Animal Testing

I shall present my own arguments, and then deal with Pro's arguments. Argument 1: Animal testing is not as effective as it seemsIt is a common misconception that animal testing is the key to unlocking treasure vaults of scientific knowledge. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the FDA has noted that an overwhelming 92 per cent of all drugs that are declared safe after animal testing fail in human trials due to inefficacy or danger. Examples of drugs in this category include Vioxx, Phenactin, Selacryn and several more. Argument 2: Animal testing is not painlessMy opponent claims that scientists care about the animals, enough to prevent them from experiencing pain. I admire and respect his idealism. It is, in fact, legal under the Animal Welfare Act for animals to be cruelly hurt without pain relief . Such acts include burning, shocking, poisoning, isolating, starving, and brain-damaging these animals. It is, of course, unthinkable for us to do such a thing to a human being without recourse. Doing this to animals therefore causes us to examine the ethicality of our principles. Argument 3: Animal testing is unnecessary for educationIt is widely believed that animal testing is necessary for students to understand physical anatomy. In fact, schools such as Harvard, Yale and Stanford educate their medical students using cutting edge computer programs, that give them an incisive view of human and animal anatomy without necessitating the dissection of these animals. Counter Argument 1: Most of the animals are breed in laboratories specifically for testing (like flies). While this may be true, this does not justify the use of animals for testing. It is akin to suggesting that we should breed humans for the specific purpose of drug and chemical testing. We would not, however, make such a suggestion, because we recognise that sentient beings have inalienable rights. Counter Argument 2: This doesn't affect a species population. In fact, the species used are really common and aren't endangered. This is true, but the same counter argument as above applies. Humans are far from endangered, why do we not use them? Counter Argument 3: An animal life could help the human race to find a cure, understand how certain organs work or even make a progress in the genetics area. As mentioned in my arguments, drugs that work on animals very often fail in human clinical trials. Richard Klausner, former head of the National Cancer Institute, once said that "We have cured mice of cancer for decades and it simply didn’t work in humans. " It is unjustifiable, therefore, to inflict pain on animals when this pain is all for nought eventually. Counter Argument 4: Testing on animals allows us to know if a drug is safe for selling it. As mentioned in Argument 1, this is a misconception. Examples of failed drugs may also be found there. Counter Argument 5: Scientists care about the animals. They use them just in really necessary cases and they use techniques that cause the least harm, stress or pain to the animal. Also addressed in arguments. I have therefore proven that my opponent's reasons are weak and that there is little evidence to justify inflicting pain on animals, the way they experience pain in laboratories.