Introduction•Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, and in vivo testing, is the use of non-human animals in experiments.

•Use of animals in experiments and development projects usually to determine toxicity, dosing and efficacy of test drugs before proceeding to human clinical trials.•Animals are used in research because they are similar to humans, and studying animal reactions can help predict how humans will react to a substance.

•Animal testing remains to be controversial as it involves animals getting injured, having to live through pain, and sometimes being left to suffer or die. For this reason some people believe that animal testing is unnecessary, poor scientific practice, and never an absolute representation of results in humans.

•Animal testing statistics also reveal that around 95 percent of the animals used for testing are species like guinea pigs, mice, rats, birds, and other cold blooded creatures

Statement of problems 100 million is the estimated number of animals which are killed or

harmed every year by humans in the name of research.

Animal rights activists condemn such practices, for them killing animals for the sake of testing products being completely unethical.

Some people have characterized this as 'playing God', with the implication that it is ethically unacceptable to interfere with nature.

Some other peoples opinion, testing on animals is anytime better than causing harm to humans.

With both sides adamant on their stand, the question acceptability of animals be used for research seems to have become impossible to answer.

objective• So the objective of the this study to

analyze perspective and acceptability of IIUM students in animal testing

• And to find the best alternative way rather than use animal testing

LITERATURE REVIEW Initially the general principles research is to respect for

life and the need for a balance of benefit over harm resulting from any intervention.

The view that animals have moral rights (animal rights) is a philosophical position proposed by Tom Regan, who argues that animals are beings with beliefs and desires, and as such are the "subjects of a life" with moral value and therefore moral rights.

Others, such as Bernard Rollin, argue that benefits to human beings cannot outweigh animal suffering, and that human beings have no moral right to use an animal in ways that do not benefit that individual.

• In contrast, philosopher Peter Singer, who argues that it helps ensure safe production of certain products before human application.

• Since, protection of human life is considered important, the risk factor with these product failures is diverted towards animals. Since, the risks of losing a human life are far bigger than losing an animal life, the two cannot be compared.

• Only indispensable animals are used in research and they are treated in a humane manner while being used for experimentation.

methodology• For the methodology part, I choose the

quantitative method that is by doing the survey.• Since the most of the issues being considered in

this study are not mainstream yet, we used a target sample of who are having a background about the scientific research for the survey.

• So for the most part, this study depended on references by a survey that selecting from twenty people of third year biotechnology students in IIUM for survey.

FINDING

• Next in finding part, it divide into three part which part A is about the respondent background, part B the perspective& acceptability in animal testing and the last part is to choose the best alternative ways in animal testing.

• Part A: from the survey that I have done in twenty

student of biotechnology in IIUM, 85% is age in range 24-29 year and 15% is less than 24 year.

from that range, 65% are female and 35% are male.

Part B• In part B, about the perspective in animal

testing, 65% of the respondent don’t agree that there should be freedom using animal in research and 35% agree there should be freedom using animal in research.

• For the ethical perspective, 80% of the respondent feel that animal testing is unethical, since there feel the scientist have no right to playing and suffering the animal life.

• meanwhile 20% feel it ethical, since it is useful for humankind.

Part B

• In this part is to analyze the respondent acceptability using animal of animal in different purpose.

• From the chart, we can see the most higher acceptability using of animal is to develop treatment for disease & medicine, since they feel it is important for the humankind and give benefit over harm resulting from the intervention.

• And the lowest one is to develop and test for chemicals for industrial, household & agriculture purpose, because for this purpose the using of animal for testing the chemical is not suitable, because surely it will give harm and side effect to animal.

Part B• Next in the acceptability part, 75% of the

respondent will not to buy the product that tested on animal, since they feel guilty and would rather use products that weren't tested on them.

• Meanwhile 25%, accept to buy the product that tested on animal since to appreciate the scarifies of the animal, because without the animal testing we will not get a truly safety products.

• Therefore, 78% of the respondent agree that the animal testing should be restricted since there have other more alternative way, and 22% don’t agree.

Part c• So, in this part, is to analyze the best

alternative way in animal testing.• Actually there have many other of alternative

way in animal testing, but this is the three alternative ways most preferred applied in research nowadays.

• So we can see, the most preferred alternative ways is using the cell culture and tissue engineering. By this alternative ways, the animal not required to undergo a procedure likely to cause pain and distress.

• Thus, for future improvements, we must work together on solutions that make sense and are science based.

• All changes should be clearly justified and openly debated.

• The changes should be based on facts, scientific results, and analysis.

• Decisions to harmonize are not simple “yes” or “no” questions but must be considered in the context of the objectives of the experimentation.

conclusion• From the study, we can see the majority of the

student can’t accept the animal testing since there have alternative ways rather than make animal suffering, so the most preferred is using cell culture and tissue engineering

• However not all research can be testing by alternative way, because animal testing is a major parameter for the scientific community, so it should be afforded further objective and scientific analysis.

• So there are need a consideration regarding animal care and management of animal pain and distress, and improved application of the humane endpoints.