The US federal Government should ban ALL testing that requires the use of animals.

CON: Intro: Ever since the 17th century, we have been testing products on animals to make sure that they are safe for human use. Animal testing aids researchers in finding drugs and treatments to improve health and medicine. Many medical treatments have been made possible only through animal testing. This includes treatments for HIV"S, Cancer, insulin, antibiotics, and many more. Animal testing has proved itself to work and has saved many human lives already. Scientists use animal testing for one main reason. That is because animals are similar to humans and most cosmetics have the same effect on humans. Because we believe that animal testing is not only great but it is essential to advancing in society, we negate the resolution which states: RESOLVED: The US federal Government should ban all testing that requires the use of animals. CON FRAMEWORK: In this debate, the pro has the burden of proving that ALL animal testing should be banned and that nothing good comes out of it. On the other hand, the con has the privilege of demonstrating that animal testing benefits the humanity and the pros to animal testing outweigh the cons. CONTENTION 1: THE BENEFITS OF ANIMAL TESTING http://www.worldometers.info... According to the University of Oxford, Approximately 3 million human beings are killed each year by general cancer. Leukemia, malaria, and lung cancer are the main contributing factors to another 4 million human deaths. Currently, there are approximately 2.1 million children living with HIV"S in this country alone and over 1,300 deaths from HIV"S a day. Due to animal testing, these numbers are dropping as we speak by at least 70 percent. So what you have to see is that because of animal testing, the human life is being preserved. 6.3 percent of the U.S population suffers from either type 1 or 2 diabetes, that humans aren"t the only ones suffering. Every breed of dogs, cats and other animals also have been diagnosed with diabetes. It is through testing on different breeds of animals that we have been able to come up with a temporary cure for this chronic disease. CONTENTION 2: ALTERNATIVES WON"T PROVIDE ACCURATE RESULTS In order for medical advancements to be made, we need to continue to use animals in testing. Where animals are used in research projects, they are used for a wide range of scientific techniques. Animals are used only for parts of research where there are no other techniques are available and can deliver the same answer. You cannot copy a human on a computer and get the same results. A beating heart or a pulse is irreplaceable and complex. While we already know a lot about how it works, there is an enormous spectrum we have yet to discover. A computer hasn"t been invented that has the power to reproduce all the complexities of a human body which cannot be created in a test tube. While humans are used extensively in Oxford research, there are some things which it is ethically unacceptable to use humans for. There are also variables which you can control in a mouse like diet, housing, clean air, humidity, temperature, and genetic makeup that you could not control in human subjects. What we are basically saying in this contention is that even though there are alternatives, they won"t produce the same results that a real patient would. CONTENTION 3: THE PUBLIC SUPPORTS THE USE OF MEDICAL TESTING ON ANIMALS SO LONG AS THERE ARE REASONABLE LIMITS Simon Festing [Executive Director of the Research Defense Society, London] and Robin Wilkinson [Science Communications Officer at the Research Defense Society, London], "The ethics of animal research. Talking Point on the use of animals in scientific research," EMBO Reports, Volume 8(6), pp. 526-530. URL= http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.... Thanks to some extensive opinion polls by MORI (1999a, 2002, 2005), and subsequent polls by YouGov (2006) and ICM (2006), we now have a good understanding of the public's attitudes towards animal research. Although society views animal research as an ethical dilemma, polls show that a high proportion"84% in 1999, 90% in 2002 and 89% in 2005"is ready to accept the use of animals in medical research if the research is for serious medical purposes, suffering is minimized and/or alternatives are fully considered. When asked which factors should be taken into account in the regulatory system, people chose those that"unknown to them"are already part of the UK legislation. In general, they feel that animal welfare should be weighed against health benefits, that cosmetic-testing should not be allowed, that there should be supervision to ensure high standards of welfare, that animals should be used only if there is no alternative, and that spot-checks should be carried out. It is clear that the UK public would widely support the existing regulatory system if they knew more about it. What this means is that the public is fine with animal testing. A minimum of 84 % support it as long as we consider alternatives and that it is completely necessary. I love debating and look forward to their response.