
Animal testing is a very hot topic for debate that is frequently met with many different viewpoints, the leading two being, "animal cruelty is wrong and unethical" and "it is for the good of society and necessary for medical advancement". The most significant viewpoint is often overlooked, the compromise, the side that agrees that testing is an important part of development but also needs to be done ethically and with standards; this side is searching for an alternative to replace animals in the testing cycle. I believe there is a third side of every issue, that is why I am interested in this research question, there is always a solution that benefits all. I hope that the answer to this question is yes because I am definitely against animal cruelty but at the same time I would have had to attend many more family funerals, without medication created from animal testing. I have no direct personal experience regarding animal testing but have seen the results of having no treatment to an illness and also animals that have been permanently scarred from horrific experiences in their life. I possess no qualifications to give me credibility to this topic except the research I have found and articles that I have read regarding both points of view. There are many stakeholders that will be affected by the results from this continuous debate including scientists who believe that testing is a necessity for technological and medical advancement, but would be content with an alternative to animals; scientists who agree with unethical or inhumane treatment of animals; those with religious perspectives on human dominion and/or stewardship of animals; those who believe that animals have the right not to be experimented on; and of course animals themselves. It is hard to fully please all of these categories, though the most logical solution, to me, would be to find an alternative to replace animals in experimentation. In my paper, I plan on proving that animal experimentation is cruel and immoral, and it is essential to find a more efficient, ethical, and accurate alternative to animals to progress with development.

The first article discusses one of the more popular anti-animal testing viewpoints, being that animal experimentation is immoral and questionable. Many justify experimentation by their anthropocentric view, that simply because they are not members of our species they are lesser, and only have instrumental value to us: humans do not have the right to treat members of a different species in such a way that would be considered racist or sexist if we acted like so to one another. Some defenders of animal experimentation suggest that animals may, in some way, experience less pain than humans. This is obscure, mammals all have similar nerve structures for feeling pain, species just differentiate how they express it. The article informs us that 50 to 100 million animals are killed annually worldwide for experiments and research. This number has increased over the last decade as there are more theses that are in need of solving, but also, because the quantity of animals used is not a large concern to the scientific community as long as their lives are dedicated to the name of medicine and progress.

Not all doctors have such a drastic stance on the topic. Many believe that the experiments that are conducted are necessary, but agree that they can be done more efficiently by developing a new technique to transition from in vivo (within the living) to in silico (on computers), which will be able to make more accurate results and save a lot of resources.  This would reduce the need to test some chemicals contained within drugs, pesticides, food additives or other consumer products on animals. Instead, scientists would be able to screen a chemical's molecular structure using customized computer software. It is hard to believe that with as many scientists there are in the world that are experimenting on numerous theses, that they have not created a solid alternative by now. If it is true that they believe there is a more efficient way to get results than they would see that as a priority, yet many theories are still at the brainstorming stage. The transition to computers for experimentation could be a major innovation, which could solve a lot of problems with efficiency.

A foremost reason why there are so many animals used in experimentation is because the success rates for testing are so low. Although we share most of our genes with other mammals, there are critical differences in how our genes actually function. Results vary by species and even by strains within a species, because of inter-species and inter-strain differences in neurophysiology and the functions of the relevant genes. For example, Chimpanzees share 98 percent of our genes, yet there are many differences between our DNA sequences and how our genes function; the species barrier is a real factor. Scientists often use mice because of their supposed genetic similarity with humans and because their entire genome has already been mapped. Scientists have tried to manipulate their genes to make them more "human", though putting a human gene in a mouse is likely to function quite differently from how it functions in us. Akhtar, an animal activist and extinguished neurologist, focuses on the fact that animals are not little humans, so the results that we get from animal experimentation have a high probability of not correlating directly when applied to humans: this has definitely caused a setback in the development of new medicines and cures.

There has been a recent increase in numbers of experiments in the last decade in both private and public investment in the life sciences: this has led to increases in both animal and non-animal methods being used in medical development. This rise is also due to new opportunities using genetically modified animals, which are able to more accurately model aspects of diseases that humans are subject to. A large portion of these results have led to very influential treatments that are used daily to save lives including diphtheria and polio vaccines, antibiotics, anesthetics, the treatments for childhood leukemia, all of these have allowed thousands to live full and healthy lives, owing a huge debt to animal research.

Though there are many life-changing treatments produced from animal testing, think how many cures we could have for all of the killer diseases of today if the experiments were done properly. A large majority of animal research into potential treatments for humans is wasted due to it being poorly conducted and not evaluated through systematic reviews. There is not a lot of evidence supporting that animal experimentation is the best option, and statements such as "animal testing is a valuable research method which has proved itself over time", are inadequate forms of evidence for such a controversial area. In many countries animal research receives more funding than clinical research because the public accepts animal research only on the assumption that it benefits humans; the clinical relevance of animal experiments needs clarification. Instead of asking if something has the ability to benefit humans or not, is insignificant as many things have potential to possibly benefit humans, the modified, yet more important question is how efficiently does it benefit humans. The fact that many results and data from animal testing are often disregarded as irrelevant calls into question why the studies were allowed to occur in the first place. The unreliability of animal testing often leads to waste of funds, time, resources and loss of life that does not seem to justify the consistent loss of life that produces nothing.

