Question: Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing?

Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing. No,the debate is not only about ethics. All arguments are accepted because we want to reach a conclusion and we cannot take into consideration only the ethical side. Of course,we will talk about morality as the main reason why people oppose to animal testing is because they think that it is not right to use innocent animals to test drugs and other substances. Ok, to start with, I would like to mention what animal testing offers*: Improving the health and well-being of people. Improving the health and welfare of entertainment, recreational, sport, and service animals, and of animals used to provide therapeutic support. Improving the health, welfare and productivity of farm animals and other production animals Finding better ways to preserve, protect and manage a range of animal species (especially endangered and native animals) to maintain a balance that is ecologically stable and well adapted to the Australian environment. Developing more humane and effective pest control methods to protect endangered animals and plants from the species that threatens them and to prevent damage to the environment. Broadening the foundations of biological science,including our knowledge and understanding of life processes in all animal species. I think that we should use animals for scientific or commercial testing because: 1)Animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments: The California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals. [1] Experiments in which dogs had their pancreases removed led directly to the discovery of insulin, critical to saving the lives of diabetics. The polio vaccine, tested on animals, reduced the global occurrence of the disease from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 223 cases in 2012. "Without animal research polio would still be claiming thousands of lives each year",said Albert Sabin,developer of the Polio vaccine. Animal research has also contributed to major advances in understanding and treating conditions such as breast cancer, brain injury,childhood leukemia, cystic fibrosis, malaria, multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis,and many others, and was instrumental in the development of pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes,and anesthetics. Chris Abee,Director of the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center's animal research facility,states that "we wouldn't have a vaccine for hepatitis B without chimpanzees,"and says that the use of chimps is"our best hope" for finding a vaccine for Hepatitis C,a disease that kills 15,000 people every year in the United States. [2]2)There is no adequate alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system: Whenever possible,researchers do use non-animal models for research. Computer models, tissue and cell cultures,and a number of other non-animal related research methods are used today in biomedical research. However, animal testing remains a necessity. For example, blindness cannot be studied in bacteria and it is not possible to study the affects of high blood pressure in tissue cultures. The living system is extremely complex. The nervous system, blood and brain chemistry, gland and organ secretions, and immunological responses are all interrelated, making it impossible to explore,explain,or predict the course of diseases or the effects of possible treatments without observing and testing the entire living system of a living organism. In the meantime,scientists continue to look for ways to reduce the number of animals needed to obtain valid results,refine experimental techniques,and replace animals with other research methods whenever feasible. [1]3)Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing: The same methods that have been developed to prevent and treat diseases in human have improved thelives of countless animals. More than 80 medicines and vaccines developed for humans are now used totreat animals. Animal research has helped develop many animal vaccines to fight diseases such as rabiesand distemper in dogs and cats,feline leukemia,infectious hepatitis virus,tetanus,and has assisted in thedevelopment of treatments for heartworm. In addition,animal research has helped preserve nearly extinct species such as the California condor and the tamarins of Brazil due to new reproductive techniques being applied to endangered species[1]. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) endorses animal testing. 