Animal testing does more good than harm.

Here are my three contentions. A. Animal testing is harmful to the subjectsB. Animals are very different from humansC. Drugs tested on animals aren't always safeLet's get started! A. Animal testing is harmful to the subjectsRegardless of whether or not animal testing is effective, there is no denying that the animals involved are mistreated. How so? Well, it's estimated that more than 100 million animals are killed for testing purposes. [1] Also, many are subjected to the following methods. Forced chemical exposure in toxicity testing, which can include oral force-feeding, forced inhalation, skin or injection into the abdomen, muscle, etc. Exposure to drugs, chemicals or infectious disease at levels that cause illness, pain and distress, or death Genetic manipulation, e. g. , addition or “knocking out” of one or more genes Ear-notching and tail-clipping for identification Short periods of physical restraint for observation or examination Prolonged periods of physical restraint Food and water deprivation Surgical procedures followed by recovery Infliction of wounds, burns and other injuries to study healing Infliction of pain to study its physiology and treatment Behavioural experiments designed to cause distress, e. g. , electric shock or forced swimming Other manipulations to create “animal models” of human diseases ranging from cancer to stroke to depression Killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means [2] On top of this, I'd the animals don't die of their injuries, most of the time they'll be euthanized. [3]Many would claim that animals don't feel emotion or pain like people do, so it doesn't matter that the death toll due to animal testing is so high. That isn't exactly true either. But there is one difference between humans and animals: While most humans can communicate through words, animals are unable to do this. “The nature of pain is perhaps even more complex in animals. How pain is sensed and the physical processes behind this are remarkably similar and well conserved across mammals and humans. There are also many similarities in pain behaviours across the species, for example they may stop socialising with people and/or other animals, they may eat less, they may vocalise more and their heart rate may rise. The capacity of animals to suffer as sentient creatures is well established and enshrined in law in many countries, however we don’t understand well how they actually experience pain. ” [4]They experience pain, we know that, but they can’t communicate the exact same way we can. In that way, animals can’t consent to the experiments while people can. We can’t be sure that the animals in question are willing to the experimentation. B. Animals are very different from humansAnother common argument I see for animal testing is that animals are similar to people, so animals must be ideal test subjects. This is only somewhat true. Humans have some similarities to animals, yes, but it's the differences between humans and animals that can be problematic on both parties. In fact, even the species that most consider to be the closest to humans have major differences, making animal testing even more dangerous. "Even animals with greater similarity to humans, such as primates, have failed to predict what happens in humans. For example, monkeys treated with a therapeutic antibody (anti-CD28 monoclonal antibody TGN1412) did not predict the potentially fatal immune response that was triggered in humans. The scientific community has also recently concluded that research on chimpanzees, our closest genetic relative, is unnecessary and is being phased out. " [5]There are many factors for this. I'll use the chimpanzee for an example to compare to people. People and chimpanzees have different stance, strength, genes, etc. [6] On top of that, we have varying levels/different kinds of parasites and pathogens than chimps. [7] In other words, differences between just a human and a chimpanzee can prove to be very troublesome to work with. Imagine what can happen when we take rats, mice, birds, fish, frogs, etc. into consideration. The differences between a mouse and a human can go on and on. Because of the major variations, can we really consider other species to be reliable subjects? C. Drugs tested on animals aren't always safeThis contention picks up from my last. Because of how unreliable animal test subjects are, they can provide innacurate results. For example, in the 1950s, there was a sleeping pill called thalidomide that was tested on animals prior to it’s official commercial release. Little did they know that it would cause 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities. [8] Later on, the sleeping pill was tested on pregnant animals (cats, mice, rats, etc. ) and they didn’t experience any birth defects unless it was given in dangerously high doses. [9]Here's another example to hammer in my point. "Animal tests on the arthritis drug Vioxx showed that it had a protective effect on the hearts of mice, yet the drug went on to cause more than 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market. " [10]This can prove to be harmful to people, as unreliable results can seriously harm or kill people like in the examples above. In conclusion, animal testing harms animals, is ineffective, and can kill or harm people because of unreliable results. Thank you. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals. So long and goodnight! Citations[1]. http://www.peta.org...[2]http://www.hsi.org...[3]http://www.humanesociety.org...[4]http://www.independent.co.uk...[5]http://www.navs.org...[6]http://www.livescience.com...[7]http://www.yourwildlife.org...[8]http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk...[9]http://jpsl.org...[10]http://animal-testing.procon.org...