Animal Testing Should be Banned

Thank you con for an interesting argument. However, some of your points are unworthy. I would like Pro to elaborate about "other methods which are far more effective and reliable than animal testing". Ok then, you asked for it. Here it is directly from the source:"Scientists at private companies, universities, and government agencies are developing new cell and tissue tests, computer models and other sophisticated methods to replace existing animal tests. These alternatives are not only humane; they also tend to be more cost-effective, rapid, and reliable than traditional animal tests." (1) Now, do you want me to "elaborate" some more, or can you see the point?Regarding the skin model, the original quote from Pro's source is "Human skin model tests are now in use, including the validated EpiDerm" test, which has been accepted almost universally as a total replacement for skin corrosion studies in rabbits." [2] It is the replacement for specific studies, how can it replace testing drugs in animals?The skin test is just one specific example I used. There are many more alternatives which are safer than animal testing, like examining blood donations (saves hundreds of thousands of rabbits and humans yearly), the Reduced Local Lymph Node Assay (a skin sensitization test), The 3T3 NRU Phototoxicity Test (A complete replacement for Phototoxicity animal tests) (3), The Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability Test and Isolated Chicken Eye Test (uses the eyes of animals already killed for meat, so no new animals are killed, and no part of the already-slaughtered animals are put to waste), the Embryonic Stem Cell Test (a differentiation of mouse embryonic stem cells) (4), the use of leftover human skin from surgery is be used to measure the rate at which a chemical is able to burn the skin (5), and more alternatives to testing.So what? Animals are also killed to be consumed by human.So that's your point, is it? That torturing animals is ok, because people eat meat already? That's a very unthoughtful argument. What con is pretty much saying here, is that when animals die for meat and food, it's suddenly alright for 19.5 MILLION more animals to die unnaturally and in pain. We kill enough animals for the food industry, without more dying through experiments. However, The Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability Test and Isolated Chicken Eye Test uses the eyes of animals already killed for meat, so no new animals are killed, and no part of the already-slaughtered animals are put to waste. So the meat truly isn't wasted."92 percent of experimental drugs that are safe and effective in animals fail in human clinical trials because they are too dangerous or don't work". This is very misleading and it doesn't prove anything. What this statistic is really saying, is that what worked in animal trials actually failed later on. It's sort of like pulling a lever on a slot machine. Every now and again, the winning combination will appear. What the statistic is also saying, is that it's unreliable. If if there were 100 products that WORKED in testing, then 92 will fail later on, and a mere 8 will pass. Alternatives to animal testing are far more reliable, and aren't nearly as cruel. We use animal testing to find the drugs potentially dangerous to human.Drugs? Animal testing is not all jolly and saving human lives with medicine. Animal testing is used countlessly for cosmetics and toiletries. It's not worth it, for there to be a blind monkey for a new line of mascara. While you may be thinking animal testing is all about saving lives, it isn't. Millions of animals die each year in pain because of the make-up industry.Human right is above animal right.Who says? What makes us so important that innocent animals must be tortured, then murdered, so people can enjoy the benenfits? What's ok about humans killing bunnies, but so horrible about rabbits killing babies? I'll leave that question with you, con.But how about the pain of the people tormented by diseases? While diseases are horrible, they're at least a natural way of dying- no MURDER involved. The animals taken in by testing have been killed way before their time has come. Con is saying in this sentence, that the pain of people "tormented" by diseases, a natural way of dying, needs to be stopped by torturing hundreds of innocent animals, an unnatural and cruel way of dying. Animal testing is also not all about saving lives.The alternatives to animal testing are even more unreliable.What sort of research went into that statement? When finding what chemicals irritate skin, comparing alternative tests to animal tests, the animal tests had a 40% error rate, whereas alternative testing correctly showed all the chemicals. A replacement for the LD50 Test had an accuracy rate of 84%, while the animal test had an accuracy rate of 52% (7). Other tests have been proven to be more reliable.Now, I'll back up the points I made in R1:1. Animal Testing is UnreliableI'll start this argument off with a quote I found: “There is no doubt that the best test species for humans are humans. It is not possible to extrapolate animal data directly to humans due to interspecies variation in anatomy, physiology and biochemistry.” -MacLennan & Amos. Clinical Science Research (7). This quote sums up my point in a nut shell. Animals have different bodies to ours, and are unreliable. In fact, 52% of the new drugs marketed in the US between 1976 and 1985 caused adverse reactions that were not predicted by animal studies (2). This just shows the unreliability.2. Animal Testing is CruelLet me start by saying that this is not exactly opinionated like con said. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that exposing a shaved rabbit to 24 hours of burning is cruel. Animal testing is cruelty to animals. The animals used are even common pets like hamsters, rabbits, cats and dogs! Testing on animals mainly isn't about saving lives either; millions of animals yearly are put to death so humans can show off their new make-up. It's vile!3. There are AlternativesThere are many alternatives which are safer than animal testing, like: Examining blood donations the Reduced Local Lymph Node Assay The 3T3 NRU Phototoxicity Test The Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability Test the Chicken Eye Test (uses meat already killed from the meat industry) the Embryonic Stem Cell Test the use of leftover human skin from surgery LD50 alternative test And more These alternatives are more cost efficient, more reliable, and reduces toxic waste. These alternatives are extremely important, and helps reduce animal testing drastically. Now it's clear that animal testing must be banned. It's unreliable, cruel, and unnecessary.Over to you, con.Sources:1. http://www.humanesociety.org...2. http://www.dawnwatch.com...3. http://www.peta.org...4. http://www.esnats.eu...5. http://www.peta.org...6. http://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org...7. http://www.neavs.org...