Medical Research does more harm than good

Hello everyone. This is my first debate, and what a wonderful and spirited topic this is. That being said, I'd like to start on the topic itself. "Medical Research", while feeling like a term so natural to us in this day, is an incredibly broad term that spans many fields and specialities. To simply say that "medical research" does harm is similar to saying "all religion is harmful" - simply too broad of a topic to narrow down. Surely, medical research done using computer simulations is not harmful in any way. The Instigator has listed two area of medical research, namely human and animal, and so the proposed model becomes clear enough, I'll assume those are the two we are talking about primarily. Starting with animal research, we see the proposition are essentially bringing on a moral case about the defence of animals. That medical research is harmful to the animals, and the harming of animals for our human gain is "mean", to quote the Instigator. Firstly, if we look at it from a purely scientific point of view, namely a Darwinistic point of view, we as humans are doing nothing wrong. We, being at the top of the food chain, use the animals from the bottom of the food chain to our advantage, such as for food, resources, and in this case, for our own benefit. Other animals have been known to use the properties of other animals for their own health benefits, and from a Darwinistic point of view we are doing just that. Of course, we're not simply animals - we're human beings. And although the pro doesn't seem to have stated it, he seems to be implying that animals have some sort of a right not to be harmed. Which, is completely false. Despite what our instincts might tell you, animals don't actually have rights at all. If we look at the construction of a right, say, the right of free speech, we see that is is made up of 2 parts. There is the right, which is the ability to express our own opinions, but the 2nd part is a responsibility - that we monitor our speech so that our freedom of speech doesn't interfere with other people's rights as well. Animals have no such way of doing this. We may decide to stop harming them, but animals have no way of negotiating such a deal, and will continue to harm us. Thus, animals cannot be said to have any sort of "rights". How does this all factor in to the debate? Essentially, I've told you that realistically, we are not doing anything wrong by performing medical research, and that these "hideous" and "mean" things are in fact logically sound. But the debate isn't about whether or not medical research is sound or not, it's whether or not is outweighs the costs! What I have to say to this is that without animal testing and other forms of medical research, we could possibly not be living today. The advancements in medical research have allowed civilization to live longer, work harder, and learn more about the world we live in. Both the Instigator and I may have very well not be born into the world, as medical research has vastly lowered the infant mortality rate which has allowed the world population to grow as it has. I doubt the Instigator has never been ill before, and the cures and treatments that were given to his aid were all possible by the medical research. Clearly, these benefits outweigh the small price of the small number of laboratory rats and mice that may receive a few injections! Human research is even more weighing towards the con side. Firstly, human research isn't even used very much today, and where it may or may not be used are countries with poor living conditions and people with poverty who are desperate for the money. In this case, it is due to the poverty and the living standards of the country and not due to the interests of medical research itself. The main incidents of human experimentation that happen are in times of war, or in times of a plague or other serious outbreaks of desperations. In these cases (which have been very few, mind you), it is an entirely different situation altogether. In these situation, the absence of medical research on humans would result in the wipeout of a large chunk of the human population, which would be even more fatal to this "human economy" that you talk about. Surely, the highly specialized and well treated testing of humans is far worth the benefit of saving millions of lives? All in all, even though this is a ridiculously broad topic, I have managed to tell you why both animal testing and human testing is not wrong at all, and even if it was, how the benefits hugely out weigh the costs in every way.