Animal testing should be banned

First of all, I would like to state that I am new to this site. I extend my thanks to Daniyar for putting forward this stimulating topic, and accepting my input on the debate of this issue. I would also like to ask the community at large for leniency in view of my relative inexperience! As Daniyar says, this is both a contentious topic and there are few easy answers as to the right and wrong of it. I would first contend that to argue that a specific mode of research has previously provided vital and valuable information is meaningless in the context that most of this research has been undertaken with no other methodology available. Studies can be undertaken upon human cell cultures and engineered tissues, often at less cost than testing on animals. A company by the name of Pharmagene Laboratories in the UK utilises only tissue cultures and computer modelling in it's drug development and testing. (http://www.newscientist.com....) I put forth the argument that historically, animal testing was essential due to the lack of viable alternatives; the existence of this company shows that this is now no longer the case. Whether or not this is enough as a method to review a drug's effects on the entire system remains contested by those in favour of medical testing. The UK authorities and relevant boards however accept that this company meets stringent criteria for test safety. In short - I can be grateful to the animal tests of the past for the drugs they have provided us, without seeing a need for animal tests in the future. The next point would be to discuss the failures of animal testing. Animal physiology is not human physiology. The trial of TGN1412, an experimental drug intended to suppress immune system response, is a clear case in point. Despite extensive animal testing, the agent turned out to have an adverse and indeed almost lethal effect on humans (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Aidsvax failed to protect human test volunteers, despite protecting chimpanzees (http://www.safermedicines.org...). It has long been stated that animal testing can certainly be downright contradictory in the results it provides, as well as merely misleading. (Indeed, the previously referenced article highlights the uncertainty amongst UK medical professionals that animal testing indeed has clinical relevance). In Dr. Andrew Knight's 'The Costs And Benefits of Animal Experiments' it is stated that in a study of twenty randomly chosen cases, only two proved useful in further developing medicines and/or consistent with clinical trial data. Several additional reviews illustrated cases where adverse effects failed to predict negative effects through animal testing methods. (http://www.newint.org...) Then we may consider cost. The cost to rear, feed and maintain animal subjects is extremely high, as stated even by proponents of animal testing (http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...). Alternative methods are cheaper and thus less burdensome on the economy. In societies where governmental funding is provided for medical research, there is a corresponding lessened burden on the taxpayer. The ethical debate is also of primary concern here. No one would put forward the idea that testing on humans in the same manner would be acceptable. Yet animals evince 'intelligence' and quite certainly feel. Scientists have considered it possible to develop a universal intelligence test which animals could take (http://www.newscientist.com...) and have variously noted that even molluscs show signs of consciousness (New Scientist, 11th June 2011, p38 'A beautiful mind') and that signs of intelligence and indeed emotion are not wanting from animals (New Scientist, 2nd July 2011, p41 'Claws for Thought'). If someone were to put to me that a small number of humans should be experimented on for research purposes for 'the greater good', I would be adamant in my objection to the idea. The same argument still applies when referring to animals. Of course, I put my species and self-aware consciousness first. If there was a greater good to be achieved by harming animals , if animal research provided a humanitarian benefit, I would support it wholeheartedly. However, my previous arguments indicate that continued animal research is prolonging unnecessary suffering. It goes without saying that cosmetic testing on animals is completely abhorrent and unnecessary. The argument can be put forward for consideration that a great deal of continued experimentation exists because the structure of scientific society, even within ethical boards, is geared toward a psychological comfort with retaining familiar tests, rather than out of strict necessity. It can also be put forward that such experimentation continues because the traditional methods provide psychological comfort to scientists with an emotional investment in them, namely the avoidance of any discomfort they might feel if they were forced to concede that they had participated in acts of needless harm. These arguments are of course not possible to prove, but I feel they are nonetheless worth offering up for consideration. In UK law comprehensive regulations already limit the extent of permissible animal testing allowed in the laboratory, and is not acceptable unless it is believed that no other means of validating an experiment are available. In short, animal testing is already being phased out. It is my belief that as familiarity with new technologies increases and emotional attachments to animal testing falter, what would amount in practice to a ban would result in any case. Discussions of whether or not a complete, immediate ban is practical, I put it to the reader, are based on individual economic concerns with regards to jobs, as opposed to wider socio-economic concerns or research necessity. I conclude by reiterating my arguments as follows. Firstly, to congratulate animal testing on it's previous successes and therefore conclude that it is essential now is a failure of logic. Second, there exist viable alternatives to animal testing such that it is no longer a necessity for a commercial company to satisfy safety testing requirements. Third, the usefulness of testing with regards to the differences in animal and human physiology is in question amongst a large number of practicing medical professionals, and systemic investigations of such trials have shown that animal tests can be misleading and often do not go on to provide the same results in humans at clinical trial. Some indeed have proven harmful. Fourth, the ethics of testing on animals when they can be shown to have intelligence and awareness, if not equal to that of humans, is highly questionable when alternate methods exist. Fifth, there are arguments to be made as to the reasons for scientific 'clinginess' over animal testing in both review boards and the scientists offering up proposals for review. Finally, an immediate ban would not necessarily have a far-reaching negative impact in an economic sense, given the astronomical costs of animal testing as a whole. I respectfully submit these points for perusal, and await the response with interest.