Animal experimentation is among the most hotly debated topics in our culture today because it is such a questionable practice in terms of the morality in terms of its direct harm to animals for various reasons. There are various things to consider when analyzing the underlying humanness of this practice. It is indubitable that animals are killed, or inflicted with pain through in nearly all cases of animal testing, but where does the line draw? The methods are used for the benefit of humankind in fields such as medicine, consumer produce, anatomical knowledge, and a plethora of other ways for the sake of humans. Animal rights activists stress the helplessness of the animals involved and the pain that they endure, but they also tend to exaggerate the extent to which the harm that is actually inflicted upon these animals. These agencies tend to actively influence the public against animal experimentation much more than scientists and other pro-animal experimentation activists do. These misleading and biased opinions tend to skew public opinion in terms of whether or not we truly need these experiments. With all things are considered, these animal experimentations are a necessary means for human advancement, and there are not enough alternative methods to justify ceasing all animal testing. 

In 2008, several animal experimentation bills in Brazil were proposed by animal rights activists seeking to end all animal testing. Several scientists battled these propositions, supporting one particular federal bill introduced by Sergio Arouca. This bill would have essentially ban animal testing if there are alternative methods, and establish rules through which a committee has to approve these methods with specific guidelines. This bill would be good for these scientists because it creates a fair system in which animal testing can be done unless another method is created that is as effective, but that is the problem: there are no equally effective methods as the ones that are done through the experimentation of animals. Activists want to ban the experiments altogether, despite their assets. On top of that, the influence of the activists on the opinions of the public far outweighs those of these scientists. According to Walter Colli, a research scientist, "We are guilty of not having done enough to influence the public opinion ...  The average citizen is confused (Ensernik 1319)". Colli's statement underlies the effects of misleading statements from animal right activist on the public's opinion on the issue. 

Another big issue in the debate of animal experimentation is the concept of 'alternative methods' that animal rights activists rely on as a reason for ceasing all animal testing. The truth is, there are no real alternative methods to fully replace the benefits of animal testing despite what opponents might say. That is not to say that alternative methods would be bad; alternate methods would be revolutionary, but unfortunately, such methods have not been created. The proposal for such methods was discussed at the National Toxicology Program Workshop on Validation and Regulatory Acceptance of Alternative Toxilogical Test Methods, and consisted of several scientists in order to brainstorm ways of creating alternative methods to replace testing on animals. They discussed potential new test methods for testing drugs, toxicities of certain chemicals, and other ways to go about replacing the incorporation of animals in such experiments for the sake of humans. The federal scientists at the meeting almost unanimously agreed that eliminating animals in testing procedures is unlikely in the near future, and "animal models ...  remain useful and necessary for the protection of human health (Environmental Health Perspectives, 252)." The group predicted that animal experimentation can be completely replaced in the future, but it may not be for another 50 years. 

Another highly controversial topic in the arguments for and against animal experimentation is the moral right that humans have to kill and harm animals, primarily for the sake of humankind. One particularly influential person in this hot topic of debate is John Romanes, who takes a Darwinist approach on the issue against extensive disapproval from animal rights activists and antivisectionsists, or those who are against experimentation on live animals. Romanes believed that animals do not have any authority above humans and have no right to defend themselves in the light of human progression. In fact, Romanes believed that "experimenting on animals for the sake of humanity [is] an act of the highest moral order (Boddice 232)". His bold claims may seem highly controversial, but when his views are compared to all of the other arguments that praise the necessity for human experimentation, his beliefs are important to consider for the basis of the entire argument: whether or not animals really have right that humans need to respect. Of course it sounds horrible to say that it is acceptable for humans to go and kill helpless animals, which is why animal rights activists have gained so much approval over the years. They have the appealing side of the debate, and on the surface, they will almost always seem right. When all things are considered, however, it is clear that humans need to use animals as a means of propelling technological advances for the sake of humankind, until alternative and equally effective methods are created. Until then, animal experimentation is a huge asset for us, and it would be detrimental to our society if all such methods ceased to exist. 
