Drug Animals Scientists People Testing Working Laboratory Tests

Many scientific researchers are "engaged" (involved) in "animal testing," or the process of conducting experiments and other tests in ways that affect animals. They argue that their work is necessary and that many of the tests that they "perform" (conduct; do) on animals could not be performed on humans, either because of "ethical" (related to what is right and wrong) reasons, or because it would be too "time-consuming" (requiring too much time).

For example, scientists might want to test whether a drug is an "effective" (able to do something well) "cure" (solution; something that fixes an illness) for cancer. They might want to test the drug by giving it to people with cancer, but this would be unethical, because the untested drug might "do more harm than good" (be more damaging than beneficial). Also, because humans cannot "reproduce" (have children) until they are at least in their "teens" (13-19 years old), the scientists would have to wait a long time to find out whether the drug had harmful effects on the next "generation" (a group of people born at the same time). By testing the drug on animals with a shorter "life cycle" (the number of years needed to reproduce), the scientists can find answers more quickly.

However, many people think that animal testing is "cruel" (mean; not nice) and unethical. They think that animals have "rights" (abilities to do or have things) and that humans should not be able to "harm" (hurt, damage) them. Animal testing is especially "controversial" (with strong opinions for and against something) when the animals are killed in the experiments, often so that they can be examined "internally" (on the inside). It is not unusual to hear about "protestors" (people who are against something) who enter laboratories to "free" (let loose) the animals.