Animal experimentation is immoral.

Alright, thanks to my opponent for proffering his arguments. I'm going to start this round with some rebuttal before elucidating my points. I won't be citing specifics in this round, as I mean to elucidate them in future rounds as responses due to the lack of space. There is a sort of cognitive dissonance between Pro's elucidation of his arguments and his #2. He doesn't "dispute that animal experimentation aids in the research of disease prevention," yet he wants to claim that the differences between animals and humans are unclear and yield unreliable results. Unless Pro is arguing that human experimentation should replace animal experimentation, his position in this debate is that using multicellular lifeforms for the purpose of experimentation is immoral. Therefore, whether he weakens this partially or not, my case always has a clear utilitarian benefit that his lacks. But he does have a point, at least partially. Physiological differences between, say, rodents and humans can lead to different effects. The same is true of any animal, though chimps, which Pro points out are also a part of this research, are similar enough to us that they're practically the gold standard for preclinical studies. But he is fundamentally missing the purpose of this experimentation, which is systems analysis in a mammalian system. It's not perfect, no, but this sort of analysis is literally impossible in the absence of animal research. In vitro studies cannot simulate a full blown organism, and there is still too large of a gulf in our understanding of these systems to produce reliable simulations. Given that, anything my opponent would propose falls far short of the efficacy of current research. The main point that runs throughout Pro's analysis is that treating animals as lesser beings is immoral. He utilizes a deontological view to assert this, stating that "utility does not justify immorality." Multiple responses. 1) Pro gives absolutely no reason to prefer a deontological view. He says we're essentially debasing lives, but never explains why, as a means, this is more harmful than an end of saving countless people and animals from disease. 2) In this case, the ends most certainly do justify the means. The countless number of lives saved due to the eradication of smallpox, immunization against measles, mumps, rubella, influenza, polio and other infectious diseases, not to mention lives saved from extensive cancer research and efforts to treat any amount of injuries, are nothing to just brush under the rug, especially since the vast majority of that research has occurred in laboratory animals specifically bred for the purpose. Those animals would never have existed in the first place if not for this research. 3) Pro tries to discount my point with regards to animals being also being benefited by this research. I'm not sure what he's getting at here. Treatment for veterinary disease also requires extensive testing, and that testing is done in animals. Since some of these diseases can cross over to humans, as the influenza called H5N1 passed from birds to humans and as H1N1 passed from pigs to humans, this research often yields important protective results for animal populations as well. The number of pets protected by vaccination against nay number of zoonotic diseases is gigantic. 4) Why is utilitarianism a better way to view morality in this case? Well, we can start with the reality that animal experiments only go on so long as the drug is either proven effective and safe (or ineffective and unsafe). This means there is a defined limit to the amount of animals used for any given experiment. There is, however, a much larger amount of people affected by that research in the vast majority of cases. In a straight evaluation of lives lost, utilitarianism is demonstrably better from a moral perspective. 5) All of this is basically justification for Pro to handicap researchers. One of two things result, both immoral. Either researchers try a bevy of experimental methods that are certain to produce far less applicable evaluations of a given treatment's efficacy and safety and start in on a preclinical trial for human beings where no one can consent (more on that later), or researchers stop producing new treatments out of fear for providing something to their patients that has a large chance of endangering their health. I'd like to see Pro's justification for either of these alternatives, or for him to provide a separate one. Pro uses the example of the Great Wall of China. Considering there were little in the way of ethical considerations for how those people were treated, as opposed to the ways these researchers treat their animals (as they are required to limit suffering as much as possible), I'd say this comparison fails, not to mention that the Great Wall was a selfish protective gesture, whereas the research we're discussing benefits a population that doesn't just exist in one country. The last major point Pro makes is that I can't justify the importance of a human life. That would take up the remainder of my space, but I will point out that human beings are the only ones capable of producing these treatments and therefore the only ones capable of saving multitudes of life. Now, I'll elucidate my points a bit. 1. Research aimed at treating or preventing human disease is hugely beneficial to both humans and animals. I've already elucidated this in my rebuttal. If my opponent wants specific numbers, I can provide them, though as he is granting the point about human lives saved, I don't think that's necessary to show here. I've also shown how animal lives are saved, much as my opponent contends that that's not the case. 2. Animal experimentation is necessary to ensure a high degree of completeness to these studies. I've spent some time on this, but I should elaborate further. Why do we care about systems biology? Why not just use a test tube? Because there's no way we can cram everything that makes a human human into a small vial, nor can we simulate the way they interact in the body. From the macro scale to the micro scale, we are incredibly complex. In fact, every animal system is very complex. Thus, in order to understand how a drug interacts with all manner of possible targets in the body, we have to, at some point, evaluate it within such a complex system. It's simply necessary for such research to continue. But why do we choose animals? Much as Pro is right that we do use other animals (horses, dogs, primates) for the purpose of animal experimentation, those are really meant to be more emulative of the human system. We use mice and rats most often, mainly because they have short life cycles and rapid rates of reproduction. Human beings could never hope to match those characteristics, and therefore the number of tests in humans would have to be larger than with rodents. 3. Consent is always problematic, no matter the subject being utilized, when it comes to preclinical trials. We've barely touched upon consent, but this is really important, because human beings aren't an alternative as research subjects. Preclinical trials are meant to establish the No Observable Adverse Effects Levels (NOAEL), which are meant to determine what is a safe dosage based on body size. It's not perfect, but it helps a lot. This is why clinical trials can include humans who consent " we can document side effects and difficulties in animals, and then include them in a document that the patient signs for consent. In the absence of specifics in that document, no one can realistically consent. Even if they could, the risks would be tremendous, and therefore they would have to pay recruits exorbitant amounts. The poor will be victimized by this, as they are the only ones who might absolutely require that money with little or no alternatives available. Ergo, if Pro is arguing that humans should be in these studies instead, that is an immoral act. Back to Pro.