4)Animal research is highly regulated, with laws in place to protect animals from mistreatment: In addition to local and state laws and guidelines, animal research has been regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) since 1965. As well as stipulating minimum housing standards for research animals (enclosure size,temperature,access to clean food and water,and others),the AWA also requires regular inspections by veterinarians. All proposals to use animals for research must be approved by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) set up by each research facility. Humane treatment is enforced by each facility's IACUC, and most major research institutions' programs are voluntarily reviewed for humane practices by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC). All institutions receiving funding from the US Public Health Service(PHS)must comply with the PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. [3]Furthermore, animal researchers treat animals humanely both for the animals' sake and to ensure reliable test results. Research animals are cared for by veterinarians, husbandry specialists, and animal health technicians to ensure their well-being and more accurate findings. According to the journal Nature Genetics, because "stressed or crowded animals produce unreliable research results, and many phenotypes are only accessible in contented animals in enriched environments, it is in the best interests of the researchers not to cut corners or to neglect welfare issues. "[7] 5)The vast majority of biologists and several of the largest biomedical and health organizations in the United States endorse animal testing: A 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% "agreed that the use of animals in research is essential. "[4]The American Cancer Society, American Physiological Society,National Association for Biomedical Research,American Heart Association, and the Society of Toxicology all advocate the use of animals in scientific research.6)Relatively few animals are used in research, which is a small price to pay for advancing medical progress: People in the United States eat 9 billion chickens and 150 million cattle,pigs and sheep annually,yet we only use around 26 million animals for research,95% of which are rodents,birds and fish. We eat more than 1,800 times the number of pigs than the number used in research,and we consume more than 340 chickens for every research animal. [5]Household cats kill approximately 5 million animals every week in the UK-more than the total number of animals used in medical research every year. The UK consumes over 300 times more fish each year than the total number of all animals used in medical research every year[6] But why don't we use humans instead of animals? : This is something that almost of all us have questioned about. If we can use people instead of animals and have the same results why don't we try it? Some people believe that this is because we don't want to harm our species and we prefer to exploit animals as we are more powerful. But the answer is not that simple. First of all,animals have a shorter life circle than humans,so researchers can study the effects of treatments or genetic manipulation over a whole lifespan,or across several generations,which would be infeasible using human subjects. The more research that can be done in the shorter amount of time means that new drugs can be produced more rapidly. In addition,scientists can easily control the environment around animals(diet,temperature,lighting),which would be difficult to do with humans. Moreover,animal testing,particularly with rats and mice is very cheap in addition to testing with human beings who would probably need to be highly compensated. Finally,rats and mice breed very quickly which means that supplies can be replenished qickly. All the above contribute to a sucessful and effective research. Moreover,this claim is not right. Drugs are tested on humans,too. Animal experiments are not used to show that drugs are safe and effective in human beings. They cannot do that. Instead,they are used to help decide whether a particular drug should be tested on people. Animal experiments eliminate some potential drugs as either ineffective or too dangerous. If a drug passes the animal test it's tested on a small human group before large scale clinical trials. "(primates) are used only when no alternative approach can provide the answers to questions about such conditions as Alzheimer's, stroke, Parkinson's, spinal injury, hormone disorders and vaccines for HIV" Colin Blakemore,former CEO of the Medical Rsearch Council [6] SOURCES:*. http://www.adelaide.edu.au... [1]. http://ca-biomed.org...[2]http://www.khou.com... [3. http://www.aphis.usda.gov...[4]http://www.nature.com...[5]http://speakingofresearch.com...; [6]. http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk... [7]. http://www.nature.com...

Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing. I will argue that animals should not be used for scientific/commercial testing. I am rather on the fence on this topic myself so the results of the debate are of significant interest to me. I presume this will be a debate on ethics, correct me if not.

Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing. Thanks Pro. I. Plagiarism I don't have much to add on this, 95% of my opponent's previous round was copy pasted verbatim. I don't see such as acceptable behaviour, and most higher education institutions of state that text copied verbatim should at least have it enclosed in quotation marks and large quantities of such are discredited. One amusing thing to note is none of Pro's last round was plagiarised. Whether or not that is due to being 'called out' on her first round, or a kind fulfilment of my request is a matter of speculation. I'll leave voters to decide the rest as this is now non topical. II. Burden of Proof Please note this debate affirms two things: 1. Animal testing for pharmaceutical purposes 2. Animal testing for commercial purposes Remember, the burden of proof is on Pro, and she has yet to affirm the second contention, which is required for her to fulfil her burden of proof. Commercial purposes include food & cosmetics, and I made the assertion, and I maintain that these are simply not defensible. So immediately, Pro has clearly not done enough to win this debate. The defence of medical progress doesn't allow Pro to smuggle in the defence of commercial testing, even if her defence was valid and sound (and it's not). III. Animal Rights This is basically what the entire debate reduces down to. Pro has cited many reasons why the fruits of animal research has (at least pharmaceutically) benefitted us. I never denied this, the fruits of said research has positively impacted the well being of the human species. That much is obvious. That alone however does not affirm the resolution, that we SHOULD be using ANIMALS for this purpose. I have argued for a number of things so far: 1. By devaluing animal rights, we allow for the proliferation of negative rights 2. We value consent as a human right, and it is irrational to not expect this of animals 3. We have other, more ethical options, such as in vitro testing and human testing The most important one I will affirm is #1, and Pro's own sources back up my statements, with an already appalling treatment of livestock, with genocide levels of slaughters occurring on a weekly basis. This type of behaviour would not occur if we did not provide a special case for negative animal rights, when there is no rational reason to do in place of humans. Clear examples of this inconsistency are seen in laws and social acceptance regarding human cannibalism, beastiality, slavery and hunting. Pro has provided no reason why we should value Humans over animals, and I argue to do so is to commit the fallacy of special pleading. "As I've already said, we don't conduct animal testing because we want to devalue animals' rights. Conrary, the fact that we have strict laws that protect animals' well-being, the fact that we use alternative research methods whenever possible and the fact that there is no other way to protect us and animals from viruses show the oppoiste! " But there are other ways, and even if there were not, it would not make it ethical, and acceptable. Remarkably Pro follows up with the following statement: "I never said that animals should be tortured and exploited because they are not as powerful as humans, but we ,firstly, have to think about our own species. We have to find a way to face some viruses so that we'll not be extinct. " A few points: 1. The human species has existed for tens of thousands of years, and has yet to go extinct 2. No reasoning was provided to prioritise 'thinking of our own species', moreover why is human extinction such a bad thing? It just begs the question and assumes humans are intrinsically valuable. I argue that affirming such is absurd. Pro also appeals to the fact that animals kill each other, and would be brutal in our own shoes. My response is, so what? This is known as a "tu torque fallacy", and is irrelevant to this debate. Just because they would do it too doesn't make it right or just. Sheep will follow each other a cliff to their deaths, would it be right for us to do the same 'in their shoes'. Of course not! Pro fails to adequately address my points that we use humans in clinical trials anyway, so use of them in more stages is perfectly logical. Literally the only argument in Pro's (plagiarised) opening round that might carry some merit is that animals have a quicker life cycle. This is fine, but then we have a large population of humans to select from, so a high turnover rate is easily debunked by a large 'stock' of humans. There are almost certainly enough humans to do adequate testing upon, and they can also be bred for testing if absolutely needed, but we don't even need to go this far. Pro affirms that we do have good measures in place to minimise the need to use animals, to which I have the following points: Excellent, Pro affirms that animal testing is undesirable The fact that 'we're trying really hard' doesn't have any impact on the is/ought question that this debate addresses. The fact that we are trying our best to minimise homicides doesn't mean it's right for those homocides that do occur to take place. It is a red herring. Another point Pro makes is that medical research has improved the well being of some animals, to which I assert that the price paid in liberties is not compensated by a few animals not going extinct. In fact I fail to see why Pro values animals not going extinct, and I would argue that any animals that were saved from extinction where probably out in that position due to human influences anyway. IV. Conclusion In conclusion, I have affirmed two things: Animal Testing for commercial purposes is indefensible Animal testing for pharmaceutical purposes is unnecessary and immoral As such I hold that the resolution is negated.

Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing. Thanks Pro. I. Preface My case is mostly going to concentrate on the morality of the issue of animal testing. Virtually all arguments for and against animal testing are reducible to claims about morality and well-being. I take the position that they are both connected, and that the benefits if animal testing so not outweigh the negative effects that are resultant, and extended from the presuppositions of positive animal testing. II. Plagiarism I have never had somebody plagiarise against me like this in a debate before, and I am not sure how to react, but I think this warrants pointing out. Almost the entirety of Pro's opening round is plagiarised, copy pasted verbatim, from existing websites. I have nothing against paraphrasing and referencing, but this is literal word-for-word and easily checkable with google. Pro's sources: 1. http://animal-testing.procon.org... 2. http://ca-biomed.org... And Pro's opening contentions: 1. Animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments - Copied from Source 1 2. There is no adequate alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system - Copied from Source 2 3. Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing - Copied fro, Source 2 4. Animal research is highly regulated, with laws in place to... - Copied from Source 1 5. The vast majority of biologists and several of the largest... - Copied from Source 1 6. Relatively few animals are used in research... - Copied from Source 1 7. But why don't we use humans instead of animals? - Copied from Source 1 I don't like doing this, but it doesn't seem at all fair that sophisticated published arguments are pasted against myself. I could do exactly the same if I wanted and we would be left with a non-debate. It is not intellectually honest. With that out of the way, I expect Pro to construct and bring her own arguments forward for the next round, now I will present my own. For now I will present my own case and address Pro's arguments in my rebuttal rounds. III. Harming sentient beings without consent is immoral As humans, one of the most basic moral acts is to consider the well-being of other conscious beings. This is axiomatically true, and to deny this axiom leads to one's own self-destruction. With this in hand the argument becomes quite simple. It is immoral to deliberately impinge on the well-being of a conscious being Animal testing deliberately impinges in the well being of a conscious being C. Animal testing is immoral Note that this doesn't quite get us to the conclusion and also runs into issues of liberties and rights. But the argument remains valid and a Pro needs to contend this. We can expand the issue further, that if we have a society, or culture that sees animal testing as moral, then we devalue an animal's rights & liberties. We essentially deprioritize an animal's well-being over out fellow species'. However this is irrational, as we have absolutely no good reason to prioritise our own fellow species over another who has a measurable well-being. I would argue that it is within our capabilities now to generally have a say on what the state of well-being of animals are, given the research on depression, love, pain, and even addition have all come up with positive results.[1] Therefore, Pro needs to content there is a rational and justifiable explanation as to why an animal's well-being should not be prioritised as highly as a human's well-being, given that we know they have comparable capabilities of pain and suffering, and will also evidently value their own well-being. IV. Knock-On effects Let's assume we grant ourselves the right of our own well-being at the expense of animals, where does that leave us? Well, I would like to let Pro's own charts speak on my behalf, billions of chickens are slaughtered every year for food, along with millions in other livestock. Most of which are born and bred in captivity in conditions optimised for profit (and hence human well-being) at the expense of animals. An enormously disproportionate amount of suffering and negative well-being which is resultant of our own selfishness. Therefore, granting ourselves the right, and stating that animal research doesn't cost that many lives in comparison is a myopic way of looking at the bigger picture. All things considered, very uncharitable consequences would appear insignificant to us and place most of society in ignorance of what is occurring behind the scenes. Sound familiar? Yes, this is real. V. Alternative solutions/Perspective Medical research had made significant advancements, and hence in vivo testing in animals is far less 'necessary' then it once was. While an argument that animals are readily available for large scale testing might have had some credit in her he past, that same argument is no longer applicable today.[2] In vitro testing can go a long way to determining efficacy, toxicity and putative pharmacokinetics of a new drug, and for drug trials, human trials are inevitably necessary anyway. A drug that had passed through phase IV. trials (and this is viable for market) has been tested on hundreds of humans anyway. Given that drugs are necessarily tested on humans anyway, why not cut out the 'middle man' and go directly from in vitro testing to in vivo trials in humans? The difference between trialling in humans and on animals is that humans are capable of giving consent, and accepting the discomfort, and risks involved in testing. Moreover they are more viable for incentives, for undergoing the risks and inconvenience of trials, which gives a positive moral 'payback'. Animals in the other hand, simply do not have a choice in the matter, they are bred and forced to undergo testing against their wishes, much like our livestock and bred and slaughtered against their wishes. VI. Cosmetics/Medicines All of what I have said so far is directed at pharmaceutical testing, but the resolution also encompasses cosmetics and food testing. The same reasoning provided so far in this debate applies to cosmetics testing, except Pro simply doesn't have a leg to stand on in vested long term well-being interests. There simply isn't a moral reason to perform cosmetic & food testing on animals. It is Pro's burden to demonstrate this to be false. VII. Conclusion I am going to cut this round short, as I want to see Pro's genuine reasons for animal testing, given she has voided her entire previous round by plagiarising. Pease provide your arguments in the next round so I may provide a cogent rebuttal VIII. References 1. http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org... 2. http://www.neavs.org...

Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing. I believe that animals should be used for scientific and commercial purposes( animal testing). Con must argue against.Acceptance first

Animal testing should be banned. Animal testing is cruel and inhumane. According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and "killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means." The Draize eye test, used by cosmetics companies to evaluate irritation caused by shampoos and other products, involves rabbits being incapacitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for multiple days, so they cannot blink away the products being tested.The commonly used LD50 (lethal dose 50) test involves finding out which dose of a chemical will kill 50% of the animals being used in the experiment. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported in 2010 that 97,123 animals suffered pain during experiments while being given no anesthesia for relief, including 1,395 primates, 5,996 rabbits, 33,652 guinea pigs, and 48,015 hamsters. The Animal Welfare Act has not succeeded in preventing horrific cases of animal abuse in research laboratories. In Mar. 2009, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) found 338 possible violations of the Animal Welfare Act at the federally funded New Iberia Research Center (NIRC) in Louisiana. Some of the primates housed at NIRC were suffering such severe psychological stress that they engaged in self-mutilation, "tearing gaping wounds into their arms and legs." Video footage shows infant chimps screaming as they are forcibly removed from their mothers, infant primates awake and alert during painful experiments, and chimpanzees being intimidated and shot with a dart gun. In a 2011 incident at the University of California at Davis Center for Neuroscience, "three baby mice were found sealed alive in a plastic baggie and left unattended" on a laboratory counter, according to the Sacramento Bee.Religious traditions tell us to be merciful to animals, so we should not cause them suffering by experimenting on them. In the Bible, Proverbs 12:10 states: "A righteous [man] regardeth the life of his beast..." The Hindu doctrine of ahimsa teaches the principle of not doing harm to other living beings. The Buddhist doctrine of right livelihood dissuades Buddhists from doing any harm to animals.

Animal Testing Animals should, and must, be used for research because, animals are the only other living organisms that are closely related enough to humans to be able to test, animals hold the key to understanding scientific discoveries that impact human medical conditions, and the scientific discoveries found by using lab-test animals helps save lives and can improve the quality of life for many people. Humans must test drugs on "something" to see if it will work. That "something" should be a living organism. We can not test drugs in rocks, so we use animals. Some people ask why don"t we test drugs in humans? First, because testing drugs in humans is considered inhumane. The outcomes for drug testing is unpredictable and could have mild to severe side effects. Also, in many cases, the test animals must be monitored and kept in a controlled experiment. This would be hard to do for people with responsibilities to their families and jobs. Second, many drug tests fail, again causing harm or death to the lab animal. What seems more detrimental would be to use humans as test cases. Unfortunately, Nazis used humans as test subjects. That part of world history is atrocious. The inhumanity that the Jewish people endured in the name of science should never happen again. Author James Morcan writes, "The ends justify the means mindset has been the impetus behind many a cruel medical or social experiment" (Goodreads) Using lab test animals is the only way at this point in science to help advance medical knowledge and improve the quality of life for people without having to use people as test subjects. It is true that "More than 90 percent of basic science discoveries from experiments on animals fail to lead to human treatments"(2018, peta). However, the