This paper endeavours to delineate the discourse concerning the necessity of animal experimentation. Using the utilitarian approach (cost-benefit analysis), the benefits of animal experimentation (vivisection) to society, especially in the field of medical research, outweigh the unavoidable costs. We think that vivisection is necessary, where better alternatives are not available and harm to animals is minimized.
             We will first touch on the benefits of vivisection, and then proceed to counter the conventional arguments provided by the animal rights activists against vivisection. Following which, we will propose and justify solutions to this controversy.
             The prevalent and most apparent benefit of vivisection is its propelling of medical breakthroughs, saving numerous animal and human lives. Except to the suicidal, lives are precious. Thus, we should save as many lives as possible. Medical research is central to achieving this goal through ascertaining the safety of medical and cosmetic products, and other chemicals. Vaccines and symptomatic cures, for example, must be tested thoroughly to prevent unsafe consumption and undeclared side effects. Any form of experimentation to ensure the safety of medical and cosmetic products saves as many lives as possible. Since vivisection is a form of medical research, it saves as many lives as possible.
             Vivisection also advances our understanding (or the lack thereof) of anatomy and behaviour. The process of recovery after neural damage and the biological relationship between fear, hysteria and other forms of stress have been illuminated. The earliest discovery of the nervous system's operations through animal experimentation was made by Francois Magendie in 1783. Furthermore, the profitability of vivisection also became evident when Louis Pasteur found the vaccine for rabies in 1885 and prevented rabies from eradicating many human lives.
             At the genesis of medical research, there w...