For centuries, animals have been used in medical research. Since 1875, animal experimentation has been an ongoing heated debate on whether experiments on animals are ethical. At the very start, the movement against animal testing focused mainly on the "inhumanity of hurting and killing living beings for experimental discovery" (Achor 95). However, in these few decades, scientific invalidity was one of the focusing claims to object to vivisection, which is an "injurious use of animals in laboratories and classrooms, whether for experimentation, product testing, training, or demonstration" (Achor 94-95). Animals are innocent and they are not able to fight back for any means of suffering. Therefore, animal testing should be banned due to the fact that animal experimentation does not benefit human health and it diverts attention away from reliable research methods.
             The abolition of vivisection is supported not only by animal activists but also by "scientists, medical doctors, psychiatrists, nurses, veterinarians, and other medical professionals" (Achor 95), who discredit the scientific merits of animal experimentation. In contrast, some conservative physicians advocate the use of animal research because they believe that "accidental discoveries will lead us [them] to the advances" (qtd. in Achor 95) and "they are reluctant to adopt alternative methodologies, such as tissue cultures, which would require extensive re-training" (Bender 75). They believe that science cannot advance without animal experimentation. Other than some "old-fashioned" physicians, animal breeders, animal dealers, and animal food suppliers also oppose the termination of animal research because they will lose millions of dollars, which is supposed to be their profits.
             Animal research cannot guarantee the effects of drugs on human beings. Every living system differs from each other. Predicting the reaction of one species by studying another species is not accurat...