The use of humans as medical and biological test subjects dates back to ancient Greece, but has declined significantly in recent decades. History has proven that the use of human test subjects was extremely successful. One of the earliest recorded documents is that of Herophilus, often called the first anatomist. Before his work, live dissections were carried out on animals, and never on humans. They chose almost exclusively animals that anatomically resembled human beings. On rare occasions they had the opportunity to work with corpses, but they were usually mutilated or diseased. Herophilus was able to work with live subjects, prisoners provided to him by the leaders of Alexandria. At the beginning of the 3rd century BC, Alexandria was under the rule of the Ptolemaic dynasty. This family was known for its involvement in science, which was in favor of Herophilus. Alexandria was a relatively new city, and radical ideas and studies about the world and how it worked were on a higher level than a moral code. Although none of Herophilus' writings are extant, several of his colleagues wrote about human anatomy in great detail, often referring to Herophilus. Herophilus believed that it was better to sacrifice a few for the good of the many. (Von Staden, 1989) After the thirty to forty years that Herophilus was able to experiment with living humans, the practice became illegal. It remained illegal until the Renaissance, with this period being known as the Dark Ages in both the literary and medical worlds. Anatomical progression had stopped and there is no known record of human experimentation at this time. It is no wonder that Herophilus was hailed as the father of a... middle of paper ... ending these criminals to death, the government can save money and, at the place, subject them to medical examinations and drug tests. Testing a human being, a prisoner, no less, costs less than testing an animal that is biologically on the same level as a human. (Mitford, 1973) Both the government and pharmaceutical companies would benefit from such a change. By testing on humans, we can learn more, and more quickly, than we can on animals. Assembling a group of willing subjects would take more time and money than simply using prisoners. Subjects already incarcerated receive medical treatment and have been medically examined, which saves time. The less time spent gathering topics and sorting things out, legally, we save more lives and it's better for the public. The longer the FDA takes to procure a treatment, the more negatively the American population perceives it..