“Maybe not bad for everyone --- it was clearly a complicated and individual choice --- but bad for me” (McCarthy 638). The use of animals in scientific research raises ethical questions and casts doubt on the reliability of using animals in testing. Alternatives to animal testing are accessible and should be used in place of live animals. Personal choices related to animal testing raise ethical questions that encourage people to use their intuition. Preserving life is a choice. Poste says: “One of the characteristics of humanity is our capacity to care about other species” (Post). Poste recognizes an authentic principle that has manifested itself throughout history. There are animals that have almost disappeared. Something inside humans recognized this and saw preservation as a necessity. Caring for human hearts is what kept nearly extinct animals from continuing to live. The same care should be applied to helpless creatures that are the subject of continued research. McCarthy states, “No one seemed happy” (McCarthy 636). McCarthy also identifies a problem in his essay; she divulges information about the first grout to complete her animal research lab, namely dogs. The contempt that McCarthy saw in his colleagues leads the reader to see that something in them felt wrong. Furthermore, the human desire is to protect lives, not execute them. This feeling of hurt or the need to take care of something reiterates the preservation of life that is within everyone. As evidenced by the compassion of researchers, humans' feelings toward animals are very personal. In the article “An Ethical Argument Against Vivisection,” “Animals are seen simply as resources – little more than products intended to make our lives more convenient... middle of paper ... we are morally obligated to protect infants, the intellectually disabled, and the mentally ill” (“An Ethical Argument Against Vivisection”). Humans must understand that the choice is in their hands. Animal testing is wrong and people need to stand up for animals because no one else can. Works Cited “ANIMALS IN SCIENCE”. An ethical argument against vivisection. Np, and Web. December 3, 2013. “ANIMALS IN SCIENCE. » Animals in science. Np, and Web. December 3, 2013. “ANIMALS IN SCIENCE. » Framing of scientific argumentation. Np, and Web. December 3, 2013. McCarthy, Claire, “Dog Lab,” from Learning How the Heart Beats. Copyright © 1995 by Claire McCarthy. Used with permission of Viking Penguin, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc. Post, George. “Animal testing is a necessary research tool, for now.” The Arizona Republic.Azcentral.com, September 3, 2006. Printed May 31., 2012.