Have you ever thought about what it might have been like to live throughout a tragic epidemic?  Such as a disease that rips through families and friends regardless of their age or loved ones?  It is not by chance that these diseases are kept at bay, but by the unending work of scientists working to keep everyone safe from these tragedies.  These scientists continue their work in preventing these diseases through a rather controversial practice, vivisection, also known as animal testing.  Removal of this practice we will not only be putting our lives in danger, but the lives of every person that we care about. In discussion of animal testing, there are those that feel the practice must be ended immediately based on their personal morality.  These anti-vivisectionists might feel that animals have many of the same rights as humans, such as “the right to life, liberty, and security of person”(UN General Assembly, 1948, article 3)  They feel that these rights are being impeded on with animal testing, which is why they feel that vivisection is morally wrong.  In contrast though, pro-vivisectionists may claim our right to life liberty and security of person are being upheld by animal testing, as we allowing people to live happier healthier lives.  Pro-vivisectionist may also cite the many medical innovations that have come through vivisection, such as the polio vaccine or the many economic benefits that accompany the practice.  The first regulations to ever be put in place against vivisection were created by Britain in 1876 with the Cruelty to Animals Act.  This act was put in place after some scientists who became carried away with their experiments and tested things that were unnecessary, thereby and causing unneeded harm to animals.  This act was kept in place in Britain until 2010 when the EU released a new referendum, which hoped “to replace, reduce and refine the use of animals used for scientific purposes” (European Derective 2010/63/EU)  While many of these events were taking place in Europe there was a very different story happening in the United States.  In the United States the first law put in place to regulate animal testing wasn’t until 1966.  This was with the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act. which “covered the transport, sale, and handling of animals and provided for licensing of animal dealers to prevent pet theft and their sale to research facilities” (Regulation of Animal Research)  This act was put in place following a string of crimes where animal dealers would steal neighborhood pets, and sell them to research facilities for money.  Furthermore, changes to the regulations on animal testing poses a damaging effect to society as a whole

Throughout the years there have been many vaccines, therapies, treatments, and cures created thanks to the effort of scientists working with vivisection.  If we were to remove animal testing, we would be directly harming the lives of the people who are dependant on many of the treatments that are being developed.  As we know, human trials are very expensive as there is increased risk going along with human testing, and this increased costs will affect the progress of these cutting edge treatments damagingly.  These treatments will be either significantly delayed or scrapped altogether due to the increased costs of progress.

Additionally, companies will need to cut back production to stay in business, so they will be unable to continue the mass production of new medicines as companies.  These companies will be pressed for cash as currently the only alternative to animal testing human trials, which is not only more dangerous, but as discussed previously incredibly costly.  What’s more, we know these companies will do anything to stay in business, so they will be likely to do one of the following.  First being, move out of the United States to a country with less restrictions such as China.  This will cause a large job field to be outsourced damaging the nation's economy as well as our health.  Furthermore, these companies will be less likely to create new drugs to fight the lesser known illnesses as they will be unable to stay in business.  This will cause many people to suffer from their diseases, and directly cause many untimely deaths.  For the average consumer though, many of the drugs that are already in circulation will increase in price as companies attempt to fuel their further research.  To continue onward, there are many values at stake with a change in policy towards vivisection.

To return to the dangers of human testing, one wouldn’t have to search to hard to find stories of poorly tested drugs that harmed people and their families horribly.  One recent example is Accutane, which was an acne medication that was taken by people attempting to clear up their face.  The problems arouse though when a pregnant mother took the drug.  The children of these mothers were born with horrible deformities such as most notably heart defects, and sensory, primarily seeing and hearing, abnormalities.  This drug has many side effects on adult patients as well though, such as, diabetes, anemia, and depression.  The fact that these people were forced to suffer from these side-effects with no idea that they could happen is dangerous, and poor is proof that even with animal trials present bad drugs can get through, so what dangers would removing an entire safety check pose?.

Most of the resistance to animal testing comes from misconceptions about the practices involved in the process itself.  For example there are many people who argue that the living conditions of these animals are horrible, but in Dr. Robert Kelsh of the University of Bath in his paper “claims many of the animals, majoritarily rats and fish, in research facilities are often treated better than pets people keep in their homes, and that this is due to present legislation that allows researchers to continue their work” (Kelsh 241).  In other words, Kelsh is claiming here that the animals in the research labs are treated better than many of our own pets.  This is important to remember as legislation is discussed, as is it not hypocritical to ban a practice for being too cruel to animals, while some of the animals in our own homes are being treated worse.  Moreover, we have literal factories that literally produce animals for slaughter.  Is it not crueler to keep an animal in a small pen not allowing them to move or interact with other animals?  To give an example of this disparity there is “Approximately 8.5 billion chickens are killed for their meat every year, while another 300 million chickens are used in egg production” (Closer Look Factory Farms), while there is only 100 million animals killed every years by animal testing, and of this number includes animals of all types, as opposed to just chickens.

