
Imagine it is 1937, and an individual has just been given a prescription by their doctor for Elixir Sulfanilamide, which is for streptococcal infections.  They go to the store and buy the drug from the counter but little did they know that after taking a medicine that was said to help them recover would later send them to the hospital.  However the doctor was also unaware that the medication prescribed would cause the patient to become one of the hundred people who died in 15 different states due to what is now known as the Elixer Sulfanilamide Incident of 1937.   This incident was accountable for the deaths because a pharmaceutical company in the United States created a formulation of sulfanilamide, using diethylene glycol as a diluent, which is poisonous to human beings.  This entire fiasco could have been prevented at the cost of an animal's life from testing the product on an animal subject. However, if animal testing was banned this same incident would still occur and cost the lives of hundreds.  Additionally there could be potential medical breakthroughs that could never be discovered if a law were to be passed against animal testing.  Bans on animal testing assert that an animal's life is of a higher value of a human's and the absence of animal testing could become a major public health risk.

There are two opinions on animal testing.  The first finds animal testing to be inadmissible for two main reasons.  First because it directly causes suffering towards animals, and second because the benefits to humans that is contributed from animal testing could be preformed in other ways.  However, the other position that favors animal experimentation and finds it acceptable under two conditions: the suffering of the animal is reduced in all experiments and also that the benefits to humans could not be achieved by any other method. 

Testing of animals is used to study the safety and effectiveness of drugs as well as to learning how functions of the human body work and are used for education purposes and training for students. In Greece during the BC era, physician-scientists like Aristotle performed experiments on living animals to enhance their understanding of physiology, pharmacology, anatomy and pathology according to Hajar.  Throughout history, researchers and scientists like Charles Darwin and Ivan Pavlov have included animal testing in their studies.

Animal testing has not just been around for a long time but has beneficial functions such that it is efficient and has lead to medical breakthroughs that have saved millions of lives.  There have been events in the past where a product was not tested on animals prior to sales and resulted in harm to human health due to the lack of knowledge of the product sold.  Another reason the continuance of animal testing is necessary is the question: if animals were not the subjects of testing would the next subjects be humans? The suffering and loss of life for animals is currently placed at a lower standard compared to the enhancement in human health and the reduction of human suffering.  The Research Saves campaign promoted a controversial billboard that advertised animal use in research of medical treatment for humans and the controversy that resulted from this advertisement provides another example of how the general public views the argument and even that some people have never even considered the fact that the experiments are more than just for cosmetics.

A concept that animal testing should be banned has become a huge topic in pop culture.  However, the fact that animal testing is done for more than just cosmetic purposes but also medical and cuisine testing is not widely broadcasted enough.  An example is in the 2003 movie, Legally Blonde: Red, White & Blonde, where the main character Elle Woods (Reese Witherspoon) travels to Washington, D.C. to speak up about animal rights and convince the legislature to pass the Bruiser Bill, which bans animal testing.  This is a movie known by many and may have even been the first education on animal testing for some. This may have created a particular view that was persuaded by an admired character.  The reason why the side that is defending animal testing is not usually known is because of the immense influence of banning animal testing is present in pop culture. Animal testing is associated with the harming and cruel treatment of animals in laboratories, and overlook the benefits that come from improvements in science because of the use of animals.  The consistent urge to ban animal testing could prevent researchers from being able to make advancements in treatments or medicines.  Although there are subjects and techniques that can play similar roles to animals in research, they cannot fully replace all uses of animals in science.  

Due to the poor treatment of animals being tested on and new methods that can replace animal subjects in testing there has been a recent urge to ban animal testing.  Although this may be a strong case, many people fail to mention the negative effects of no longer having the right to test on animals.  There are new methods that take less time and money; in addition the non-animal methods are not blocked by species differences that can make applying the animal's tests results to humans challenging or almost unmanageable.   According to PETA the two non-animal methods are in vitro methods, which use human cells and tissues, and in silico models, which are advanced computer-modeling techniques as well as studies with human volunteers.  The treatment of animals in labs is described as "hurtful, cruel and scientifically lacking practice, even when the benefits are often misconstrued" (Murnaghan).  Lastly there is an inability for animals to give informed consent to participating.  Similar to American-writer Audre Lorde who claims that animals cannot break the silence since they do not have a language understood by humans, therefore many individuals believe that they have an ethical responsibility to speak on the animal's behalf.

The risk of banning animal testing is that more humans may die or be harmed that could have been prevented if drugs were first tested on an animal.  Most laboratory animals do not suffer from high levels of pain but if it to occur then the researcher must administrate pain relievers as a part of the animal's legal rights according to Veronique.  Animal testing is associated with the harming and cruel treatment of animals in laboratories, and overlooks the benefits that come from advances in science because of the use of animals.  

Furthermore, the important use of animal testing can be associated with the development of insulin, antibiotics, vaccines and drugs for high mortality rate diseases.  The opposing side argues that there are high rates of animals killed in laboratories every year, however, according to Speaking of Research, there are statistics that portray that animal deaths in laboratories are less than that of the animals that are killed on the roads every year.  Another argument that can be countered is the belief that the new methods for research can fully eliminate animal subjects but even the methods that are used as alternatives to animal testing are not believed to be sufficient enough to replace the whole organism in all cases.

