 "More than 100 million animals are poisoned, burned, crippled, and abused in U.S. labs each year" (Peta 1). Throughout history humans have been struggling with diseases and illness for decades. The availability of modern medicine has helped reduce and slow these sicknesses. While the medicine has helped many cases of severe illness and even deaths, several believe these breakthroughs are a result of these animal experiments. Whether or not it is morally acceptable for animals to be tested upon for research of the safety of new products is a controversial topic that has been widely argued for decades now as some are very opposed to it because of the hazardous outcomes that have occurred in way too many cases. Animal experimentation brings up disputes between the moral rights of humans and animals. The animal industry itself is a very tightly regulated industry, yet why do we still lose the lives of so many animals due to not only unsuccessful, but harmful experiments that could potentially be prevented? In other places around the world there are several laws and regulations placed on animal testing that solidifies the ethics in regards to the animals while in the United States there are very little passed laws that do so. Animal testing may be necessary and has brought numerous amounts of positive cures to medicine to this day but in the long run but there certainly needs to be precautions and affective alternatives that can help make it a safer and less harmful process. Throughout much research, it would be near impossible to completely abolish animal testing but regardless there at least needs to be regulations that ensure the safety and ethical matters in the laboratories that perform experiments through the use of these animals. 

Animal testing is used to test different substances like cosmetics and household cleaners but have led to more breakthroughs in modern medicine in today's society. Animal testing is even responsible for our everyday activities such as brushing out teeth. Everyday scientists work in the labs to try and promote more and more efficient medical methods to be passed. People argue that it isn't sufficient to use animals such as rats and mice in these experiments because they aren't exactly wired like we as humans are and there are differences in the anatomy and structure of the two. They use the animal models to try to mirror a human as best they can without actually using a human to test on. Despite their beliefs, in reality, "specially bred rats and mice are the mammals used most often in medical research. Because rats and mice have so many biological similarities to humans, they make up 90 -- 95% of the mammals in biomedical research" they generally use these rodents specifically because they have a similar make up to humans (APS, 1). However, even though they may be similar and can therefore provide some accurate information in the research in their physical, genetic structure, these animals are different mentally because they do not have the ability to refute and communicate against the testing they are about to undergo. Animals cannot speak out and have a say whether they are about to be tested on and essentially be killed if the experiment does not turn out to be successful and safe. That is one major stance people feel strongly for when considering the idea whether animals should be used or not. It is immoral and against the rights of the animals who are living creatures and should therefore have the same ethical rights as humans even if these practices can help advances in scientific research.

The immense amount of animals that are either hurt or killed is a prime reason why animal testing needs to be regulated or controlled to be made into a significantly safer yet still effective process. The issue is how scientists know that animal testing has worked so successfully in the past and up until now, so they are uncertain when trying out a new method that could potentially not work. In the article, "Controversy of Animal Testing," by Ian  Murnaghan, the supporters feel that "the medical breakthroughs that have occurred as a result of animal testing are also considered reason enough to continue the practice, with the aim of reducing human suffering and saving human lives" (Murnaghan 1). What this means is that since animal testing has been so successful so far, they essentially want to just continue with this method. However, they also mention their priority is saving human lives which is certainly understandable, but they refuse to look the lives of the animals and how during the process of saving humans through animal experimentation, we lose the lives of several living animals too. Similarly, in the article, "The Impact of Animal Rights on the Use of Animals for Biomedical Research, Product Testing, & Education," by Stephen W. Baier, it is stated how those in support of animal testing are so set on the idea because of the major developments that have occurred throughout history in the medical field that have helped save people's lives. Scientists don't want to resort to different methods because "animal experiments play a key role such as the development of numerous vaccines, cancer treatments and therapies, organ transplants, and surgical breakthroughs as justification for animal use" (Baier 1).Its the ultimate idea of having the justification that animal testing has been successful in the past and therefor can be successful in the future that encourages scientists to continue with this method without taking into consideration that there are dangerous ethical problems still present, regardless. If we cannot control the experiments done to animals, we at least with no question, diminish the amount of animals used for these tests and to make them more durable. 

