representation. Tests that spray chemicals into animals’ eyes often determine toxic effects of that item. It may sound harsh, but is necessary to protect citizens that purchase these items. The test must be conducted because there are no quality replacements that would give the desired results to protect people from toxic drugs and chemicals that are in household items.“Biomedical research using animals is essential to continued progress in clinical medicine. Animal research holds the key for solution to AIDS, cancer, heart disease, aging and congenital defects” (AMA 67). Research and testing on animals is definitely a questionable practice, but with all the helpful vaccines and test results it has produced how can anyone argue it? Easily! “They’re expensive, time consuming and often have dubious applicability to humans. There are so many species to test on, and so many doses that can be administered, that scientists can theoretically come up with whatever results they’re looking for,” says Dr. Martin Stephens of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). “Many alternatives are often quicker, cheaper and more accurate” (Pardue 14-15). Dr. Martin is one of the many activists that support animal rights movements. The debate of animal testing rose greatly in the decade of the nineties. Pros and cons to the treatment of the animals were abundant everywhere. Two main tests that fuel the fire behind anti-vivisection actions are the Draize Test and the LD50 Test. The Draize Test involves dropping a substance directly into an animals eyes and watching the results. The LD50 (Lethal Dose 50) is force-feeding a substance to a group of animals until 50 percent of the group dies. Many consider tests such as these very ridiculous and wastes of money. Anti-vivisectionists argue how accurate they truly can be when comparing animals like rats, rabbits, and dogs to the human anat...
