Jessica and Lauren M

All of this has been accomplished amid an array of government regulation and researcher self-policing that has made examples of animal mistreatment rare. At UW-Madison [University of Wisconsin], the All-Campus Animal Care and Use Committee functions as an oversight body for all animal use. Such institutional bodies are required by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the federal Animal Welfare Act.

Computer modeling has reduced the amount of animal research. So has cell-based research. The use of animal embryonic stem cells in drug testing has dramatically improved the quality of such tests, and more quickly provided researchers with information about the safety and efficacy of drugs.

The Animal Welfare Act regulates how animals are treated in the laboratory and provides rules on housing, feeding and pain regulation.

Governments routinely require that new drugs be tested on animals before they are marketed. Furthermore, replacement tests like computer simulations cannot reproduce the complexity of human genetics.

Alternative testing is frequently more cost and time efficient.

Although present-day technology cannot yet replace many types of animal research, the research community is committed to finding new ways to reduce and replace animal testing. This ethical commitment is embodied in strict animal welfare protocols at most university, government and industrial laboratories.

Modern medical advances such as antibiotics and vaccines are not the result of animal experiments. For example, experiments with mice and rats failed to turn up any connections between cancer and smoking.

Animal experiments were not responsible for vaccines

scanners, anesthesiology, antibiotics, medications that combat AIDS, chemotherapy, or modern surgical techniques. The lack of scientific support for extrapolating the results of animal experiments to humans speaks for itself.

The horrors of animal experimentation are too numerous to name: Conscious monkeys are forced to inhale toxic smoke; improperly anaesthetized dogs are subject to invasive surgery; blinded cats are dropped into vats of water; guinea pigs are coated with corrosive substances that eat through to their organs. The accounts of animal experiments surpass any horror film in terms of sheer repulsiveness.

Does the superior power of humans give us the right to keep animals captive and in isolation while subjecting them to painful and degrading experiments? Do we honestly believe that it is acceptable to mistreat animals for our own gain? The use of animals in experiments clearly violates animals' right to live without suffering pain or emotional distress.

Animal experimentation is based on the idea that animals can be used as "models" for humans. According to Don Barnes, director of education for the National Anti-Vivisection Society, "it is simply assumed that mammalian similarities are sufficient to counteract species differences, even in the fact of significant evidence to the contrary."

Carol Howard, "Yes, Dad, There Are Alternatives," AV Magazine, vol. CXIII, Spring 2005, pp. 14-15. Reproduced by permission.

Because science has relied on animal experimentation for so long, it is difficult for many people to believe that alternative methods can replace traditional testing. But the Three Rs—replacement, reduction, and refinement—offer a promising starting point to reimagine testing methods. Organizations like the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) have promoted these principles in a variety of ways. CAAT, for example, has provided funds to help develop alternative testing methods and has proven successful at reaching scientific consensus between government agencies and private organizations. While the elimination of animal experimentation may not be possible at present, educating the next generation of scientists on the possibility of alternatives is essential to reaching this goal eventually.

Furthermore, success has a way of rendering an alternative invisible. For example, not so long ago, pregnancy testing involved killing a rabbit. These days, a woman can buy an over-the-counter kit that tests her urine for a certain hormone. No one thinks of this as an alternative, though clearly an in vitro method has replaced an animal test. This presents something of a double bind: If an alternative method really works and is used regularly, then it's not an alternative. It's simply current practice, best practice.

Medical Progress, an organization that believes animal experimentation is necessary for medical research.

Today, once again, the animal activists are wrong. And we can't let a potential treatment for AIDS fall victim to their specious rhetoric.

Animal activists condemn the experiment as morally wrong because the baboon donor was killed. In practical terms, they say, even if the transplant works, there are not enough baboons to provide marrow cells for all AIDS patients.