Animal Testing

My opponent made good arguments. My turn. :) Society: Animal Testing is just unscientific. You cannot replicate the exact results to humans. Apes and rats do share 99% of their DNA, but that means little to nothing it is still not 100%. Science needs to be 100% concrete to defined as science, therefore animal testing is unscientific. What does DNA similarity even mean? Bananas share 50% of their DNA with humans. Should we test on them? Of course not, that would lead to faulty results, just like how animal testing leads to faulty results. Humans share 100% of their DNA. Still, even with that, drugs react differently to everyone. DNA compatability does nothing to prove it's effectiveness. Animal testings does little to contribute society in the modern era. In 2004, a paper published in the British Medical Journal concluded that there was little actual scientific evidence that animal experimentation was essential to medical research. Experimenters perpetually attempt to justify the terrible suffering they inflict on animals by claiming there is a cure just around the corner, but decades of animal experiments on AIDS vaccines (more than 80 that passed animal tests have failed in people), strokes (150 treatments have worked in animals and failed in people) and other diseases have failed to deliver any cures for the millions of people who suffer from these conditions. That's because while humans and animals are alike in our ability to feel pain, fear, sadness, joy, and other emotions, we vary enormously in our physical reactions to toxins and diseases and in how our bodies metabolise drugs. Trying to apply the results of animal tests to humans is a shot in the dark. US Food and Drug Administration figures show that 92% of drugs which pass animal trials are later found to be unsafe or ineffective in human trials. Everytime humanity takes one step forward, animal testing takes us two steps back. Human and animal testing agree only 5-25% of the time, according to Huntingdon Life Sciences. Corneal transplants were delayed for 90 years and blood transfusions were delayed 200 years due to animal studies. The cure AIDS could've possibly already been found if it wasn't for animal testing My opponent says, the benefits of animal testing outweight the risks. I have posted a link that says 50 ways how animal testing has hurt humans. I would like my opponent to link a list that says 50 or more ways that animal testing benefited humans. 50 WAYS ANIMAL TESTING HARMS HUMANITY: http://www.healingcancernaturally.com... Inhumanity and animal cruelty: Animal testing harms animals. It's just plain wrong. Those animal suffer, feel pain and are lonely just like people do. Life in a cage or between four walls, doesn't sound like life it sounds like prison. These animals deserve to be with their family roaming free in the wild. They suffer fron stress and anxiety just like we do. The Animal Welfare Act is poorly regulated by the government. Alot of this cruelty and pain happens in private behind closed doors, which the government has no control over. Sure, there are many scientist who love animals and try to protect them. Though there are just as many or more, who beat and bash animals, who treat them like dummys and punching bag rather than a real life. Every year, tens of millions of animals are dissected, infected, injected, gassed, burned and blinded in hidden laboratories on college campuses and research facilities throughout the U.S. Still more animals are used to test the safety of cosmetics, household cleansers and other consumer products. These innocent primates, dogs, cats, rabbits, rodents and other animals are used against their will as research subjects in experiments and procedures that would be considered sadistically cruel were they not conducted in the name of science. This is fact, not made up there is plenty evidence that shows this. Just look up "Animal Testing" any where on Youtube and you will see the cruelty these creatures face agaisnt their will. Researchers claim that they must be allowed unfettered access to animals for experiments in order to find cures for human diseases, yet they refuse to address the serious ethical problems of torturing sentient creatures for research purposes. On top of that, over-reliance on animal experimentation has historically hindered scientific advancement and endangered human safety because results from animal research typically cannot be applied to humans. In fact, scientists could save more human lives by using humane non-animal research and testing methods that are more accurate and efficient. Proof Animal Cruelty Exist in Laboratories: "USDA Charges UCSF for Animal Welfare Act Violations" In 2005, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) charged the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) with 89 violations of the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). Instead of defending themselves in court and revealing their mistreatment of animals to public scrutiny, UCSF chose to pay a $92,500 fine, one of the largest ever levied against a research institution by the USDA. "Coulston Foundation Forced Out of Business" At one time, the Coulston Foundation had possession of an astonishing 650 chimpanzees almost half the population of chimpanzees used for research in the United States. Frederick Coulston was flush with millions in federal funding, as well as contracts with pharmaceutical, chemical and medical device companies, and was pursuing plans to become the sole source of chimpanzees for research in the country. They later closed, humiliated." These are just a few examples that cruelty exist no matter what regulations. Philosophy: Quoting one of the greatest peace maker in history. Animal life is equivalent in value to human life. Mahatma Gandhi - "To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. The more helpless the creature, the more that it is entitled to protection by man from the cruelty of man." My opponent mentions, the analogy of lions and gazelles. Yet animal testing has nothing to do with the "predator/prey" complex. A lion needs to kill a gazelle to survive. A human doesn't need to hurt a rodent, ape or dog/cat to survive. We survived thousands of year without animal testing. Animals don't exist to serve humans. In cosmetics, do we need more mascara? Did caveman use hairspray? Don't we have enough eyeliner? In medicine, it's not helping it's hurting us. Hurting an animal for experiments is like hurting a pet, which people would not do. People would never want their own pets tested; why other animals? People that have pets typically develop an affection and even love for their pets, and often believe that their pets return that love and affection. They generally believe that animals have feelings, express happiness, and feel pain and suffering at times. Most would never allow their own pets to be subjected to testing for most of the above reasons. Why then would they believe it acceptable to subject other animals to such testing; animals that have the same capacity for the above feelings? Cost: My opponent never gave a counter agument. All wasteful spending must be reduced. Animal testing is wasteful since it does little to nothing to help society. Alternatives: Ninety-four percent of animal testing is done to determine the safety of cosmetics and household products leaving only 6% for medical research! Animal experiments can be replaced by at least 450 methods known at this time, according to the scientific community. Cloning of human skin has already been done. Why are still burning animals? Antibiodies (Request) http://m.phys.org... Sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... http://www.vivisectioninfo.org... http://www.aboutmyplanet.com... Thank you. :)