Some people think that animal experimentation is cruel Others believe that it is essential to research and scientific development? What is your opinion? (268 words)

Nowadays, it is true that animals are usually subject to ethical scientific research, especially in fields such as medicine. While I tend to sympathize with them, I believe that there should be a limited number of tests for the advancement of science. On the one hand, some forms of animal experimentation may be morally wrong, and there is an ethical argument against the execution. Mice have to undergo unnatural processes such as growing a human ear on their back from implanted stem cells, receiving exterior artificial mARN that may sabotage their genomes. In addition, some mice have even been ill or died during the progress of discovering the mARN vaccine. Opponents of this idea go on to argue that animals are not any inferior to humans and that they deserve the right to live naturally. On the other hand, many individuals, me included, perceive animal experimentations as steppingstones for science. Despite their cruelty and immorality aspect, these executions help develop science and enhance the life quality of humanity. Without such tests, mankind cannot cope with fatal diseases, and would even succumb to extinction. For example, vaccinations have always been based on research of animals, such as the chicken cholera bacteria vaccine discovered by Louis Pasteur in the 19th century. Therefore, animal experimentations, if controlled and regulated based on conscience, are always beneficial for society and individuals. In conclusion, it appears to me that the ban of experimentation is absurd and unreasonable with respect to the development of science and human welfare. However, these performances should be restricted and limited in order to ensure some aspects of ethicality.