IndexScientific advances and medical discoveriesEthical dilemmas and alternativesRegulatory framework and scientific integrityConclusionAnimal testing has long been a controversial issue, eliciting strong opinions from both supporters and opponents. While some argue that such practices are indispensable to scientific discoveries, others argue that they are ethically indefensible. This essay seeks to explore the multiple dimensions of this debate, weighing the scientific benefits against moral considerations and evaluating whether animal testing can actually be justified. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Scientific Advances and Medical Breakthroughs Supporters of animal testing often emphasize its indispensable role in the advancement of medical science. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), animal testing has been instrumental in developing vaccines for diseases such as polio, rabies, and measles. Without these preliminary tests on animals, the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines could not have been guaranteed before human trials. Additionally, animal models have provided critical insights into complex human diseases, including cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer's disease (NIH, 2020). Statistically, a significant portion of the Nobel Prizes in physiology or medicine were awarded for research involving animal studies. For example, the discovery of insulin, a life-saving cure for diabetes, was made possible through experiments on dogs (Nobel Prize, 1923). These examples highlight the irrefutable contributions of animal testing to human health and well-being, lending credence to the argument that its benefits may justify its practice. Ethical Dilemmas and Alternatives Despite the scientific merits of animal testing, ethical concerns present a formidable challenge. Critics argue that subjecting animals to invasive procedures, pain and distress is morally unacceptable. The ethical argument is based on the principle of “do no harm,” which is a cornerstone of both medical and ethical philosophy. According to the Humane Society International, over 100 million animals are used in laboratory experiments each year, many of which experience significant suffering (HSI, 2021). Furthermore, the reliability of animal testing as a model for human biology is increasingly questioned. A study published in PLOS Medicine found that approximately 90% of drugs that pass animal testing fail in human trials due to ineffectiveness or safety problems (PLOS Medicine, 2004). Such statistics highlight the limitations of animal models and reinforce the need to explore alternative methods. Technological advances have opened the door to more humane and potentially more accurate options, such as organ-on-chip systems, computer modeling and in vitro testing. These alternatives not only mitigate ethical issues but also promise to improve the predictive accuracy of experimental results. Regulatory framework and scientific integrity The ethical and scientific dimensions of animal experimentation are further complicated by the regulatory frameworks that govern it. In the United States, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) establishes certain standards for the treatment of animals in research, but notably excludes many species, such as mice and rats, which make up the majority of laboratory animals (USDA, 2020). The European Union has adopted more stringent regulations under Directive 2010/63/EU, which emphasizes the “3Rs” principle: substitution, reduction and refinement..