 "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 due to animal experimentation. 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. 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 and alternatives that ensure the safety and ethical matters in the laboratories that perform experiments through the use of these animals. 

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). It's 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. We at least need to diminish the amount of animals used for these tests and to make them more durable. 

A fault of animal experimentation in general is that it can be a very long and pricey process and therefore should be a reason to research different alternative methods that are more durable while maintaining the effectiveness of the tests. Several experiments can even cost from thousands to millions of dollars and take months or years to perform. (HSI 1). An effective alternative method would be to use "in vitro" methods where they are essentially test tube experiments using biological cells and are done at a price much less than animal testing. For example, when doing a "chromosome aberration" using animal experimenting it costs approximately $30,000 but if researchers were to use the in vitro method it would be 20,000. Also, another example is when conducting a "sister chromatid exchange" with the presence of animals it would be $22,000 but with the in vitro alternative it would come out to be $8,000 (HSI 1.) Having alternative methods that take much less time and are cheaper while causing no harm to animals in contrast to the harmful results of animal testing would provide people with a much more comfortable and positive outlook on animal testing knowing there is a just as affective way for humans to have the opportunity to receive new drugs, treatments, and products they need to satisfy their health. 

In addition to having alternative methods to eliminate the effects of animal testing, there also needs to be legislation passed to ensure the safety of the animals. 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).   It is scary to think that "the USDA has 120 inspectors to oversee more than 12,000 facilities that test, exhibit, or breed animals" (ALDF 1). There are not enough hired inspectors to be able to investigate every venue that performs animal tests. When there is not enough of these professionals to manage the sanitary conditions of the labs, it is leaving many of the work spaces to operate these experiments without the proper inspection needed to ensure it is safe for the animals. The carelessness of these industries is sad and disappointing. They should see these issues and realize they need more hired professionals to investigate these labs before an experiment to protect the safety of these animals. It is careless mistakes like this that could be the difference between life and death for these animals. 

 In the United States, there are not many laws founded that protect the animals used in experimentation against inhumane and immoral treatment. However, in 1966 the Animal Welfare Act, 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. 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. In other places, such as the UK, regulations pertaining to animal testing are some of the strictest in the world. They emphasize that "it is illegal to use an animal if there is an alternative non-animal method available, and the expected benefits accrued from the research must outweigh any potential animal suffering" (SOR 1). Laws that the UK has such as making it so that you have to obtain certain licenses before able to conduct research. This would have been necessary when looking at the Silver Spring monkey experiment and how such an incapable man was able to run a laboratory. With these licenses it would regulate who would be allowed to actually perform these experiments while filtering out those who clearly are not capable and stable to do so. Also the projects have to be passed by institutions and investigators who use the 3 R's to do so and they even put a regulation on what animals are allowed to be used if other species such as mice and fish are available instead. These are all specific laws that significantly create a positive impact on the ethics of animal testing. If the United States can inherit these regulations and follow in these paths, animal testing would be much less of a harmful issue. 

In regards to considering regulations in the animal testing industry, there have been a couple instances in which the US has shown success. 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 that 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). 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. In this case, this demonstrates how regulations have succeeded. Laws were followed and the one responsible for this horrible act was arrested. This was a big step in promoting the fact that including regulations on these tests will be beneficial in the long run as those who refuse to follow guidelines will be punished and we need to keep enforcing the idea that more regulations is essential. 

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 emphasize how "the humanest possible treatment of experimental animals, far from being an obstacle, is actually a prerequisite for a successful animal experiment" (Animal Ethics 1). The 3 R's aim to not only support the idea of promoting alternative methods, but it goes on to further announce that we need to develop  better means of animal welfare and the quality of these tests in general. It has become a part of legislation in some countries for governing the use of animals in experimenting. Each "R" of this method is included in order to show that we need to manage the routine of these experiments to ensure they are secure and humane, which explains the refinement stage. Then, there's the reduction phase where reducing the amount of experiments we conduct in general would be greatly beneficial in lowering the rates of animal deaths, as stated in the introduction, that occur as a result. Finally, the replacement idea is contributing to the fact that there needs to be a way to advocate for alternative methods. We need to be able to refine the experiments because if we are unable to do so we certainly won't be able to reduce the amount of animals tested on. Being able to monitor if the scientists are refining and reducing the experiments is very skeptical and is where we will need strict regulators to ensure that they are following the possible criteria if legislation were to pass. With that whole process being a success we would then be able to replace the experiments as a whole and establish new methods of something more ethical and proper.

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 to 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 1). 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. If the force of the world's scientific brains were turned on this problem there could be enormous strides (Watts 184). If 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). 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.

