Another morning has come by, and I am still in a white room with the same smell of cleaner. Shortly, I’ll see a person holding a tube of something coming towards me. Out of the cage, sitting on a table, the person holds me down and stabs the tube in my body. It burns, and I start to tremble as my heart rate goes up. This procedure is done several times a day. This is the life of an animal being tested for human research. Ever since the seventeenth century, animal research has been under the microscope primarily due to a changing perspective on the relationship between humans and the other aspects of the world that surround them. Moreover, the huge developments in almost all areas of science also cause an increase in the use of animals for advancing scientific understanding through basic biomedical research. Consequently, the main result is that the ethics that surrounded the use and treatment of animals in laboratories were brought into question. At the heart of controversy, those on side of experimentation strongly believe that human health demands the sacrifice of animals; however, those on side of animal rights argue that animal testing is cruel and an inhumane way to torture animals for mankind’s own benefits. Although the use of animals in laboratories is said to be necessary for the welfare and health of humans, animal testing should be shifted toward non-animal testing methods because it is morally unjustified, unreliable, and there are better alternatives. The primary question in this debate over animal research is whether animal experimentation is morally justified. However, humans have no right to use these non-consenting animals for their own benefits because animals are equal to humans; humans and animals both exhibit to same mechanisms of pain detection, show similar pain behaviors, and they both have comparable areas of the brain involved in processing pain (Williams and Demello 15). What is really going in the labo