animals are unable to do so. There has been much debate involving whether or not animals experience pain in the same way that humans experience pain. This is one of the reason why research is commonly done on animals because the scientist believe that animals have a high pain tolerance or just simply do not have any knowledge about their tolerance. The truth of the matter is that animals do experience pain but the way they express their discomfort may vary across different species. It solely depends on the type of animal as well as the infliction. A scholarly journal entitled "Animal Pain" argues that some procedures that have little to no effect on humans can actually generate a large amount of pain for animals. To combat this issue, the Animal Veterinary Association launched the Global Pain Council to raise awareness and promote pain recognition. Though this a worthy cause, it only is limited to vets and animal keepers and does not specifically state that this council works with researchers and the animals that they test on. These initiatives have been successful and animal keepers have been able to gain more knowledge about pain tolerance and have been able to better care for their animals. If initiatives like this were taken within the laboratories of these major corporations, researchers will also develop more knowledge about the animals that they are testing on.

The argument that supports animals testing describes that animals are needed in order to advance the scientific community, test new products and overall to benefit society. What many do not know or understand is that their have been issues in products tested for human consumption. The issue starts with the the differences among humans and animals. For example, the most obvious difference is the genetic make up of animals versus humans. If both humans and animals shared the same genetics, then there would not be any difference among the species. Because of the differences in genetics, experiments results can be misinterpreted causing issues. Some animals do share similar genetics with humans but again that does not mean they are exactly the same as well as the fact that even though there are similarities, animals can still react differently. One example is, human genes that are responsible to combat trauma and burns are different from the genes that mice use to respond to these situations. This theory was proved when drugs used to treat these certain conditions were successful in mice experimentation but were not in human trials. There has been some report that some animals are picked out and used because they are inexpensive and more convenient than other options. Convenience plays a large factor in animal research because scientist and experimenters are only interested in results and will part take in different testing in order to get the results they need. 

The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research have developed a form of regulation known as the 3 R's. These laws are put into place in order to the protect the welfare of these species used for scientific benefit. The first R is refinement, which refers to improvements of animal welfare in studies where the use of animals is unavoidable. The law describes that it looks to improve procedures by minimizing pain, distress and lasting harm. The second R is Reduction, which refers to the methods that minimize animal use by using fewer animals. It also looks to obtain more information while using the same animal. The third R is refinement, which looks to replace the use of animals all together. The animals would be replaced with in vitro methods and computer models which are some of the many alternatives. The key word that stands out about these laws is not that they are not enforced but they are encouraged by professional guidelines. Encouragement is not a beneficial way of putting forth an effective law, therefore it may not be appropriately implemented. Refinement and reduction have seen to be have more of a success than replacement. Overall some aspects of the 3 R's have failed to actually decrease the number of animals used in experiments. 

The most logical solution is taking steps towards completely eliminating animal testing is the use of alternatives. The Human Society reports that, "Nearly 50 non-animal tests have been validated for use, and these modern alternatives can offer results that are not only more relevant to people, but more efficient and cost-effective." If alternatives can offer the same results while also costing less and being more efficient, then it would definitely be a huge step taken. An alternative that comes up a lot in research is called EpiDerm. This product is reconstructed human epidermis that is used in in vitro testing and has proven to be quite effective. It is highly differentiated 3D tissue model that is composed of human epidermal keratinocytes that are cultured. EpiDerm has all of the same qualities as normal human skin and has more than 20 years of data to prove that is efficient in topically applied chemical, cosmetics and other various products. If labs were able to replace animal with these 3D skin models, less animal such as rats and rabbits would have to be tortured by topical solutions that often burn their skin or worse. 

Another commonly used test among is for photo toxicity. A substance that is phototoxic reacts to light and cause damage to tissues and cells. To test these reactions, researchers expose the animals to ultraviolet light for many hours to see the result of any tissue damage. This causes the animals skin to burn and they are not administered any type of pain killer or topical treatment. There is an alternative test called the 3T3 Neutral Red Uptake Test that is proven to be more effective and shows better results because of the similarities to human skin. The test involves cells being exposed to the ultraviolet light to test their photo toxicity. 