ten percent that does succeed are huge scientific discoveries. One huge discovery, for example, is Ketamine. Ketamine is also known as a brand name called Ketalar. This medication is used as anesthesia at the start of surgery and throughout surgery. Ketalar is a key medicine that allows surgeons to operate because it puts a person in a trance-like state, provides pain relief, sedates people, and creates short-term memory loss of the surgical experience (Wikipedia). When this drug was made it was tested on zebrafish. The scientists that tested this drug had tanks full of zebrafish; furthermore, within each tank, the water had different amount of this drug in it. If too much drug was in the water the fish "mutated." You don"t really want to create mutated humans, do you? Ketamine is now a life saving substance that when tested on animals had its faults, but that doesn't make it any less of a life saver. What would happen if scientists immediately stopped using lab animals as test subjects? Frankie Trull, president of the Foundation for Biomedical Research (FBR) has an answer for this. She says, "An immediate end to animal research in the U.S. would be a death sentence for millions of people around the world." If you have ever taken a drug for any medical reasons, you can thank the animals that had there life lost or had there life changed through these drug tests. For example, penicillin is an antibiotic medicine that has had a huge impact on society. Penicillin was discovered by research scientist Sir Alexander Fleming in 1928 who tested it on animals first to make sure that it was non-toxic to humans. Then in 1940, Sir Howard Florey tested penicillin on mice infected with bacteria and found out that the mice that were given penicillin survived. Because of what these two scientist discovered through these tests on lab mice, doctors are now able to prescribe this antibiotic to save people"s lives. Without penicillin and other antibiotics, the number of people dying from infections each year would be significantly higher. Drugs used for medical purposes change the lives of others for the better and can save human lives. Without animals to test drugs on we have two options. One, use humans as blatant test dummies. Or two, give humans drugs when necessary and get information off of their suffering. Animals must be used for research to improve our lives and the development of the human race because animals are a necessary test subject, animals are the key to scientific discoveries, and the scientific discoveries found by using lab-test animals helps save lives and improve the quality of life for many people. "The contributions of animal research to medical science and human health are undeniable... When the majority of scientists see the work as scientifically justified, and so do the many professional medical and scientific organizations, the expert views cannot be simply dismissed based on wild claims of ulterior motives, self-interest and conspiracy theories" (2017, Pro-con). We have been teasing animals since the ancient greeks (Wiki), so why stop now?

Be it resolved that, Animals should be used for testing. Greetings, I understand you completely, hurting animals in cruel and sick ways is something we do not tolerate in our society yet when it happens in laboratories it's suddenly justified. However, one must understand why testing on animals is a necessary evil. The strongest point I have to make is the health and safety of human users of new medicine, body products, and other chemicals which could potentially be dangerous when in contact with human metabolism. If we did not test our products on other live beings some side-effects could not be spotted and that could lead to a death of human users which is something that companies cannot allow to happen both for moral and financial reasons. Furthermore, human life is worth more than that of an animal, all live is equal but it's personal qualities that have worth in our world and human qualities surpass animal ones. Animal experiments are only justified if they provide a benefit that is unable to be gained by any other way.

