Animal Testing

Thank you. For responding. You're really good by the way. :) Animal Testing Harms Society: Animal experimentation has misled researchers for centuries, confounding our understanding of the human body and the diseases that plague it. Many animals, including primates, react differently to drugs that humans, just like how some people react differently from a medication than others. My opponent gave an example to Polio. Although, there have over 50 times in history where animal testing has harmed humans. Animals and humans do not share the same DNA pattern, making animal testing unreliable. Following on that criticism is the premise that because animals are in an unnatural environment, they will be under stress. Therefore, they won't react to the drugs in the same way compared to their potential reaction in a natural environment. This argument further weakens the validity of animal experimentation. I'll give three examples out of the more than 50, since I'm only limited to 8,000 characters. For example: 1. Smoking was thought non-carcinogenic because smoking- related cancer is difficult to reproduce in lab animals. Many continued to smoke and to die from cancer. 2. Animal experiments on rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, mice, monkeys, and baboons revealed no link between glass fibers and cancer. Not until 1991, due to human studies, did OSHA label it carcinogenic. 3. Combined heart lung transplants were also on animals, but the first 3 patients all died within 23 days.13 Of 28 patients operated on between 1981 and 1985, 8 died peri-operatively, and 10 developed obliterative bronchiolitis, a lung complication that the experimental dogs did not get. Of those 10, 4 died and 3 never breathed again without the aid of a respirator. Obliterative bronchiolitis turned out to be the most important risk of the operation. Again who is it benefiting? Humans, I don't think so, since people have died from animal testing, the risk outweight the benefits in society. Animals? Here comes the second argument. Inhumanity and Animal cruelty: My opponent says animal testing benefits other species. Yet how can this be if the rights of those animals are completely denied. Right now, millions of mice, rats, rabbits, primates, cats, dogs, and other animals are locked inside cold, barren cages in laboratories across the country. They languish in pain, ache with loneliness and long to roam free and use their minds. Instead, all they can do is sit and wait in fear of the next terrifying and painful procedure that will be performed on them. The stress, sterility and boredom causes some animals to develop neurotic behaviors such incessantly spinning in circles, rocking back and forth and even pulling out their own hair and biting their own skin.They shake and cower in fear whenever someone walks past their cages and their blood pressure spikes drastically. After enduring lives of pain, loneliness and terror, almost all of them will be killed. Philosohy and Speciesism: According to my opponents philosophy, humans are the superior species. If such thing is true, isn't it our moral duty to protect the weak and innocent. Surely, as the "dominant" species, humans have the power to make sure we don't hurt a less fortunate species, instead of nuturing the innocent creatures that grace the earth, we are just using them for selfish and greedy purposes. This can't be justifyable. As the famous quote says "With great power, comes great responsibility". With the great power humans have, we have to take responsibility and not harm others for our misfortune of disease. Cost: Currently, in America, we are experiencing the worst ecomonic collapse, since The Great Depression. Anything wasteful spending must be reduced. Animal testing is costly and unnecessary. Animal testing generally costs an enormous amount of money, as the animals must be fed, housed, cared for and treated with drugs or a similar experimental substance. On top of that, animal testing may occur more than once and over the course of months, which means that additional costs are incurred. The price of animals themselves must also be factored into the equation. The federal government and manyï¿½health charitiesï¿½waste precious dollars from taxpayers and generous donors on cruel and misleading animal experiments at universities and private laboratories instead of spending them on promising clinical, in vitro and epidemiological studies that are actuallyï¿½relevant to humans. Alternatives: My opponent makes a good statement. Yes, at one point in human history, it was blacks and orphans who suffered for science. Today, animals are suffering for science. All of this suffering is pretty useless since there are many more humane, non-animal, reliable alternatives. For example: 1. Cloning of human organs and stem cell research are more cost effective, more reliable, and less cruel. No human or animal is hurt in this process. 2. Researchers with the National Cancer Institute, the U.S military, private companies, and universities across the country have shown that MatTek's in vitro 3-D human skin tissue equivalent is an excellent substitute for animals when it comes to conducting burn research and cosmetics testing and doing research related to radiation exposure and chemical weapons attacks, etc. 3. Instead of cutting into and damaging the brains of rats, cats, and monkeys, progressive researchers who are interested in studying the human brain are using advanced human-based brain-imaging and -recording techniques such as MRI, fMRI, EEG, PET, and CT. These modern techniques allow the human brain to be safely studied down to the level of a single neuron (as in the case of intracranial EEG), and researchers can even temporarily and reversibly induce brain disorders using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Not only do these techniques eliminate the use of animals and the obstacle of interspecies extrapolation, they also provide rich data about the human brain that could not be ascertained through the use of animals. 4. Antibodies—which are used to research, diagnose, and fight diseases and have traditionally been created by injecting cancer cells into mice—can now be produced using DNA that's made in a laboratory or taken from human cells. Of course these are just a few alternatives of the hundreds there are. Sources: Aboutanimaltesting.com PETA.org Healingcancernaturally.com Thank you. :)