“Maybe not wrong for everyone --- it was clearly a complicated and individual choice --- but wrong for me” (McCarthy 638). The use of animals in scientific research raises ethical questions and calls into question the reliability of using animals in tests. Alternatives to animal testing are accessible and should be used instead of live animals. Personal choices related to animal testing raise ethical questions that push people to use their intuition. Preservation of life is a choice. Poste states: “A hallmark of humanity is our ability to care for other species” (Poste). Poste recognizes a genuine principle that manifests itself throughout history. There have been animals that have almost become extinct. Something inside humans recognized this and considered preservation a necessity. Caring in the heart of man is what has prevented nearly extinct animals from continuing to live. The same attention should be repeated for defenseless creatures that are continually researched. McCarthy states, “No one seemed happy” (McCarthy 636). McCarthy also identifies a problem in his essay; reveals information about the first malta to finish their laboratory on animal research, namely dogs. The contempt that McCarthy saw in his colleagues leads the reader to see that something inside them felt bad. Furthermore, the human desire is to protect lives, not execute them. That feeling of pain or the need to take care of something reiterates the preservation of life that is within each of us. As demonstrated by the compassion of researchers, humans' feelings towards animals are very personal. In the article “An Ethical Argument Against Vivisection,” “Animals are seen simply as resources – little more than products to make our lives more convenient… middle of paper… we are morally obligated to protect children, the developmentally disabled and the mentally ill” (“An Ethical Argument Against Vivisection”). Human beings must realize that the choice is in their hands. Animal testing is wrong and people must defend animals because no one else can. Works Cited "ANIMALS IN SCIENCE". An ethical argument against vivisection. Np, nd Web. 03 December 2013."Animals in science." Animals in science. Np, nd Web. 03 December 2013."Animals in science." Framing the scientific argument. Np, nd Web. December 3, 2013. McCarthy, Claire, “Dog Lab,” from Learning How the Heart Beats. Copyright © 1995 by ClaireMcCarthy. Used with permission from Viking Penguin, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.Poste, George. “Animal testing is a necessary research tool, for now.” The Arizona Republic.Azcentral.com, September 3, 2006. Print May 31, 2012.