Animal testing can date back to 500 BC when people performed a practice called vivisection, the dissection of live animals for the purpose of scientific research. Physicians like Aristotle, Herophilus, and Erasistratus performed vivisection in order to learn more about how living organisms functioned. In places like Rome and Alexandria, vivisection was mostly practiced on human criminals. However, because mutilation of the human body was prohibited in Greece, they relied on animals to obtain more knowledge. Aristotle argued that animals lacked intelligence, so the notions of justice and injustice did not apply to them. Later on in the sixteenth and seventeenth century, French philosopher Rene Descrates believed that animals were “automata”; he came to the conclusion that animals could actually feel like humans do, but because they were unable to think, they weren’t conscious of those feelings. On the other hand, Theophrastus, a successor to Aristotle, objected to vivisections of animals because they too could feel pain like humans did, which was an affront to the gods (“Background of the Issue”). These two schools of thinking continue to become an argument amongst those on the opposite sides of the spectrum.
Today, labs who continue to use animals for research come under severe critisizm from animal protection groups such as the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Some countries have already passed laws that make animal testing more humane or ban it altogether. However, the debate on the ethic still continue. Those who are against testing on animals believe that the benefits to humans do not justify the harm to animals. There are also those on the opposite side of the spectrum who argue that animals are inferior to humans and that animal experimentation is vital to advance medical knowledge (Hajar). Although testing on animals can be benefiting to humans to some extent, the pain and suffering lab animals face does not justify the unethical methods scientists practice today; scientist should adopt to more modern alternatives which give more insightful results like replicating organs on chips that react to chemicals the same way an actual organ would.