Resolved: An alternative for animal testing should be found.

Thank you, Beginner. I'm slightly scared of his debating chops, so I'll try my hardest now.Please note that part of the following arguments are from a past conceded debate that I was the contender of, and I have added in extra arguments with it. Also, I would like to point that that I will not be arguing that it is the most detrimental method of testing. I am only arguing that although it is the best choice for biomedical research currently, there needs to be an alternative for it. I am not, however, advocating for a method because the resolution does not require me to do so.==Contention 1 - Mistreatment of tested animals==In animal testing, scientists aren't at all careful as to how they are handling animals that they test. Some of these cases can go unreported, and most go on the news." Concerns have been raised over the mistreatment of primates undergoing testing. In 1985 the case of Britches, a macaque monkey at the University of California, Riverside, gained public attention. He had his eyelids sewn shut and a sonar sensor on his head as part of an experiment to test sensory substitution devices for blind people. The laboratory was raided by Animal Liberation Front in 1985, removing Britches and 466 other animals. The National Institutes of Health conducted an eight-month investigation and concluded, however, that no corrective action was necessary. During the 2000s other cases have made headlines, include experiments at the University of Cambridge and Columbia University in 2002." - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [1]As shown, animal testing can put animals into extremely harsh conditions. For example (shown above), an animal could have his eyelids sewn shut. [1] Other cases show that animals are force-fed ordeprived of food or water [7]:"To satisfy the requirements of the testing process, animals may be force-fed, deprived of food or water for lengthy periods of time, or physically restrained against their will." - Udemy [7]This is a reason why we need to find another method to replace animal testing in biomedical research.==Contention 2 - Animal tests are unreliable==Humans and other animals are different species, as each species has a different anatomy, organ structure, fixation of DNA and whatnot. Therefore, an animal test with good results can cause the death of many humans. [2]"Species differences in anatomy, organ structure and function, toxin metabolism, chemical and drug absorption, and mechanisms of DNA repair—among myriad other differences between humans and other species—can give us inadequate or erroneous information when we attempt to apply animal data to human diseases and drug responses. For example, penicillin is toxic to guinea pigs, aspirin is poisonous to cats, and the recalled diet drug phen-fen caused no heart damage in animals, while it did in humans." - Neavs [2]In fact, one case actually showed that more than 80 HIV vaccines that were safe for animals, when tested on humans, either had no effect or actually worsened the risk of them geting HIV. [2] This proves that animal tests are completely unreliable, and even dangerous, most of the time.Studies suggest that 9 out of 10 animal tests fail this way. [3] [3]Another example of failed animal testing is that years or research and billions of dollars on inflammatory disease has been wasted on mice. In this case, injecting a person with a mild amount of E. Coli could give them a shock, but with mice you would have to inject the same amount of E. Coli bacteria into mice a million times just to kill one. [5] Since the biology and immune system of mice and men (no pun intended... or is it?) are different from each other, obviously the result is that one of them will go virtually unharmed when injected with a certain pathogen (in this case, the mice) whilst the other would have a severe or visible reaction."If you inject a person with a bolus of bacteria, she might get a fever. Her heart rate could go up, and her breathing might start to quicken. Left unchecked, there's a chance her body would succumb to inflammation, her organs failing as she dies. Do the same to a laboratory mouse, and something unexpected happens: The cells of its tiny immune system don't get so overcharged. The animal gets the opposite of a fever; its temperature begins to drop. A modest squirt of toxin from E. coli can put a human into shock, but the relative dose must be increased a million times before it kills a mouse." - Slate [5] Yet, more than half of animal testing is done on mice, as of 2010 [5][6]: Thus, we can conclude that animal testing is an unreliable method of biomedical research and we should look for more reliable methods to replace animal testing.==Contention 3 - Despite failed tests, on balance animal tests are extremely costly==As though the above information were not enough, statistics show that $16,000,000,000 is wasted annually on animal tests. [4] (Zoom in for ease of viewing) [4]What's even more major, $16,000,000,000 is enough to do the actions inside the above picture. Combine that with the fact that $16,000,000,000 is wasted every year, and the U.S. could have been a much better place.Unfortunately, all of this money is taxed from U.S. citizens alone. [4][8] Rather than have a system which mandates taxing citizens, we could use a more efficient and reliable system without taxing the public.Obviously we can conclude that we are wasting taxpayer money on unreliable animal testing warrants finding another system.==Conclusion==As you can see, for these reasons it is definite that we ought to find an alternative for animal testing.I end this round with the following picture [9] (open image by link if photo is broken): s://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net...; alt="" />[1] http://en.wikipedia.org......;[2] http://www.neavs.org......[3] http://www.buav.org......;[4] http://brandongaille.com......; [5] http://www.slate.com...;[6] http://www.slate.com...;[7] https://blog.udemy.com...;[8] http://www.peta.org...;[9] https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net...;