Animal testing should be banned

Animal transplants are not really in the purview of testing drugs on animals, and I feel that this argument is therefore a deviation from topic. The case that Daniyar makes in favor of xenotransplantation can most certainly be refuted, however, as follows. The case for xenotransplantation stems from the unfortunate shortfall between the number of patients requiring organ transplants for medical reasons and the number of healthy human organs available. However, there remain significant difficulties with regards to the actual process. Firstly, animal tissues age more readily than humans, meaning that even a successful transplant would likely need replacing, along with repeated costly surgery. Along with the inherent difficulties in avoiding cross-species disease transmission, physiological differences - including size, natural body temperature, and function - it is a fact that so far to date xenotransplantation has rarely been successful due to cellular or immune rejection of the foreign organ. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). I contend that this methodology had the potential to be useful as an interim stop-gap due to shortages but that research into this will shortly be outstripped by the far more useful in-vitro organ culture (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). Since viable organs have already been grown by this method and transplanted successfully into humans, and since there is no need to overcome the vast problems with xenotransplantation (organ rejection, the vast expense entailed in genetic modification of a species, multiple operations due to aging and so on) as the organ can be grown from the patient's own cells, it is likely that of the two techniques organ culture will prove more viable, less expensive and more ethical. Moving on. Millions of animals are indeed killed for food, used for agriculture and culled. Using animals to save human lives would indeed be a fair use of them, but I must contend first and foremost two points. Firstly, it is certainly not conclusively agreed upon by any means that the slaughter of animals for food is ethical either (. http://www.veganoutreach.org...) especially when it is not necessary - the American Dietetic Association has stated that a well-prepared vegetarian diet is not only nutritionally sufficient but may even have nutritional benefits (. http://www.eatright.org...). Therefore, to contend that 'animals are slaughtered for food, therefore animal testing and transplantation is acceptable' is in error. Secondly, the labour and culling of animals is strictly regulated in many countries to support the rights of animals and is generally deemed appropriate only when a) avoiding unnecessary cruelty and b) a necessity of itself due to economic need or dangers due to disease. I contend that animal testing fails in both of these criteria due to the presence of alternatives. Daniyar states that "Advocates of animal testing say that, outcomes of testing on animals are the most credible. The proportion of successful cases goes beyond 70%. " I contend that Daniyar must provide a source in support of this and provide once again my own counter to this argument, the source provided in my opening statements (. http://www.newint.org......). Once again, it is also stated that 'due to experiments on animals medicine made a big step forward'. Again, I repeat my objection that to state that 'experiments on animals were of use in an era without alternatives, therefore they remain necessary now' is a logical fallacy. I draw to a close by reiterating that xenotransplantation is by no means the most viable option forward for transplantation and even as a stop-gap measure should the technology become readily available first, which I doubt, it would shortly be replaced by a more humane, cheaper and ultimately safer scientific means. Moreover, the use of animals for nutrition or labour purposes does not constitute a good supporting argument for the ethicality or necessity of animal testing or xenotranplantation. Finally, once again I contend that the previous successes of animal testing, when placed in context in a society with improved alternatives available, do not constitute support for the need for animal testing in this day and age. I await with interest Daniyar's response and once again offer my thanks for this intriguing and stimulating debate.