A question that is brought upon when trying to regulate the experiments that occurs in the labs is how do we know what the scientists are actually doing and if they're actually making the tests safer? There needs to be regulators who will put their foot down and place strict regulations on these experiments even if that means starting off by just making sure the laboratories are thoroughly inspected before an experiment and making sure they pass all safety tests beforehand. In the article, "Animal Testing and the Law," by ALDF, the author states how "many labs pass inspection even where appalling legal violations occur" (ALDF 1). The carelessness of these inspectors is sad and disappointing. Because of their inability to do their job to its fullest, the animals could suffer from potential diseases or death if they're cleared for experiments in that particular lab that should not have been passed in the first place. It is careless mistakes like this that could be the difference between life and death for these animals. 

Regulations also need to be made that ensure that the experiment itself, not just the laboratory environment, is ethical and one hundred percent safe for the animal being tested on. An ethical guideline for animal research that is used in many countries throughout the world nowadays is called the "3 R's" that was established in 1959 by W. M.S. Russell and R. L Burch. The "3 R's" method refers to Refinement, Reduction, and Replacement. The purpose of this method is to "have a broader scope than simply encouraging alternatives to animal testing, but aim to improve animal welfare and scientific quality where the use of animals cannot be avoided" (Wikipedia 1). It has become a part of legislation in some countries for governing the use of animals in experimenting. We need to be able to refine the experiments first off because if we are unable to do that we certainly won't be able to reduce the amount of animals tested on. Being able to monitor if the scientists refining and reducing the experiments is very skeptical and is where we will need strict regulators to ensure that they are following these rules. With that being a success we would then be able to replace the whole experiment and establish new methods of something more ethical and moral.

In Silver Spring, Maryland in 1981, intense cruelty towards monkeys "led to the nation's first arrest and criminal conviction of an animal experimenter for cruelty to animals, the first confiscation of abused animals from a laboratory, and the first U.S. Supreme Court victory for animals used in experiments" (PETA 1). One of PETA's founders started working undercover at a local lab run by a man who had no medical training. The founder discovered that the man had 17 monkeys held hostage in cages. Shocking a lab could be run by such an incapable person, it was also discovered that "in one experiment, monkeys were kept immobile in a dark chamber made out of a converted refrigerator and then repeatedly shocked until they finally used their disabled arm" (PETA 1). There is a general lack of concern and well-being for these animals in this specific case. The inhumane treatment of these innocent monkeys is a perfect representation of the harmful effects associated with animal testing. These 17 monkeys, or any amount of animals in general, should not have had to go through such harsh and painful suffering. It goes to show how without these regulations placed on such cases, there's so much excess room for these experimenters to do whatever they want because they actually may have a chance of getting away with the punishment of the animals unless or until they get caught, like in this case. 

In correspondence with the case of the Silver Spring Monkeys, it is demonstrated again that without the strict regulation needed to control and make animal testing a safer method, scientists will and can continue to test on these animals, some in disturbing and hazardous ways because they legally can. In the United States there are not many laws that protect the animals used in experimentation against inhumane and immoral treatment. However, in 1966 the Animal Welfare Act which was the first U.S. federal law regarding animal research was passed. While the act does provide protection and regulates the care of animals used in research, it "provides only minimal protection for certain species while excluding others such as rats, mice, and birds bred for research -- who together constitute an estimated 90-95% of animals in laboratories" (neavs 1). While animals such as rats and mice are a couple of the most commonly used animals for scientific testing, this act does not provide the substantial protection that is essentially necessary and "in fact, over 90% of test subjects are mice, rats, and birds" (Connect US). In the United States there is an estimated total that 100 million animals are used for experimentation annually when you include all animal species (neavs 1). While this act does promote some form of protection towards animals, it excludes a majority of the animals that are primarily used in these experiments and is therefore less useful in the long run. This being the only law in the United States that caters to the mistreatment of animals during testing is a sign that we need to come together as a society and plead for more regulations that enforce the safety these animals deserve. 

