Animal experimentation is among the most hotly debated topics in our culture today because its immoral methods of hurting and killing animals make it such a questionable practice. However, there are many things to consider when analyzing the underlying humanness of animal testing. It is indubitable that animals are killed, or inflicted with pain 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 we have alternative methods that could completely replace animal testing. These agencies 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. There are no proven alternative methods to completely replace animal testing, and if there were equally effective methods, then animal experimentation would be legally banned. When 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 "ban animal experiments if other alternative methods are available ...  and set up a national council to issue guidelines" (Ensernik 1319). The scientific community supported this bill because it would create 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. Animal rights activists want to ban the experiments altogether, despite the assets of the animals. 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 of the issue. The scientists are not pro-harming animals; rather, they are supportive of the most effective methods of creating new medicine, creating vaccines to fight diseases, etc. Experimentation on animals just happens to currently be the best of way of going about this research for the benefit of humans.

Another big issue in the debate of animal experimentation is the notion of alternative methods that animal rights activists rely on as a reason for ceasing all animal testing. A method for developing the regulations for alternative methods of animal experimentation, "refine, reduce, and replace, ...  is mandated by Section 1301 of the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993" (Environmental Health Perspectives, 250). The three R's method of animal testing acts to lessen the suffering and pain inflicted on animals if such an option exists.  This requires alternative methods to be used if they are discovered and approved through the creation of specific criteria and guidelines. In other words, if other alternatives are created to replace animal testing, then they will be used if validated and seen fit to properly replace animal experimentation. The truth is, there are no real alternative methods to fully replace the benefits of animal testing despite what opponents might suggest. 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 the federal meeting consisted of several scientists who discussed ways of creating alternative procedures to replace testing on animals. They discussed potential new methods for testing drugs, toxicities of certain chemicals, and other ways to go about replacing the incorporation of animals in such experiments. 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. For the time being, the meeting concluded with the consensus that further research needs to be done in order to create alternative methods to replace animal testing. 

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 antivivisectionists, 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 his beliefs are important to consider because Romanes only justifies the use of animals for experimentation for the purpose of helping humans. 

Of course it sounds horrible to say that it is acceptable for humans to go around 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 utilize animals as a means of propelling technological advances for the sake of humankind, until alternative and equally effective methods are created. By applying the three R's of animal experimentation--refine, reduce, and replace--to the active pursuit of equally alternative methods, more can be done to streamline the process of creating such methods. As of now, more research needs to be done in order to fully replace animals for research use. Until then, animal experimentation is a huge asset for us, and it would be detrimental to our society if all methods of animal experimentation ceased to exist. 


Central Claim/ Evidence: The central claim in this article is that alternative methods should be taken place in order to "refine, reduce, and replace" the amount of animals that are tested along with the harmful procedures that are used for these experiments. We currently do not have all of the right technology to make these alternatives work as a full replacement of animals. According to the article, it is important that we "refine, reduce, and replace" current methods because Section 1301 of the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993 required that we do so. 

Major Values/ interests at stake: The major values and interests at stake include the well being of the animals tested. The physical pain that the animals suffer through along with the deaths that occur as a direct result of animal experimentation needs to be minimalized with alternative methods for the sake of the animals. 

Credibility and bias of the author/ source: The credibility of the source stems from its position as a scholarly journal, published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. It is a professionally written and edited science article. The journal article is biased because it favors the creation of alternative methods of animal experimentation over the current methods that are in place. 

Central Claim/ Evidence:  This journal article discusses a group of Brazilian scientists who are combatting attempts to ban animal experimentation, and the scientists views are recorded. One scientist, Walter Colli, argues that they need to do more to inform the average, confused citizen because the animal rights activists are influencing public opinion to make animal experimentation seem much more cruel than it really is. 

Major Values/ interests at stake: The major values at stake are the animal experimentation laws that could pass and prevent further studies from being done, putting many scientists out of jobs. If those laws were to pass, then humans would lose all of the benefits from animal experimentation.

Credibility and bias of the author/ source: The source is from a Science journal, and deals specifically with issues like this one. The article is biased for the scientists who are fighting the bans of animal experimentation. It talks about both sides of the case, and quotes from people directly, but it is more in favor of the scientists. 

Central Claim/ Evidence: This article argues defends the practice of animal experimentation and vivisection, or operating on live animals for the purpose of experimentation. The journal outlines the life John Romanes, and uses his life and ideas in the central argument. He uses Darwanism as one of the central arguments to defend humans' right to experiment on animals for mankind's sake. His Darwinist approach toward animal experimentation involves a right, even a duty for scientists to be able to operate on animals in order to gain more knowledge "in the interests of mankind".

Major Values/ interests at stake: The major values at stake are the extent to which morality should dictate and take away from what man can do in order to better the advancement of the human race. Animals are below humans, and have no real rights when compared to the advantages that they can provide to the scientific world in Romane's eyes. 

Credibility and bias of the author/ source: The author is bias because he uses Romanes as a lens for why animal experimentation is justifiable and advantageous, despite the views of antivivisectionists and animal rights activists. 


I am interested in this research question because I want to know more about the debate behind animal testing. I think it is very interesting to compare both sides of the animal experimentation debate and each of their compelling arguments, and I want to come to terms with my personal opinion by analyzing all of these various arguments. This question affects me because animal experimentation is a very important part of the scientific world in education, drug creations, production of consumer products. As a human who is directly affected by these animal tested products, I must compare my moral values with the values of animals. My personal experience with this includes my personal experience with any animal tested product that I have ever used, including animals that I have personally dissected in school, particularly in my anatomy class in high school. Any vaccination that I have received has been tested on animals. I am qualified to write about this because I have thoroughly researched and analyzed both sides of the debate, drawing my own conclusions from the various arguments that I have learned about. 

The research question is arguable because the two opposing sides each have valid points to be considered, and the correctness of each side is the essence of the argument. One side, which opposes animal testing due to the immorality of hurting and killing animals for the sake of humans, directly opposes the contrary scientific view of animal experimentation as a necessary means for curing diseases, gaining anatomical knowledge, and creating consumer products for humans. Both sides tend to agree with the extent to which animal testing is harmful toward animals, but the argument lies in the question of whether or not this is a necessary method of going about the various things that animal testing is intended to be useful for. The different perspectives affect my own perspective because they must both be considered in order to create a resolution that speaks to both sides. I agree that animal testing is immoral, but I also think that we need it for the sake of human innovation and education. Therefore, I think that it should be continued, but there also needs to be more research into finding alternative methods. I may need to revise my research question by creating a more specific method of animal experimentation rather than the entire practice as a whole, because it is a very broad topic to debate. I may need to create a more narrow scope so that I can be more specific with my argument. 
