Animal experimentation

There has been (present perfect simple) a controversy between animal rights
supporters and scientists about whether it is right (present simple) to use (infinitive)
animals in experimental research. Also, it is very debatable (present simple)whether
using (gerund) animals for such research results in (present simple) finding a cure for
diseases.From my point of view, if there are no other alternatives (present simple), and
if it is possible (present simple) that this will contribute (simple future) to science,
animals may be used (passive voice=may-present,be-infinitive,used-past participle)for
experimental research.
Although the animal rights activists claim (present simple) that people and
animals are equal (present simple) and thus they should be treated (passive voice-
should-present,be-infinitive,treated-past participle) equally, I think (present simple) that
people and animals cannot be seen equal (passive voice-cannot-present,be-
infinitive,seen-past participle), and therefore the death of an animal cannot (present
simple) be (infinitive) the same thing as the death of a person. For that reason, causing
(gerund) animals to die (infinitive) for science, for the sake of saving human lives, may
be considered ethical (passive voice-may-present,be-infinitive,considered-past
participle) to some extent if it will contribute to (simple future) the advancement of
science and will be to (simple future) the benefit of humanity in general.
Furthermore, animal rights supporters label (present simple) scientists as cruel
for causing (gerund) animals to die (infinitive) in medical experiments, while they do not
oppose (present simple) the people, mostly farmers, who kill (present simple) animals
for food, even though they know (present simple) that 99% of animals deaths is caused
(passive voice-is-present,caused-past participle) by farmers while only a small
percentage, i.e. 1% is caused (passive voice-is-present,caused-past participle) by
scientists. The underlying reason for that is (present simple) they find (present simple)
scientists easier to attack (infinitive) and cannot deal with (present simple) farmers who
are organized and strong.(passive voice-are-present simple,organized-past participle)
Another basic argument of animal rights defenders is (present simple) that
people and animals are different (present simple) genetically and therefore it is useless
(present simple) to use (infinitive) animals in experiments to see (infinitive) the effects of
some substances on people. They claim (present simple) that it will make (simple
future) no good to use (infinitive) even assert (present simple) that it is better(present
simple) to use (infinitive) people directly as they think (present simple) that the results
of experiments on animals cannot (present simple) be (infinitive) valid and reliable as
long as the same observation has not been done (present perfect simple) on man also.
However, these people cannot foresee (present simple) the disastrous results of such a
practice. Many people are likely (present simple) to die (infinitive) until a healthy result is
obtained.(passive voice-is-present,obtained-past participle)
People and animals may not (present simple) be (infinitive) the same, but to
some degree there are (present simple) similarities which can (present simple) at least
give (infinitive) scientists an idea about their experiments. From this point of view,
scientists are right (present simple) to use (infinitive) animal models to provide
(infinitive) themselves with information about what is happening (present continuous) at
level of detail that could not be achieved (passive voice-could-past,be-
infinitive,achieved-past participle) in humans. Although there might have been (present
perfect simple) some incidents when animal testing did not prove(past simple) to be
(infinitive) useful and some effects of some drugs observed on (past simple) animals
could not be observed (passive voice-could-past,be-infinitive,observed-past participle)
on people, there are (present simple) also a lot of examples that show (present simple)
that using (gerund)animals resulted in (past simple) significant developments and
helped (past simple) to cure (infinitive)some serious illnesses.
On the other hand, there may (present simple) be (infinitive) alternative methods
that should be used (passive voice-should-present,be-infinitive,used-past participle)
instead of animal experimentation. Then, of course, it is cruel and unethical (present
simple) to use (infinitive) animals. For example, in some experiments in-vitro methods
can be used (passive voice-can-present,be-infinitive,used-past participle) as an
alternative to using (gerund) live animals. In such occasions, it is certainly much better
and right (present simple) to employ (infinitive) these alternatives.
All in all, it can be said (present simple) that using (gerund) animals for medical
research is ethical (present simple) a long as it contributes (present simple)to scientific
development and helps scientists find ways (present simple) to improve
(infinitive)human health. And this practice is only acceptable on (present simple) the
condition that necessary pains are taken (passive voice-are-present,taken-past
participle) and animals are treated (passive voice-are-present,treated-past participle)
humanely.