Some companies spend a lot of money on scientific research and use animals for testing Many argue that this is for a just cause while others say otherwise Do the advantages of using animals in research outweigh its disadvantages Support your answer with s v.2

Over the past decades, there is a contentious issues about the animal cruelty behind the manufacturing process of major consumer goods. While some commentators abominate the employment of animal-testing, it remains evident to the fact that the necessity might outweigh the culpability it ensues. The aim of this essay is set to review both viewpoints. To begin with, the purpose of testing procedures applying on animals is often perceived as an impetus on assuring the quality of ultimate products. What this means is having a real application of experimental chemicals entailing medicines and perfume, scientists are capable to draw conclusion in accordance with the measurements, which in turn guarantee the safeness of the products prior to making contact with human skins upon public launch. Recent empirical research from the Pokemon Company ascertain that over 700 failed assessments on monkeys pave the way for their successful implementation of super soldier serum. Seen in this light, animal testing is likely to be an imperative to inventions, especially those derived from chemistry. Although there is a case necessitating animal test, the impact of conducting such operation cannot be underestimated. In fact, the spate of confrontation against the ensuing products from customers has perplexed the public relationship sector of some laboratories. Extensive studies from the P& G company indicates that the demand of particular products, coupled with the break of animal test involvement, has witnessed a considerable decline of 50% from last year. Admittedly, the market share of products being tested by animals are encountering challenges from their animal-friendly counterparts, the integration of such evaluation, therefore, accompanies by a high tendency on hindering market expansion. In conclusion, conducting animal tests has coincidently begot benefits on quality assurance and the possible hindrance on marketing, yet the gravity of reinforcing safety, however, by far outweigh the moral disagreement. It is predicted that factories will intensify the effort spent on precluding the evidence of animal test from being exposed to public.