Researchers in support of animal testing argue that it is an important part of medical research and the development of valuable treatments. As a result, human lives greatly benefit and are prolonged by advancements that have been improved through animal experimentation, such as complex surgeries, vaccines, anaesthetics, organ transplants, medication, and more.

Animal testing can be broken down into two main catgories: biomedical research and toxicology.

Animals are studied and dissected for the purpose of advancing medical research. Doing so allows scientists to gain a better understanding of anatomy, genetics, and biological processes.

It can be used to observe the effects of diseases and new treatments that are being developed, such as vaccines and medicine, before providing them for human use.

Animal testing allows biomedical researchers to conduct experiments and carry out investigations that would be too invasive, complicated, or unethical to perform on humans.

It is used when testing substances like cosmetics, hygiene products, cleaning products, chemicals, etc., in order to determine if they are safe for human use and prevent unwanted side effects or negative reactions.

By understanding how certain chemicals and substances affect a living being's biological processes, researchers can determine safe and harmful exposure levels to them (for humans, animals, and the environment) before they are used by consumers.

This prevents possible negative effects, such as health complications, and reduces the risk of death.

Oftentimes, researchers conduct experimentation in a manner that is unethical. Testing is deemed controversial due to the animals involved having to endure excessive harm, death, or environmental stressors.

Scientists are criticized by the public for intentionally causing animals to endure unnecessary harm, sometimes without administering proper medical treatment or taking the appropriate preventative measures.

Researchers may inflict serious harm through chemical burns, electric shocks, unethical surgeries, or by infecting subjects with harmful diseases in order to observe the development of the conditions and reactions to treatments/medication.

As a result, it is common for animals involved in research to succumb to their injuries induced by exposure to chemicals or drugs administered by the scientists.

• Animals can sustain serious health complications, including conditions such as organ damage, tumors, seizures, infections, poisoning, burns, and more.

Other times, researchers may intentionally kill test subjects during or after procedures, in order to observe further effects of drugs through autopsies, prevent further suffering, or collect tissues or organs for additional experimentation.

Another controversial aspect of this type of research involves the environment and inhumane living conditions that lab animals inhabit.

• Animals are isolated and confined in cages, which may lead to further psychological distress.

• In some cases, animals may not receive adequate nourishment, in order to motivate them to engage in experiments (like performing certain tasks in order to receive food as a reward).

There is significant protest against this form of research, with many activists advocating for scientists to adopt the usage of alternative methods instead, as a solution. There has also been an increased demand for stricter adherence to animal rights laws and standards set in place to protect their safety.

Additionally, animal experimentation has several drawbacks, such as ethical concerns, expenses, the time-consuming nature of tests, and sometimes producing inconclusive results.

Instead, some other methods that can be used include:

1. Human cells (since animals don't have an identical genetic makeup, it is more accurate to perform experiments using samples from people)

2. In vitro experiments (using DNA samples to grow cells and tissues in a lab that can be used for testing)

3. Computer models (using software and AI to create models, detect levels of chemicals, etc.)

One case where unethical human testing was performed unregulated was the Tuskegee Syphilis Study:

• This unethical study was conducted from 1932-1972 by researchers in Alabama, who wanted to examine the effects of the untreated disease on African American men. In order to get participants for the study, researchers approached men who poor and illiterate and promised them with free medical care, transportation to treatment clinics, free meals, etc. Despite penicillin being discovered a cure, these men were not provided with it, but instead were left to suffer from the disease worsening or pass away (many of the men’s family members got infected as a result of the study as well). The study went on for 40 years before medical panels reviewed it and determined it to be inhumane and unethical.

This study received a tremendous amount of backlash and raised awareness about the issues involved with human experimentation and the need for ethical standards in medical research. As a result, guidelines were put in place to prevent a similar situation from occurring.

In a similar way, animal testing is being conducted in manners that go against guidelines, but many researchers or welfare organizations turn a blind eye to the issue.

However, if more people advocate for a change, animal research standards could be enforced more seriously. This would also create greater demand for the development and usage of alternative testing methods in the future.

"Cruelty free” products are often marketed in misleading ways. Additionally, regulations differ in other countries, so it can be hard to determine what products have and haven’t been tested on animals.

• For example, China used to require that all cosmetic products (domestic or imported) must be tested on animals in order to be sold. However, in January 2021, this law was changed and now “cruelty free” American cosmetics are eligible to be sold in China, but other products (especially those with unknown ingredients still require animal testing in order to verify that they are safe for human use).

• Since there isn’t an actual standardized definition of what it means for a product to be “cruelty free,” some companies could be taking advantage of consumers by purposely misleading them with false advertising. Producers are able to take advantage of this and generate more income, while still exploiting animals.

One way to combat this issue, is for countries to work together in developing a universal standard and definition for "cruelty-free" products, in order to limit the usage of animal testing (possibly in the production of both cosmetics and medicine).

Doing so might make it easier to enforce experimentation standards more strictly and better protect animal rights and welfare.