Yearly, vivisection in order to study their

Yearly, millions of animals are utilized in laboratories to test the toxic levels of new chemicals. Animals used in experiments can range from mice and other rodents to even dogs and horses. Monkeys, rabbits, birds, and apes are the usual choice for appraisal. As many as 800 animals could be tested to determine whether a drug is safe to the public. During experimentation animals are always concious and alive, with no pain relievers given. The amount of pain experienced for each animal during testing varies, “many experiments cause minimal discomfort” (“Animal Testing Is”). Fortunately through animal testing scientists were able to find many medical breakthroughs; for example, the development of anitbiotics, surgical techniques, and vaccines. However, with so many other modern alternatives, animal testing can be replaced. The issue of animal testing is so controversial because of the pain that is inflicted towards the animal during experimentation. Animal testing dates back all the way to the ancient greeks. As early as third century BC, the greeks have been testing on sentient animals. A Greek known as Galen, was a physician who lived in rome during second century BC. He, “dissected on live animals; vivisection in order to study their anatomies” (“Animal Testing Is”). The modern form of anesthetic was not yet invented up to the 1800’s. Claude Bernard was a a physioligist from France. In 1865 he wrote, ” A physiologist who experiments on animals is not a man of fashion, he is a man of science, absorbed by the scientific idea which he pursues… He no longer hears the cry of animals, he no longer sees the blood that flows, he sees only the idea and perceives only organisms concealing problems which he intends to solve.” Clause Bernard experimented on numerous animals; to oberve the effects of severe heat on skin, he placed dogs and rabbits in an oven. In Bernard’s career, he was able to, “discover the functions of pancreate gland, liver, and the vasomoter system, and furthered the understanding and treatment of disease and how the body works” (“Animal Testing Is”). In the year 1959, two british scientists, William Russell and Rex Burch established, “The Principle of Humane Experimental Technique.” Within the book were stated the three R’s; replacement, reduction, and refinement. These three principles, “urged scientists to replace animals in tests and experiments with non-animal subjects. Whenever possible, reducing the number of animals used in experiments, and refining existing animal-testing processes to be more humane and less painful” (“Animal Testing Is”). Fortunatley, The Animal Welfare Act was passed by congress in the year 1966, “The law, still in effect, requires researchers to ‘ensure that animal pain and distress are minimized, including adequate veterinary care with the appropriate use of anesthetic, analgesic, tranquilizing drugs, or euthanasia’, and mandates that researchers consider ‘alternatives to any procedure likely to produce pain to or distress in an experimental animal.'” However, the Animal Welfare Acts only includes animals such as cats, dogs, monkeys, apes, hamster, rabbits, and guinea pigs. Animals such as mice, rats, or birds aren’t included. (“Animal Testing Is”). Animal testing has contributed to saving millions of human lives. Several medical breakthroughs attribute to animal research. Stated by Frankie Tull, “‘Virtually every medical breathrough in the past century has involved some animal research.'” Supporters insist that the life of a human is more important than that of an animal being experimented on. “Without research with animal models, especially rodents, we will not have the cures for the many currently incurable diseases afflicting children today” (“Animal Testing Is”). Animal expermenation has helped scientists better understand the human body’s processes, analyize the cause and effect of illness such like heart disease and cancer, to test new drugs that could save the lives of millions, and to test whether or not ingredients in consumer products are safe. Several countries also require that chemicals be tested, prior to marketing, on animals. Pschologists also ise animals as subjects to observe their behavior under a variety of conditions. In February of 2011 the New York Times reported, “an experiment at the Oregon National Primate Research Center in whcih scientists fed monkets excessive amounts of food and restricted their movement. Simulating the conditions that lead to obesity in humans, in order to study the physiological effects of obesity” (“Animal Testing Is”). While there are many reasons towards supporting animal testing, there is still a strong controversy against it. Objectors of animal testing claim that the practice is, “self-evidentl immoral and unneccessary. Alistair Currie is a polcy adiviser for the PETA. In 2012 she wrote, “They feel pain and fear as we do… Why conduct painful and lethal tests on the wrong species when sophisticated computer and mathematical models, human tissue and cell cultures and