IndexIntroductionBodyTopic 1: Animal testing is necessary for scientific and medical progress.Topic 2: Animal testing causes unnecessary harm and suffering to animals.Topic 3: Testing on animals may not accurately predict human outcomes.ConclusionReferencesIntroductionAnimal testing has been performed since ancient times and today remains a controversial and sensitive issue. On the one hand, animal testing has contributed significantly to scientific and medical advances, which have improved human life and increased our knowledge of biology. On the other hand, many people argue that it is unethical and cruel to inflict suffering on animals for the benefit of humans. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The purpose of this essay is to evaluate both sides of the debate and present a well-reasoned argument regarding the issue of animal testing. BodyArgument 1: Animal testing is necessary for scientific and medical progress. Supporters of animal testing argue that it is essential for the development of new treatments and therapies. For example, polio, hepatitis, and rabies vaccines were all developed using animal testing [1]. Likewise, surgical procedures and drugs are commonly tested on animals before being used on humans. However, critics of animal testing often argue that animal models are not reliable indicators of human outcomes. For example, a study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that nearly half of drugs that showed promise in animal tests failed in human tests [2]. Additionally, many animals react differently than humans to medications and diseases, which can lead to inaccurate test results. While these concerns are valid, animal testing advocates argue that no alternative testing methods yet exist to replace animal testing. For example, computer simulations and cell culture models can provide some useful data, but are limited in their ability to replicate the complex interactions of a living organism [3]. As such, animal testing remains an integral part of the scientific and medical research process. Argument 2: Animal testing causes unnecessary harm and suffering to animals. The use of animals in scientific experiments has been criticized on ethical grounds by animal rights activists and others who argue that animal testing constitutes cruelty. There have been many cases where animals have suffered unnecessarily during experiments, subjected to painful and harmful procedures, or been kept in inappropriate conditions [4]. A counterargument to this statement is that the benefits of animal testing outweigh the harm inflicted on animals. Human welfare, it is argued, is more important than animal rights. However, animal rights advocates say this is a false dichotomy and that alternative testing methods exist that do not harm animals. In vitro studies, mathematical models and other methods are examples. Interestingly, major pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer, Roche and Novartis have invested in non-animal alternatives and are working to replace animal testing in many areas [5]. These efforts could lead to significant reductions in animal harm in the future. Argument 3: Animal testing may not predict, 20(12), 1433-1445.