1). And animals are the answer, Pycroft explains, since their cells, molecules and atoms work in similar patterns to humans' biological functions. Pycroft points to the research by John C. Eccles, who used cats' spinal cords in his investigations, and it led to "the nature of synapse"; Eccles was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology in 1963 for his discoveries (using cats in labs) (Prycroft, 1). Further, Prycroft mentions the fact that if scientists didn't have access to "live organisms, we would know far less about the function of the cardiovascular system, how digestion works, hormonal interactions," and more (Pycroft, 3).

In conclusion, this controversial debate is justified, given that humans need to address the way in which they interact with the natural world and the animals that live in the natural world. Meanwhile, an article in the Baltimore Sun explains that testing on animals "…could be phased out over the next couple decades," since new systems are being developed (Cohn, 2010). Dr. Thomas Hartung is the director of the Johns Hopkins University's...

There is a "collective recognition" that scientists need to "do better," said Robert J. Kavlock with the Environmental Protection Agency. It is a very hopeful sign for those who oppose using animals in research that there are processes underway that will leave animals out of the lab and stop causing pain to them.
Works Cited

Andre, Claire, and Velasquez, Manuel. (2010). Of Cures and Creatures Great and Small. Santa Clara University. Retrieved April 9, 2012, from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/vIn3/cures.html.

Cohn, Meredith. (2010). Alternatives to animal testing gaining ground. Tribune Business News.

Retrieved April 10, 2012, from ProQuest.

Prycroft, Laurie, and Marston, Helen. (2011). Is Animal Testing Necessary to Advance Medical

Research? New Internationalist. Issue 444, 1-3.