smarter, more focused clinical and epidemiological studies can show us more accurately what happens to human bodies with diseases?” Described in a 2014 Huffington Post, Aysha Akhatar stated, ” As soon as you walk into a laboratory, you can’t help but notice the rows and rows of barren cages holding sad animals living under the glare of flourescent bulbs. The bodies are burned, mutilated and scarred. Animals who have had their heads crushed, grip their faces and convulse as blood pours out of their noses. You can smell and taste the stench of blood, feces, and fear.” Most of the pain afflicted towards the animals is done with little to no anesthesia. Opponents affirm that animal experimentation is not as accurate as supporters say it is and that, “It’s time to let go of the methods of the past and embrace 21-st century science” (“Animal Testing: Is”). Several other alternatives exist like, In vitro testing, where, “organs on chips that contain human cells grown in a state-of-the-art system to mimic the structure and function of human organs and organ systems.” Another of many alternatives are Human-Patient simulators who are , “lifelike computerized human patient simulators that breathe, bleed, convulse, talk, and even ‘die’, have been shown to teach students physiology and pharmacology better than crude experiments that involve cutting up and killing animals” (“Alternatives To Animal”). Animal testing also requires large amounts of money. The National Institutes of Health spends, “an estimated $12 billion to $14.5 billion each year on experiments involving animals” (“Animal Testing Is”). Opponents of animal testing continue to argue that with that so many modern alternatives, there is no reason to continue the cruel practice. Animal experimentation isn’t the only way to test consumer products, drugs, etc. One alternative would be Computer (in silico) modeling. “Sophisticated computer models that simulate human biology and the progression of developing diseases. Stuies show that these models can accurately predict the ways that new drugs will react within the human body and replace the yse of animals in exploratory research and many standard drug tests” (“Animal Testing Is”).  Another alternative is reasearch with real human volunteers. A method called microdosinf claims, “can provide vital information on the safety of an experimental drug and show how it is metabolized in humans prior to large scale human trials” (“Alternatives to Animal”). Volunteers to this method, “are given an extremely small one time drug dose and sophisticated imaging techniques are used to monitor how the drug behaves within the body” (“Alternatives to Animal”). Microdosing can replace particular experiments on animals and, “help screen out drug compounds that won’t work in humans so that they won’t needlessly advance to government required animal testing” (“Alternatives to Animal”). Various alternatives to animal testing exist and should be utilized because of how far science has come and evolved.Products, such as cosmetics, utilize animals for testing. Big name brands like Aveda and Body Shop vowed to not use animals to test their products. “Cosmetic companies have developed a variety of alternative methods to test their products. To ensure that certain makeup products do not harm people’s eyes, for example, testing facilities can use human or animal corneas supplied by eye banks, frozen corneas supplied by hospitals, or tissue cultures composed of cells from a cornea” (“Animal Testing Is”). Many countries have put bans to animal testing in cosmetics, such as the European Union. European cosmetics, in March 2009, “could no longer test the chemicals in their cosmetics on animals, and in March 2013 (EU) were forbidden from selling any cosmetics that had been tested on animals” (“Testing Cosmetics and”). Countries like Israel and India have also banned the marketing of any cosmetics or cosmetic ingridients that have been previously tested on animals. These bans conclude that, “companies all around the world will have to abandon animal testing for cosmetics they want to sell in huge markets.” Unfortunately, no laws on testing houshold products or cosmetics on animals exist within the US. “Companies that make and sell their products here can choose to conduct tests on animals for cosmetics and household products even though non animal test are widely available” (“Testing Cosmetics and”). The pain and torture inflicted on animals during experimentation is what makes this topic so controversial. Though, animal testing has allowed us to evolve in the world of medicine and helped find cures to numerous dieased, the downside is the torment these animals have to go through with no use of pain relievers. However, a fair amount of alternatives exist and countries such as the European Union, Israel, and India have put a ban against animal testing in their cosmetics. Scientist are coming up with so many other alternatives to animal testing that some predict that the practice could become extinct, however the future of animal testing is still yet unclear.