When discussing the primary argument of anti-vivisectionists they often claim ideals such as Martin Luther King Jr.’s Theory of Justice, which states that the ends do not justify the means.  This is a noble ideology to have, but in reality how can we nobly give up the lives of countless humans for animals who have a lifespan of 12 months?  It is also true that though we have some of the best minds in this field of study working with these animals there are always going to be differences between the anatomies of animals and humans.  Additionally, the differences in anatomy won’t matter horribly as these test are just safety checks to ensure there is nothing devastatingly wrong with the drug.  It serves to prevent lasting damage to people and their families that can be prevented with prior testing.

 One of the first critics of animal testing was Robert Green Ingersoll, who in 1890 claimed “all that has been ascertained by vivisection could have been done by the dissection of the dead.”(“Robert Green Ingersoll”)  To understand anything besides basic anatomy this can’t be true.  There are many complexities that come with a live organism, for example the physiology, the function, of these organs cannot be determined with dead bodies.  To further this idea, the testing of new drugs is impossible to do with dead bodies as these drugs enter the bloodstream, ordinarily, by being consumed and metabolized.  The dead bodies will not react to these drugs because they do not have metabolisms to break down the substances.  Additionally, is it not another controversial practice to experiment on the dead, so he is asking scientists to replace 1 controversial practice with another far less useful one.

Moreover, there have been hundreds of saving drugs created with the use of animal testing such as the rabies vaccine, polio vaccine, as well as many more.  For example many of the new cancer treatments being created are currently using animals to test, and also for HIV and AIDs testing the use of animals has been crucial in not only helping people stay alive after contraction, but preventing further spread.  To explain further, the blood test that tests if blood is safe for a transfusion was created with the use of animals.

Additionally, there are possible alternatives for the future that show promise, such as a new technology called organ chips. These chips are small 3D printed models of skin or other human tissues that can be used to test the effects of drugs.  Though this alternative form of testing is less accurate than animal testing it still shows promise, and increased funding would not be a bad idea.

The best solution to this dispute seems to be a compromise as there are many aspects of vivisection that are not helping people live longer healthier lives.  In contrast though there are incredibly important aspects to animal testing that are able to assist people in living a longer more fulfilling life.

The testing of new drugs is a necessary evil that will help people stay safe.  The most important feature being that they will keep devastating drugs from reaching human trials or even worse should they reach the market?  There have been many examples of these bad drugs reaching the people and having horrible results.  One example being Accutane, which when taken by pregnant mothers caused devastating birth defects to the unborn children that affects them for their entire lives..

 On the other hand though, common sense dictates that we can always work to increase the regulation on cosmetics testing as it is still very important to keeping people safe, the amount of testing needed to be done will be far less. Obviously it is cruel and inhumane to force animals to consume lipstick or to force eyeliner into an animal’s eye is disturbing.  Such testing is not really necessary; but it is still useful, as how many times have children eaten a parents cosmetics products, and needed to call a poison control center.

Similar to cosmetics testing, dental testing offers little in providing a safety net to the patient.  The majority of these tests are often on new dental implants to see how they will attach t to the mouth.  This step is unessential though as dentists have access to very high grade models that can be used to practice implanting these devices and see how they fit.  The practice is damaging to animals, for example “Six greyhounds were given dental implants under general anesthetic and kept alive for three months before being euthanized at the University of Melbourne's dental school” (Timna). This treatment of the animals not only did the university purposely implant these implants, but they continued their suffering for three months.  Regulations such as banning situations such with the greyhounds where they were forced to have unneeded suffering after the procedure was completed.

The continuation of vivisection is a very important practice, as many feel it is what is driving medicine and science forward and keeping thousands of people safe from disease.  The solution does seem to be a compromise though, as to become dogmatic about a topic will not only hurt science, but the health of people as well.  To conclude, I want to urge all those reading to write to their congressmen or congresswomen and urge them that this practice is essential to saving people's lives.
