A Test to Die For

Animal experimentation is an ever growing issue of modern culture and just like many debates one side is labeled the hero and the other a villain, but in the case of animal testing it's not so black and white. There are many good reasons to be against animal experimentation like in reference to the methods of testing or animal rights but for most the reason is that of moral or personal. And in many cases most people choose to be against animal testing before they even consider what the benefits might be. These reasons are perfectly acceptable and should be considered by each individual, but you also need to look at the picture as a whole. What would the world be like today if diseases such as polio, mumps, or rubella had not been cured or if antibiotics and insulin were never invented? If you choose to be against animal testing, that's fine, but at least be educated about what you are opposing in its entirety. I for one am against animal testing, but I do understand its necessity and the role it plays in our society. Most animal right activists overlook the fact that researchers do in fact care about the needs and treatment of the animals in their facilities. Each facility has certain protocols and regulations to follow that include humane living conditions and proper upkeep. Most arguing against animal testing would suggest these facilities are nothing more than medical torture chambers ran by monsters who enjoy killing innocent creatures but that's far from the truth, these men and women are in fact saving lives by creating medicines and cures by doing a job most people couldn't handle. Alan M. Goldberg, a toxicology professor at Johns Hopkins University, stated, in regards to how slow the development of alternative methods are, that “Nothing has gone faster than we expected,” and “That’s our big disappointment.” (NYT) These facilities aren't kidnapping your pets or running around like mad scientists but are using genetically engineered rodents to create drugs that benefit both animals and humans. Can you imagine how hard it is going to work every day in hopes of saving lives and having all the world view you as a murder, talk about unappreciated. Animal experimentation has been around just as long as the medical field but when did it become unethical, when did people start to take notice and demand changes? Many might be surprised to know that animal rights activists groups are not a new development, in fact according to the US National Library of Medicine, the Cruelty to Animals Act was passed in 1876 to reduce the number of scientists eligible to test on animals. Over the decades activists have continued to fight for the reduction of animals used in experiments as well as the procedures allowed for testing. With the implementation of rules and regulations to be followed by researchers such as the ones found under Animal Welfare Act --Federal law that regulates the treatment of animals in research-- the Health Research Extension Act of 1985 --to ensure the proper treatment and care of animals within research facilities-- and with off the wall protest demonstrations in regards to animal rights and the humane treatment of animals. Also with the implement of IACUC in 1986, which stands for Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees, that states "scientists need to have their research approved by a committee" (ASPCA) and prevents scientists from testing on animals without a necessary cause. But where should a line be drawn, what should be considered too much? "Scientists have become concerned with ‘the moral and ethical responsibility for the humane treatment of animals in experimentation’ whereas animal protection groups are concerned with ‘the moral rights of animals....’" (NCBI) But what happens when activists push for the complete elimination of animals in the research field without a proper reliable replacement? It's a well-known fact that alternative methods are an up and coming new