There are steps that must be taken in order to ensure that the alternatives that are being developed are worthy of being brought and used by major corporations. The first step is defining what an alternative is. As stated earlier the laws that support animal welfare in research are known as the 3 R's. In order for an alternative to actually be full considered it must be able to successfully accomplish one or all of the the 3 R's. The next step is developing the the product to be used among research labs and other research communities. The third step in proving that an alternative is worthy is to have in tested multiple times and have it validated by scientists. The last step is this process is taking the alternative to the government to see whether they would be willing to accept the alternative in place of an animal or in this case thousands of animals. Reports show that the U.S. government do not usually move far past the validating step because it can be very monotonous and discouraging. In contrast the UK government has almost completely banned animal testing and have been very successful in using these steps towards more beneficial alternatives. 

In recent news regarding animal cruelty, the FBI has set a new law in order to better define what animal cruelty is. The FBI were concerned with how this act was being defined and how many abusers often are not given any form of punishment because of its lacking description. Starting in 2016 they are setting new laws that will consider animal abuse to be a much more serious crime than it has originally been treated. To fully implement these new rules, they have come up with a more fitting definition for the crime. It states that it is now defined as, "Intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly taking an action that mistreats or kills any animal without just cause, such as torturing, tormenting, mutilation, maiming, poisoning, or abandonment." The definition also says that animal abuse is, "inflicting excessive or repeated unnecessary pain or suffering." With these new changed being made in order to support animal welfare and the lived of these animals, it does not seem as though the FBI is really considering all of the animals lives that are at stake. This new definition also is very much identical to the pain and suffering that research animals are put through, yet it is still not considered animal abuse or cruelty. The people of today's society must be more informed about the actions that are taking place for these helpless animals, and their minds may change about the whether animal research should be considered animal testing. 

Leslie Bisgould is Canada's first animal rights lawyer and he purpose is to protect the welfare of animals. She gave a Ted Talk back in May of 2014 that caused a lot of debate and discussion. She started out by asking the audience the simple question, should animals be treated humanely? There was so surprise that most of the audience raised their hands and agreed. Then, she brought up the discussion between household pets, versus research animals. Leslie noted that when most of society thinks of treating animals fairly they only are concerned with the animals that would be considered a pet and look past any other animal. Her goal is to help people re-evaluate their relationships with animals and realize that every species should be treated fairly for the time that they live on this planet. Leslie's purpose when giving this talk was not to give all of these facts about animal testing, but instead helping people to look at it in a different light. Animal cruelty has many different forms but the one form that is least commonly discussed is animal testing. If more light was shed on this subject in the way that Leslie talks about this issue, research on animals would be looked at from a different point of view. That is what this issue needs is a different point of view in order for any change to be brought about, and it may even sway people who originally believed in animal testing to start thinking otherwise. 

Animal testing is animal cruelty and should be classified as animal abuse. Those who think of animal abuse as household pets who are mistreated, do not understand or know about the vast majority of abuse taking place within laboratories across the United States. Countless different companies use animals as a system of testing their products to ensure that American receive the best and safest products available. Though this may seem like a benefit to society it is actually causing more damage than good. Animals are apart of our world and therefore should be treated with with respect in the same way that we would respect our dog or cat. The best form of respect that we can give to these animals is to set them free from the labs and have them completely replaced for good. If research has proved that animal testing has shown to be ineffective, why is it still taking place? The question we must ask ourselves is how can animal testing be changed for the better for both researchers and animals? The answer is much more simple than one might think. These alternatives have been shown to produced the same effects while simultaneously causing no harm to any animals. Research will not be brought to a halt because of the lack of animals, and research will continue to advance whether it be cosmetic testing or the testing of a new drug being put on the market. Animal are not able to speak for themselves in this fight so it up to the public and those who wish to support this cause, to be the voices for these animals. Animal testing cannot be changed overnight and the ultimate goal for is to be banned may take some time. If more alternatives are able to be accepted by researchers a real change could be brought about. If the support of this change continues to grow, the government will be able to take notice and that could cause even larger steps towards improving the lives of the research animals. We must realize that science can advance without harming animals in the process. 

