When people argue over the use of animals in research, also called vivisection, there are those who defend the animals and those who defend the research.

The animal defenders point out the obvious suffering that researchers often inflict on animals, and contend that this cruelty is morally unjustifiable. They further argue that you cannot necessarily predict human responses on the basis of animal studies, which makes the best animal model no more than an unreliable analogy to human function. Finally, they encourage the replacement of animal testing with non-animal research techniques. In short, this group would say animal research is inaccurate, unnecessary, and cruel.

On the other side are the researchers who use animals and contend that such research is essential for science to progress and help cure disease. They assure the public that they are doing all that they can to reduce animal suffering, so long as it is avoidable. And they firmly assert that, while they recognize the limitations of animal models, there is no better alternative. They insist that when it comes to fighting disease, it is better to first test drugs and treatments on an animal, such as a dog, than on a human, such as your child. In short, this group would say animal research is minimally cruel, essential for progress in medicine and may save human lives.

» Read more: The Morality of Animal Research (Vivisection) – Reflections From A Medical Researcher