Animal Testing. Good or Bad

When it comes to the world of medical sciences, there is rarely certainty. There is always room for reaction, incorrect data gathering, or contamination when testing. Can this uncertainty be placed on human lives? These uncertainties are placed on what medical science has to thank most: animals. Animals have been irreplaceable in the processes of mapping genomes, transplanting organs, and ridding humans and animals of diseases and disorders. Many call it immoral, but it is necessary and only beneficial. Medical research has saved or improved the lives of millions of people, and animals. Today’s medicines and surgical techniques could not have been developed without research into how the body works, and how it reacts to procedures and substances - the results of animal research programs taking place in hospitals, universities, and research centers all over the world. These advances on behalf of animal testing have been applied to human health for years. The history of animal testing is a long and interesting one. It is believed that animal experimentation began with Greek physician/scientists; Aristotle and Erasistratus being among them. Physicians in Rome such as Galen, known as “the father of vivisection”, followed suit. Later physicians of the Islamic Golden Age used animal testing to further human anatomy studies. Ibn Zuhr practiced surgical techniques on animals before performing them on humans.
Observations and dissections of modern medical sciences first took place in the 17th century. English physician William Harvey used animals to study the circulatory system. In the 18th century, Antoine Lavoisier first used guinea pigs in experiments in respiration. Otto Loewi, Edgar Adrian, and David Hubel made advances in neurology and the study of vision.
These basic scientific advancements gave way to many more in medicine. Yet, these advances and their respective testing are under major scrutiny. These debates over the rights of animals can be divided into