I do consider myself an animal lover and as someone who has had pets almost her entire life, the idea of them suffering in any way would break my heart. However, the suffering of countless people and animals accross the world due to diseases, both mental and physical, is by far the worse of two evils. Of all the different reasons animals are used by humans, only 0.3 percent are used for research and education and fifty times more pets die in humane societies per year due to being abandoned or mistreated by their owners than animals dying in labs for research. Also, while some animals will have to die in the name of research, animal researchers in labrotories are held to the most strict standards of animal care than any other groups, including pet owners and humane societies, are. Scientists also do whatever is in their power to reduce or eliminate the amount of suffering an animal may have to suffer during a procedure.

Some argue that the advances in science that have been based on animal research have been greatly exaggerated but I think that notion is based on ignorance of both plain facts and the scientific process in general. To begin with, virtuallly everything we now know about both human and animal biology stems from research in the past that has used animals. We take for granted the knowledge and understanding we have now as if it were insignificant to our health and general well-being. We see doctors for check ups and concerns we may have regarding symptoms we may be suffering from and expect them to be able to provide us with the underlying cause and if we're lucky a way to treat it. We would not have this necessary luxury if we had prevented animal research that led to the amount of knowledge we have. Most of us would be forced to suffer from problems that could easily be solved and our average lifespan and quality of life would not have significantly increased as it has.

I think what some people do is look at it in absolute numbers. For example, this lab has conducted 100 tests on animals and only one provided any type of useful knowledge, therefore the other 99 tests that used animals were an unnecesary waste. What that fails to take into account is that 1) science is inherently a process of trial and error and even the "failed" experiments contribute to the overall body of knowledge that all scientists will use to gather new information and avoid making the same mistake again, 2) in many cases it would not be possible to gain the knowledge of the one successful experiment without the "failures" of the other 99 meaning you can't view the experiments in isolation but see them all together as individual parts to a whole organic process, and 3) just because an experiment hasn't taught us anything at this given moment, doesn't mean it will have no value at any time in the future. We can't judge how important the accumulation of knowledge in science is at this point because what we don't know is still far greater than what we do and we can never be sure that a seemingly insignifact experiment won't be extremely beneficial later on.

Some will say that we don't need to use animals any longer because we can use tissue cultures and computer models instead being that we have already created models based on our biological systems anyway. The problem with this is that these people fail to realize the basic concept that if we were able to create perfect computer models of our brains and biological systems, it would mean that we have a total understanding of them both, which we don't. Computer models and tissue cultures are used in some cases to better understand what we already know but the fact of the matter is there's still much more we don't know and therefore computer models won't be sufficient.

Scientists aren't sadists who get off from using animals in research and they don't have a lack of sympathy and/or morals. The whole reason they're going into research is with the hope of bettering the world for both humans and animals. Thanks to those willing to do research on animals, we have cured polio,  learned how to prevent severe brain damage from strokes, learned the causes and possible cures of a plethora of diseases including, but not limited to A.I.D.S., cancers, anorexia nervosa, drug addictions, schizophrenia, depression and parkinson's disease. If we were to stop animal testing we'd have to put a stop to all progress that aims to ease the suffering of the countless people suffering from these conditions. We'd also be at more of a loss if new diseases emerge because we wouldn't be able to garner even a basic understanding of them. Many people who are living with diseases like Parkinson's would have to stop using the drugs that have animal hormones in them and would be left to suffer instead. Animals themselves would be at a loss beacuse we'd be unable to help them with most of their diseases as well. Preventing animal testing would be an enourmous step back for us in a time when we need it more than ever.

Those who are against animal testing but still eat meat, wear fur or leather or suede or silk, consume dairy products, hunt, or do anything else that uses animals unneccessarily, are being extremely irrational, if not completely hypocrtical when opposing animal testing because of all the ways in which people use animals, using them for research is the only one that is neccessary. For those who do abstain from using animals in any way imaginable, I think there are sufficient reasons to make medical research the one exception to the rule.