Should animals be used for research (pro:yes con:no)

I have certainly learned alot and am looking forward to having a good time with this debate. Now lets just cut to the chase without any furthur delay. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------My case is as represented by this syllogismP1 : Killing or toruring animals is cruel and unethical. P2 : Animals are being killed and tortured in the name of animal research. C1 : Using animals for research is cruel and unethical. P3(a) : Animal research is expensive and unreliable. P3(b) : Advancements in science and technology has brought about alternatives for the expensive,immoral and unreliable method of using animals for research animal researchC2 : Animals need no longer be used in research__________________________________________________________________________________________________And now i will be offering arguments for each of my premises. Premise 1: Animals are sentient creatures capable of feeling pain and distress it is unethical and immoral to exploit their lives for our benifits. Research on animals involves them undergoing a great deal of hardship,pain and possibly meeting their deaths in an unnatural way. Human beings consider themselves superior to animals based on the fact that we have the ability to reason and have greater intellect however, science has shown that animals can have cognitive faculties that are much superior to human beings[1]. Animals in actaulity possess abilities that are only different from that of a human They are not inferior and have only been under-rated due to humans' fixation on language and technology. Animals also show incredible social and kinaesthetic intelligence, only that, their way is quite different and divergent from ours because of which their abilities are belittled and go unacknowledged[1]. A quick read throught these two articlesArticle 1: . http://www.cracked.com...Article 2: . http://www.buzzfeed.com...is enough to realize how varied yet phenominal some of their capabilities are. Animals are intelligent in their own ways and assuming them to be inferioir to us and exploiting the fact that they are defenceless for our own gains is extremely preposterous, inhumane and egocentric. ___________________________________________________________________________________________Premise 2: Each year, more than 100 million animals—including mice, rats, frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, monkeys, fish, and birds—are traumatized and killed in the United States itself in laboratories for biology lessons, medical training, curiosity-driven experimentation, and chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics testing. Before their deaths, some are forced to inhale toxic fumes, others are immobilized in restraint devices for hours, some have holes drilled into their skulls, and others have their skin burned off or their spinal cords crushed. In addition to the torment of the actual experiments, animals in laboratories are deprived of everything that is natural and important to them—they are confined to barren cages, socially isolated, and psychologically traumatized. The sentient thinking, feeling animals who are used in experiments are treated like nothing more than disposable laboratory equipment. [2] Despite the countless animals killed each year in laboratories worldwide, most countries have grossly inadequate regulatory measures in place to protect animals from suffering and distress or to prevent them from being used when a non-animal approach is readily available. In the U. S. , the most commonly used species in laboratory experiments (mice, rats, birds, reptiles, and amphibians) are specifically exempted from even the minimal protections of the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). [2]I think this report sums up and proves beyond any rational doubts that animals are being killed and tortured in the name of animal research. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________Premise 3(a,b): Gallup polls have found that more than 40 percent of U. S. adults oppose the use of animals in scientific research, and other surveys suggest that the shrinking group that does accept animal experimentation does so only because it believes it to be necessary for medical progress. The reality is that the majority of animal experiments do not contribute to improving human health, and the value of the role that animal experimentation plays in most medical advances is questionable[2]according to former National Cancer Institute Director Dr. Richard Klausner, “We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn’t work in humans. ” This conclusion was echoed by former National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Dr. Elias Zerhouni, who acknowledged that experimenting on animals has been a boondoggle. “We have moved away from studying human disease in humans,” he said. “We all drank the Kool-Aid on that one, me included. … The problem is that it hasn’t worked, and it’s time we stopped dancing around the problem. … We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans. ”[2][2]The data is sobering: Although at least 85 HIV/AIDS vaccines have been successful in nonhuman primate studies, as of 2013, every one has failed to demonstrate a benefit to humans. In one case, an AIDS vaccine that was shown to be effective in monkeys failed in human clinical trials because it did not prevent people from developing AIDS, and some believe that it made them more susceptible to the disease. According to a report in the British newspaper The Independent, one conclusion from the failed study was that “testing HIV vaccines on monkeys before they are used on humans, does not in fact work. ”[2]These are not anomalies. The U. S. Food and Drug Administration has stated, “Currently, nine out of ten experimental drugs fail in clinical studies because we cannot accurately predict how they will behave in people based on laboratory and animal studies. ”[2]Also the animals that are to be used for testing have to be bred and kept alive till they are needed and because of this animal research becomes very expensive. Most of the money that goes into Animal research comes from the pockets of the public with or without their knowledge. [2]Through their taxes, charitable donations, and purchases of consumer products, members of the public are ultimately the ones who—knowingly or unknowingly —fund animal experimentation. [2] But luckily with the advancements in medical and scientific research, forward thinking scientists have developed more humane, modern, and effective non-animal research methods and alternatives for the expensive,outdated and unreliable method of animal research. Two major alternatives in vivo-animal testing are in vitro cell culture techniques and in silico computer simulation. Other alternatives include the use of humans for skin irritancy tests and donated human blood for pyrogenicity studies. Another alternative is so-called microdosing, in which the basic behaviour of drugs is assessed using human volunteers receiving doses well below those expected to produce whole-body effects. [3]These methods have proved to be cheaper faster and more accurate than animal research_________________________________________________________________________________________________________-Rebuttals: PRO's arguments were mainly centered around mice and animal testing used in the medical field, I would like to remind PRO that mice are not the only animal species that are being used for research and animal research is used not only in the medical field but also in the cosmetics and consumer production area. This means lives are being tortured and sacrificed merely for humans to maybe look good in the next party we go. The world doesn’t need another eyeliner, hand soap, food ingredient, drug for erectile dysfunction, or pesticide so badly that it should come at the expense of animals’ lives. Addressing to PRO's arguments about animal research finding cure for some diseases,something which offers a few advantages but the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, on the whole, is still disadvantageous. Animal research may have been the cause of curing some deseases, Yes, but at what costs? Hundreds of failed experiments with probably thousands or even more animals brought to UNnatural deaths just to save a few people from dying 'Naturally-brought-deaths',How is this worth the price? .Also PRO's job is to show that animals SHOULD be used for research. And in order to fulfil his BOP he must argue for the animals as whole and all researches that involve animals. Only then will he meet his BOP. Sources: 1 : . http://phys.org...2 : . http://www.peta.org...3 : . http://en.wikipedia.org...----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------And answering to your questions,I'm neither and I believe in 'a god',if you have furthur questions like these you can just shoot me a message I'll be glad to address them. Back to you PRO!