Medical testing on animals does more good than harm.

Round 2Before I start elaborating on my second argument, I would first like to address my disappointment towards my opponent. Forfeiting is not the spirit of debate and I expect a better treatment than ignorance to my article that I spent effort on writing. On Debate.org, I have noticed some cases where no more information was posted after a concession. But I would like to proceed on elaborating my case regardless. ARGUMENTATIONEven if we decide to forsake morality and go for the practical measure, animal testing still should not occur for three reasons.Reason 1 (Inefficiency)Firstly, they are inefficient. Alternatives of animal testing cost so much less and take fraction of the time that the inhumane test takes. When an experiment is carried out on animals, obtaining of many difference species of sample animal is necessary, observation period is compulsory and replacement cost is considerable.Reason 2 (Inaccuracy)But are the results gained after such havoc and pricey investment accurate? They are poor. Results gained from animal testing obviously depict how certain substances affect animals, not humans. The effect on the substances on human is done by comparing the results with human tissues which is very inaccurate and archaic. Gordon Baxter, a scientist from a private experimenting company called the "Pharmagene Laboratories", once said, "If you have information on human genes, what"s the point of going back to animals?" Although words from Gordon Baxter are not the golden words, the quote in fact is very correct. When we already have so many samples of human genes, there is no purpose on experimenting on animals which is not even the ultimate subject to apply those experimental results on. Failure in discovering HIV/AIDS vaccines through animal testing would be a good example to show how animal testing is ineffective due to the difference of human being and animals. According to The National Institutes of Health, more than 80 HIV/AIDS vaccines that previously passed animal testing turned out to fail on human clinical trials. To give another example, a famous pain reliever Vioxx that was recalled on September 30, 2004 passed numerous animal tests but had a critical side-effect on human body. The drug increased the risk of blood clots. This fact was confirmed after five years of observation period (from 1996~2001) and FDA estimates that this drug caused death of 27,000 patients. Each year in United States, more than 106,000 people die from side-effects of animal-tested drugs and about 2.2 million of the population is seriously injured. Death due to animal-tested drugs is the fourth leading cause of death and this dilemma causes economic damage of 136 billion US dollars. To those who still are not satisfied with failure examples, here is a link that will please your dissatisfaction: http://www.vivisectioninformation.com.... The site lists 50 cases from US Doctors Group, of disastrous consequences caused due to misleading animal testing. The site also at the bottom of their webpage included detailed references for each and every case. Reason 3 (Ineffective & Purposeless)It is also very noteworthy that 92 percent of animal-tested drugs are rejected at stage of clinical trial and more than half of those drugs that survived clinical trial are removed from the market due to additional harms. Hence, animal testing has a failure rate of 96% and a success rate of 4%. There is absolutely no purpose in leading time-consuming, money-consuming, effort-consuming and life-consuming experiments when the success rate is merely 4%. The cost outweighs benefit in such a huge rate that the benefit is almost negligible. Reason 4 (Loophole Exploitation)But in some cases, companies also exploit such failures in animal testing. It is a general knowledge that cigarettes cause lung cancer. However, many cigarette companies use animal testing to deny the direct correlation between smoking and cancer. Because animal tests are very misleading, a deliberate attempt to misuse such data occurs. Because cancer cells are very unlikely and in fact difficult to reproduce in lab animals, the test results on cigarettes turned out to pose no threat. For some while smoking was considered to be non-carcinogenic. We all know that is completely false. Nevertheless, some tobacco companies exploit this misleading experiment and deny that smoking has no direct correlation with cancer. (This fact can be confirmed on Lancet, the world-class medical journal published on June 25 of 1977 pages 1348-9) This misleading nature of animal testing (that sometimes things are different when it is tested on animal and human) can be potential danger for further exploitation and by banning animal testing which is so immoral, problematic and inefficient in the first place, we can eliminate this liability. Isn"t that very practical as well? SUMMARY Other than being immensely immoral, animal testing also carry so much practical drawbacks. It is inefficient to begin with and also very inaccurate. At the end of the day, it is not only purposeless but poses a potential threat to the society. There is absolutely no purpose in practicing an outdated, obsolete and gamble-like technology when it can be replaced with something that is better in various aspects and moral.REFERECEShttp://www.peta.org... http://www.prijatelji-zivotinja.hr... http://www.vivisectioninformation.com...