The use of animals for medical research has been an unresolved battle that has lingered since the establishment of the scientific discipline of bioethics in the 1960s. Just as there are two sides of the coin, there are definitely pros and cons to using animals in research. The main disadvantage is the inevitable trauma suffered by animals, while the advantages are the rapid progress of medicine and the study of the pathology of diseases. Using animals in research allows scientists to better understand the disease pathway and the molecular and physiological changes that occur in the body of a diseased organism. An acute understanding of the disease is required to design an appropriate treatment. A newly discovered treatment cannot be introduced directly into humans without first testing its effectiveness and safety. For a drug to reach this standard, it must undergo a series of tests and trials. One of these experiments will be conducted indefinitely on a living organism best suited to the research conditions. A drug that fails animal testing is very rarely used in human testing. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay A common misconception is that animals used in research do not benefit humanity. This, however, is far from the case considering the fact 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 shown an overall reduction in the UK and many other countries. This success is due to the effective control of tuberculosis using BCG vaccines. According to the World Health Organization, the incidence of tuberculosis is expected to reduce by 80% by 2030. It is questionable whether this would have been possible if it were not for the development of the BCG vaccine by Calmette and Guérin, whose work involved testing on cattle and monkeys. An anthrax vaccine is now available for use, thanks to the research of Louis Pasteur, who used cattle in his research. This 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. Regardless of the nature of the result, the search is never in vain. If positive, this could potentially be used as a drug for treatment, if negative this would save the hassle of dealing with the consequences of potential side effects that would have occurred in human studies. If neutral, the amount of resources, time and money that would have been invested in the potential drug could be invested in other research. Therefore, it would not be inappropriate to say that animal testing actually benefits humanity. Although it appears that humans are the only beneficiaries at the expense of animals, it should be noted that animals are among the primary 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 that your pet is diagnosed with cancer is truly heartbreaking for any pet owner. Veterinarians have been able to cure animal tumors through research-backed treatments. A new drug was approved for the treatment of lymphoma in dogs by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2017. Progress is being made toward a.