The use of animals for medical research is an unresolved battle that has loomed large since the creation of the scientific discipline of bioethics in the 1960s. Just as surely as there are two sides to the coin, there are certainly pros and cons to using animals in research. The main disadvantage being the inevitable trauma that animals undergo and the advantages being the rapid advancement of medicine and the study of disease pathology. Using animals in research allows scientists to better understand the course of a disease and the molecular and physiological changes that occur in the body of a diseased organism. A thorough understanding of a disease is necessary to design appropriate treatment. A newly discovered treatment cannot be directly introduced into humans without first verifying its effectiveness and safety. For a drug to meet this standard, it must undergo a series of tests and trials. One of these tests will be carried out indefinitely on a living organism best suited to the research conditions. A drug that fails in animal trials is very rarely used in human trials. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay A common misconception is that animals used in research do not benefit humanity. This, however, is far from true when we consider that up to 70% of Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology are contributions involving animals in research. The incidence of tuberculosis (TB), the ninth leading cause of death, has seen an overall reduction in the UK and many other countries. This success is due to the effective fight against tuberculosis using BCG vaccines. The incidence of tuberculosis is expected to decline by 80% by 2030, according to the World Health Organization. It is questionable whether this would have been possible without the development of the BCG vaccine by Calmette and Guérin, whose work included testing on cattle and monkeys. A vaccine against anthrax is now available, thanks to the research of Louis Pasteur, who used livestock in his research. It was the world's first effective bacterial vaccine. This scientific contribution paved the way for many other medical advances. There are three possible outcomes in a clinical drug trial involving animals: positive, negative or null. Whatever the nature of the result, research is never in vain. If positive this could potentially be used as a drug for treatment, if negative this would avoid having to deal with the consequences of potential side effects that would have occurred in human trials. If it were neutral, the amount of resources, time and money that would have gone into the potential drug could be invested in other research. It would therefore not be inappropriate to assert that animal testing does indeed benefit humanity. Although it seems that humans are the only ones benefiting at the expense of animals, it is worth noting that animals are among the main beneficiaries. According to the Animal Cancer Trust in the UK, 1 in 4 dogs and 1 in 6 cats are at risk of developing cancer. The news of your pet's cancer diagnosis is truly heartbreaking for any pet owner. Veterinarians have been able to treat animal cancers through research-backed treatments. A new drug has been approved for the treatment of lymphoma in dogs by the Food and Drug Administration...