A common argument brought upon this topic regards the issue about animal rights. Animal rights cannot be discussed without the counterargument of human rights being brought into play. The controversy ordeal concerns the idea that the animals legitimately have no means of communication in any way to oppose to these experiments. It raises the question of why would you perform such procedures on these living creatures if you wouldn't even consider doing it on a human? Animals and humans are both living organisms so they should both have the rights to refute these tasks if wanted, right? In the article, "In U.S., Few Alternatives To Testing on Animals," by Gilbert Gaul, the author pleads that "poisons are fed to rats and mice to determine what dose may be harmful to humans. Chemical compounds are dripped on the skin and eyes of rabbits to check for irritation. Vaccines are given to mice before being made available to the public" (Gaul 1). This is concerning because it goes to show how easy it is for someone to conduct these horrible and painful operations on these animals when they certainly would not even think twice about whether or not it would be wrong to do it to a human, when in an overall perspective, it would be the same exact thing. It makes you wonder how one could be satisfied knowing they're taking the rights away of precious, harmless animals. As humans we tend to believe that it is more logical to spare the lives of the animals rather than a human because humans are far more superior and essential in the world, and that is an issue itself.

While the intense controversy over this topic may never be mended, it is the idea of compromise that would allegedly spark the most usefulness in discovering a common ground. It is easy for one to pick a side and confirm their beliefs with their facts, or what they think are facts. It is only right and just that in a debate both sides of the argument are listened to and what each side's theories are. The only solution here is compromise. The positives and negatives of animal testing will need to be reviewed and closely examined by both sides of the issue to be able to full reach a middle ground.  Looking at the positives that result from animal testing is that it contributes too many cures that help save human's lives and helps discover new and safe medicines and drugs. Negatively, it typically leads to the death several animals holding them hostage in cages for example in excruciating pain, animals make poor test subjects, can become expensive in comparison to other alternatives, and that it can essentially lead to misleading information in research (Connect Us). It is a personal choice whether one is for or against animal testing and is generally their emotions as to what is the determining factor that sways one left and right on this issue. 

If both sides of the argument were to come together and put forth the effort of trying to stir up some form of compromise, the idea of animal testing could come to a rest in the future. Many scientists including Michael Balls, director of the European Union Joint Research Center's Environment Institute held a meeting and "expressed the view that totally eliminating the use of animals in testing appears unlikely for the foreseeable future" as stated in the article, "Alternatives in Animal Testing" (JSTOR). However, even people in support of the idea are already seeing opportunities for change and are partaking in measures to eliminate the harmful effects of animal testing. Groups like FRAME and ECVAM are encouraging scientists to participate in workshops and conferences to come up with new safe alternatives to animal testing (Encyclopedia Britannica 1). Overtime, people are starting to realize that there are alternatives and scientist, Dr. Langley even says, "I don't see why we can't replace animal experiments. It the force of the world's scientific brains were turned on this problem there could be enormous strides (Watts 184). It everyone would just come together and combine all knowledge, there would be no reason to continue with animal testing because there would be new effective and accurate discoveries. People automatically assume that using animals is the only method when really "it is a myth that animals are indispensable to medical research" (Watts 182). In society today, it is was regulators and scientists know and trust. Once we can pass and enforce means of legislature that will confirm the safety of the animals throughout these processes, the dangerous effects of animal testing will be abolished. 

At least for now, animal testing is still an issue at a standstill. It is not the most proper or moral form of medical research but is essentially necessary in the long run. In regards to that statement, it is necessary as long as we can eventually provide stricter regulations and laws that will help enforce and ensure the certainty that the animals will be safe and unharmed through the process. While it is true that animal testing has brought about numerous amounts of medical breakthroughs of cures and vaccines, it is all done while severely putting the lives of thousands of animals at risk. "Many research organizations have conceded that replacement is a desirable goal" (Watts). It is important to realize that animals may not have the ability to refuse the experiments like humans can, but it still violates their rights as living creatures. Research on animal testing in general has come a long way throughout the years and there are so many alternatives and regulations that can be used to prevent the harsh results of these tests. If scientists and regulators can come to a compromise and work together on this topic, then hopefully over the years there will be laws that regulate the issues associated with animal testing and satisfy both sides of the controversial argument.

