Strong arguments are made for and against the use of animals in medical research. Both sides are quite persuasive on a number of points and it is extremely difficult to say that either side is entirely right or wrong. Those against animal research make strong points about the excessive, pointlessly inhumane, and sometimes unnecessary use of animals, their terrible suffering, and the need to look for alternative methods. They are less convincing in their claim that animals do not serve as adequate vehicles for useful testing or that the past record of achievements employing animal testing is unimpressive. Those who favor the use of animals in research point to a record of achievement that has benefited humanity and are convincing in arguing that animals continue to be useful. But they cannot successfully defend the treatment of animals in terms of quality of life or the infliction of sometimes unnecessary suffering. The best solution is to develop guidelines that do not forbid the use of animals but insist on humane treatment, curtailing waste, sound justifications, eliminating unnecessary suffering, and commitment to developing alternatives to animal research.
Barnard and Kaufman argue against animal testing, basing their case on the claim that such experiments "are poorly suited to addressing the urgent health problems of our era" and "can often mislead researchers or even contribute to illnesses or deaths by failing to predict toxic effects of drugs" (80). But, despite some individual examples that appear to be sound, they do not overcome the cumulative effect of the list of achievements given by Botting and Morrison that were due, in part, to the practice of animal testing. Botting & Morrison also hold that the supposed problem of "alleged differences between species in their physiology or responses to drugs" is easily refuted by viewing the literature and this seems convincing -- especially on considering the list of s...