With the statistic from Understanding Animal Research Association, dogs, cats and primates altogether account for less than 0.2% of research animals, and yet scientists are still trying to lesson or reduce the amount of animals harmed by following a set of values known as the Three R's: Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement, as mentioned in "Using Animals for Medical Testing Is Both Ethical and Essential."  Reduction is achieved by reducing the amount of animals used in research by improving techniques for experiments and data analysis in addition to sharing information with other researchers to avoid repeating a procedure.  Refinement is by way of the actual experiment or by animal treatment.  This is done by using less invasive techniques and providing better living conditions.  Replacement is replacing the experiment entirely by using alternative methods such as research on cells in place of whole animals, testing computer models, and examining human volunteers.  These principles correspond to a position that favors animal experiments due to conditions of reducing the amount of animals being tested on and if the experimentation can be replaced by another method that does not involve animals it is selected.  Since banning animal research entirely is not a present option, by following this set of regulations researchers are satisfying to an extent the individuals who support the banning of animal testing.

The regulation of replacement is a part of the ongoing argument of whether the new methods are enough to entirely eliminate animal subjects.  Even though PETA reports the modern methods may save time, money, and animals from harm, according to scholarly article from Scientific Research, it explains that the alternative methods like In Vitro Experiments, micro-dosing, computer simulations, and functional MRI in humans all have flaws to their methodology and are inadequate to the understanding of functions and disorders of humans.  While there are subjects and techniques that can play similar roles to animals in research, they still cannot replace all uses of animals.

If there were a ban on animal testing years ago, medical breakthroughs that have saved the lives of millions would have never been possible.  Reported by Understanding Animal Research Association, the research on animals eliminated smallpox from existence, lead to the development of asthma inhalers, helped in learning that penicillin helps fight infections, also the discovery of insulin, which is, relied on by individuals with Type I diabetes.  Imagine if there had been a law passed against animal testing, then there would not be vaccines against Polio, Meningitis, TB, and human papillomavirus (HPV).  Thanks to animal research survival rates have increased for AIDS and cancer survivors.

As human beings who are perfectly capable of being diagnosed with an unknown disease that could be treated due to discoveries in science from animal testing, it becomes a non-negotiable option for some.  The controversial billboard endorsed by the Research Saves campaign is an example of this because of the reactions of the public.  Picture a huge billboard along the highway with a adorable child pictured on one side and across is a lab rat, but in the middle reads "Who would you RATHER see live?" and the letters "rat" are highlighted in the word "rather" to emphasize campaign supports for the public to choose the child.  According to the Director of Communications for the Foundation for Biomedical Research, they were trying to target the individuals who haven't really thought about the situations before and "to get people to think where the benefits are coming from that we expect when we're sick" (Harrison).  Considering the billboard created a debate, it could be due to the fact that most individuals may have a pet at home that they have a personal relationship with and for them to picture a scientist harming the pet could emotionally destroy them.  It is relationships like pets, the influence of pop culture and PETA's promotions and funds towards non-animal research, which have created a passionate position against animal research.  Would that same individual who currently is rooting against animal testing still be in the same position if tomorrow they were deathly ill and the only way to save their life was to research on animals to find the cure?

While most people are animal lovers, it is still necessary that animals are subjects to experiments to identify the problem with a drug before it is administered to a person.  If animals were not the subjects of research, the continuance studies would come to a halt and researchers would look to other subjects for testing.  If the subject of the experiment were shifted towards humans it would contradict the whole purpose of the experiment, that being to save the lives of humans.  It would be in the instances where a researcher was doing test trials and caused harm to the human subject due to a companies inability to test on animals first.  The risk of banning animals testing is that more humans may die or be harmed and those growing numbers could have been prevented if it was only first tested on an animal.  In addition to the harm to humans, their lives could be saved if there were a future breakthrough due to animal subjects similar to previous discoveries, like treatments to increase cancer survival rates, and understanding strokes, Parkinson's disease and the list goes on. 

These future breakthroughs have hope due to a recent reject of a plea to abolish animal research across the European Union due to the potential harm to biomedical research that would have occurred if the plea had been accepted, as reported by Rabesandratana in The Washington Post.  Even though the European Commission agrees with the goals and beliefs of the petition, they boldly respond with "it is premature at this stage to abruptly put a stop to animal testing because too many scientific advances are dependent on this form of testing," Krisalina Georgieva, one of the commissioners, told reporters (Rabesandratana).  This provides the opposing position with the reality that the world is not currently prepared to rid of a factor that has proven to be helpful and continues to be.  

While the world encourages change, it is feared that if action is done too hastily and without full knowledge of the consequences the risks could be higher than the benefits.   If there was anything to do to prevent the risks faced by abruptly stopping a form of testing that is dependent by potential scientific advances, first would be to educate those who may only have been exposed to the opposing position.  Next would be to continue research on discovering more methods that can be used to replace animals, however in the time being animal research should not be prohibited. Over time, hopefully, there will no longer be two sides of the argument due to the continuance of research for new methods that do not involve animals.

Finally imagine there is an individual who is sick and seeking medication from their doctor.  They are prescribed a medicine, which they intake and within the next several days they are happy and healthy.  A scenario similar to the one portrayed occurs everyday, and most may not have concluded in such a happy ending if it were not for the research and experiments on animals.  But scenarios like that may not occur in the future if there is a ban placed on the research and experiments.  With two opposing sides, one supporting the safety of animals while the other supports the safety of humans with the result of potential harm to animals.  While in the past the harm to animals has lead to breakthroughs in science and it provides hope that it will create more advancement in the future with the continuance of the study.  That way one day there will be cures for cancer or AIDS or could prevent the death of hundreds of people because a drug or medical procedure was tested on animals.