In most cases, while there isn't a system to keep animals out of the labs, there are a number of welter laws that are effective in protecting animals from cruel treatment. Ethical researchers are committed to avoiding animal experiments wherever possible and, in cases where there is no substitute, to keeping suffering and pain to an absolute minimum. When it is possible, scientists are more than happy to use other methods of experimentation; animal testing is rarely the first alternative. These laws don't just protect animals in experimentation, it also applies to humans. In some cases, the last stage of medical research may involve humans, typically people in prison for life who are willing to undergo tests on new medications. These laws are significant because if a scientist has no feelings for an animal, or even a prisoner, convicted for a terrible deed, they are still required to keep the pain down to a minimum wherever applicable.

Unfortunately, laws have never been enough of a barrier to stop things from being done. In research and testing, animals are subjected to experiments that can include everything from testing new drugs, being infected by diseases, poisoned, burned, caused brain damage, maiming, blinding, and other painful procedures. Many observational experiments have protocols that require long-term isolation, dehydration and starvation, electric shocks, repeated breeding, and separation of infants from parents. It is common that due to these harsh conditions and protocols, that the animals end up dying before the experiment is over, and those who survive their use in the study are allowed to be killed once completed. When procedures are improperly performed there can be unintended suffering, for example, if a researcher uses a paralyzing agent but does not properly monitor it, the animal can be experiencing agony but is unable to show it. It is not surprising that these mistakes happen as it does not take much to be an animal technician. To be eligible for a job, one does not need to have a degree or HND as many employers will be more concerned with a person's genuine interest in animal care, and generally work under the guidance of those more qualified such as veterinarians or research physicians. The skills and responsibilities that are sought after for the job, are simple and can be done by most people; which explain the commonplace yet costly mistakes. The daily existence of a lab animal is torment. They suffer severe stress from being locked in crowded cages, strapped down unable to move, consistent exposure to unnatural bright lights, often leads to animals losing their sanity. It has been recorded, that from time to time, animals suffer from stress induced psychosis, a term that describes actions such as: ripping out their own hair, constant spinning in cages, biting at open wounds, mutilating themselves, all from chronic psychological distress they must endure.

The AWA, Animal Welfare Act, was put into place as a response to many reports of issues in the laboratory's regarding animals. The AWA defines "animal" as "any live or dead dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or such other warm-blooded animal. It requires that each research facility develops an IACUC, Internal Institutional Animal Committee to "represent society's concerns regarding the welfare of animal subjects". The committee has to be made of a minimum of three members, one member has to be a veterinarian, another must have no affiliation with the institution. The law enforces minimum housing standards for research animals, variables including the enclosure size, temperature, access to clean food and water, and other aspects of their living conditions while not being tested on; it also requires frequent inspections from veterinarians. While the AWA manages housing and transportation of animals used in research, it does not have the power to regulate the experiments themselves: this was decided by congress to exempt this authority from the law, in order to provide protection for the researcher yet not interfere at all with experimentation or research. A significant part of the law is that all US public health service funded institutions must base their animal care standards on the AWA, which many institutions receive some amounts of money from. The AWA has formed the basis of many international animal welfare laws. All of the regulations involved in the decree should be able to change the course of problems in the laboratory and also provide a lot more protection for animals.

The Animal Welfare Act contains provisions that are intended to protect animals from abuse, the USDA has regularly documented serious violations by research institutions. There have been many cases of infractions of the law and cause questioning of whether the law is effective or not, or if it is even abided by, or if it actually protects animals from abusive practices. A major part of the law is the requirement for basic standards for care and treatment, however, it also allows non-human primates to be exempted from these benchmarks for 'scientific' reasons. Essentially non-human primates can be placed outside the coverage of the law in areas such as feeding, watering, cage cleaning, social housing, and other parts of the law. It is important to know how often this happens, and if it involves a substantial amount of animals. When examining a relatively small number of the larger primate facilities it will provide a small insight of the situation. The facilities examined were: Emory University, University of Louisiana (Lafayette), Oregon health Sciences University, Harvard Medical School, the National Institutes of Health, the University of Wisconsin (Madison), and Wake Forest University: The results from these prestigious establishments were frightening. Collectively, the labs experimented on 15,324 primates (21.5%of the national total) and exempted 6,273 animals to at least one of the standards contained in the AWA. Overall, an estimated 43% of all non-human primates used in testing are legally excluded from at least some level of protection under the Animal Welfare Act. It is quite clear, by looking at the statistics, that the AWA fails to protect animals from abuse in research, and its existence is pointless.

Science has been relying on animal testing for so long, it is difficult for people to believe that it's possible for alternative methods to replace traditional testing. Organizations such as CAAT, the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, have been promoting three very important principles known as the three R's. The first principle, Replacement, means finding alternatives to animals either by methods that don't involve organisms at all (software simulations, mannequins, etc.) or by in vitro ("in glass") techniques, where the studies are done with cells or tissues. The second principle, Reduction, refers to reducing the overall number of animals used in testing to a minimum. Finally, Refinement, improving the techniques to eliminate or minimize pain and discomfort for the animals. Though these propositions sound great, not all agree with them. Some scientists disagree with the word 'alternatives' because they feel it suggests that all animal research can be replaced when they believe that not all can be solved that simply. Animal activists tend to reject refinement and reduction because they feel that animal use should be halted altogether.

In conclusion, while the elimination of animal experimentation may not be possible at present, it is essential to educate the next generation of scientists about the possibility of alternatives if we are to reach this goal eventually. If the next generation is taught from an early age to seek alternatives to the current model, then development will be continuous as current methods will always be updated with a better and more precise model. At this point, if an alternative method really works and is used repeatedly, then it's not considered an alternative, it's simply the best, current practice. We have become content with animal experimentation as an adequate method of getting results, yet if we are to continue to develop, we must strive for the newest techniques and the best procedures, make them ordinary, and then venture again.

