Animal Testing Is Unethical

Definitions:First off, it is necessary to properly define animal testing and ethical in order to avoid potentially having my well poisoned with inaccurate or unfair definitions. Animal testing - the use of non-human animals in research and development projects, esp. for purposes of determining the safety of substances such as foods or drugs. [1]Ethical - pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct. [2]I believe these definitions to be fair to both Pro and Con. Burden of proof:As the burden has been worded Pro is equating non-human animals with humans and assigning himself with proving people shouldn't be subjected to such testing. I agree people (humans) shouldn't be subjected to (non-human) animal testing, but that is not the subject of this debate. Pro will need to establish it is unethical for non-human animals to be subjected to testing and I accept my burden to establish non-human animal testing is indeed ethical. I hope Pro will forgive this minor clarification. Moral community Humans, all being part of the same moral community, take certain responsibilities towards each other and assume rights to protect themselves. For instance, fire fighters, police officers, and soldiers put their lives on the line to save other humans. On the other hand, non-human animals do not accept any responsibilities towards humans nor do they recognize the rights of humans. If someone were to doubt this, a stroll across the plain of the Serengeti or even through an animal enclosure at the local zoo would brutally demonstrate the mistaken thinking. It would be absurd to expect our aforementioned civil servants to put their lives on the line for beings which have never nor can they ever be beholden to human lives in the same way. To drag and drop animals into the human moral community is to give animals undeserved moral status and to devalue the notion of rights altogether. We may bestow rights upon certain animals, these rights should not outweigh those we claim for ourselves. A world without animal testing Without animal research - treatments, medicines, and procedures developed to save and measurably improve innumerable lives would not exist. This would include treatments for multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's, strokes, schizophrenia, depression, anxiety disorders, PTSD, medicines such as penicillin, the polio vaccine, or procedures including transplants and blood transfusions. Without animal testing countless humans would die. This becomes especially evident when considering the constant threat from incurable infectious diseases and the ease by which curable diseases can mutate to once again become incurable. While Pro and I may disagree about the necessity and benefits of a rodent in pre-clinical trialswe both probably agree a rodent in our kitchen is something to be concerned about. So, let us not forget this known vector of disease makes up some 95% of all animals used. [3] Without utilization of these creatures, humanity in its current population would not be sustainable. Additionally, misery and suffering would be more common due to higher mortality rates. On the other hand, rodents would still be thriving. According to a utilitarian view, a world where a few mice are sacrificed to allow for 200 million ‘non-deaths’ (a consequence of penicillin alone) is morally prefereable. [4] What's more, humans aren't the only beings to benefit from animal research. - animals benefit as well. Vaccines for rabies, distemper, parvo virus (infectious diarrhea), infectious hepatitis, anthrax, tetanus and feline leukemia have given longer, healthier (and happier) lives to pets, farm animals, and wildlife. There are even treatments for glaucoma, heart disease, cancer, hip dysplasia and traumatic injuries benefiting animals. [6] "[. .. ]animal-based research has been a part of virtually every medical discovery for the past 100 years, and that even in this time of rapid technological advances, animal studies remain a necessary component of scientific advancement today and for the foreseeable future. " [5 Alternatives to Animal Testing Why animal testing? Long story short - there is no complete alternative to animal research. Human cell cultures, computer models, artificial skin testing, microfluidic chips, microdosing, etc. - none of these alternatives, with exception of micro-dosing (which requires animal testing to determine what a micro dose is) are systemic tests. Non systemic tests are simply not adequate to replace techniques which reveal the delicate interactions between systems in a living body. They can be used to supplement and reduce the number of animals used, but they cannot replace the results that can only be yielded through animal testing. Some of these methods are simply not a viable alternatives (artificial skin testing) even overlooking their non-systemic nature. Some rely on technology that is not completely developed (microfluidic chips, computer models) or is simply not adequate in every situation (human cell cultures). Animal testing is here to stay unless we are prepared to let people die or suffer needlessly. Animal testing here is the US, are committed to the "Three R's": Reduce the number of higher species used. Replace animals with other models wherever possible. Refine tests to ensure the most humane conditions. Given that there is no complete alternative for animal testing, testing facilities have adopted the three R's in order to avoid needless suffering or death. With that, I conclude this round. I look forward to seeing Pro's rebuttal as well as addressing his arguments in the next round. [1] . http://www.dictionary.com...[2] . http://www.dictionary.com...[3] . https://fbresearch.org...[4] . https://speakingofresearch.com...[5] . https://www.amprogress.org...[6] . http://www.ca-biomed.org...