Animal testing should be banned Should animal testing exist or not? When animals' protectors say absolutely no, other people, such as scientists say yes. It is hard to decide who is right and who is wrong. Using animals for humans' purposes started from the earliest times. Natalie Kustcher, (2010), explains, experiments on anmals existed even in antique times, Greeks and Roman used them for vivisection. After World War II the amount of medical experiments on animals increased enormously. Animals were used for lots of purposes: for medicine, biology, education and training of doctors, for developing new vaccines and drugs, also they were used for cosmetics. This situation caused many debates and controversies. Especially now, when we have various organizations which protect animals, this issue has become a hot topic for discussion. From one point of view people understand that we should care about animals. They say that testing drugs and other things, for human benefits is unethical. From another point of view people like doctors and scientist claim, that animal testing is a very important activity for science, medicine and whole humanity. If to compare who is better to be used to conduct an experiment, of course people will choose animals instead of themselves, even though they realize that animals are also important creatures in our life. However, testing animals for new medicine showed most accurate results. Millions of experiments, which gave different results, were conducted by a great number of scientists. What is interesting, the results of drug testing on animals are recognized as the most accurate. Of course there are some alternative methods which can only predict the reaction, but cannot guarantee human safety. In this case results got from animal researches are the most reliable. Jaime Harvey, (n. d.), gives an example of a successful testing Parkinson's disease on animals, which is have already saved millions of people's lives. Whereas computers cannot give accurate and reliable results. According to Jaime Harvey, (n. d.), animal testing plays a big and important role in medical development in the last two centuries. The proportion of successful results from animal testing is more than 70 %. Due to testing drugs on animals, now we have antibiotics and vaccines that have saved many people. Dr Jane Goodall . (as cited by Simon Festing ) says that, people got used to take all conveniences from life and forget, that all those depend on medical researches on animals. Antibiotics and anesthetics are possible now due to animal testing. As an example the polio vaccine alone saved many lives. In addition, the remedy that now saves thousands of women with breast cancer was developed through testing on mice. Moreover, nowadays treatment and control of diseases and sufferings are possible through animal research. Over 70% of Nobel prizes in medicine on inventing new drugs have involved the use of animals. Even such known and useful drug like aspirin, which controls pain, was created based on animal testing. For instance, before using animals for testing drugs, there was such bad illness like the Thalidomide. This disease infect pregnant women and in the 50's babies were born whether without legs or hands. The treatment for this illness was successfully tested on rats so today it is not a problem . Additionally we must take into account such fact that inventing of useful drugs like insulin, Tetanus vaccines, AIDS treatment are possible owing to experiments on animals. (Jaime Harvey, n. d.).All we know such illness like diabet. And as we know the cure to this disease, especially insulin was invented due to testing on dogs. So nowadays testing drugs on animals has become so usual that people forgot about origin of most remedies. Tanks to animals, currently, we have drugs to treat people and it makes possible to save millions of lives every day, every hour, every second.

animal testing. The most reason animal testing should be abolished is, we should respect animal.As you know, mankind and animal have one same thing, it is both are organism. The ultimate of reason that we are living is because, to enjoy our life, I mean to make fun with others. But how would you feel if you are trapped in a small room to used by others just because you're weaker than them? You'll said that it's unfair, because they don't even ask about your position. Some might said we shouldn't treat human and animal likewise. Anyway what I think like is this " If we are birthed in Earth, every organism no matter of their power, must treated same." Because, animals didn't choose to be animal, they didn't choose to be weaker than human, they didn't even choose to be laboratory animals. According to these reasons, I believe animal testing should be banned.---Source: http://animal-testing.procon.org...--- If you have enough time, I recommend you to read about--- Animal testing is cruel and inhumane. According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and "killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means." [47] The Draize eye test, used by cosmetics companies to evaluate irritation caused by shampoos and other products, involves rabbits being incapacitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for multiple days, so they cannot blink away the products being tested. [48, 49] The commonly used LD50 (lethal dose 50) test involves finding out which dose of a chemical will kill 50% of the animals being used in the experiment. [65, 102] The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported in 2010 that 97,123 animals suffered pain during experiments while being given no anesthesia for relief, including 1,395 primates, 5,996 rabbits, 33,652 guinea pigs, and 48,015 hamsters. [26]Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. In vitro (in glass) testing, such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used. [15] Microdosing, the administering of doses too small to cause adverse reactions, can be used in human volunteers, whose blood is then analyzed. Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and ThinCert, is made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and can produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin. [15, 50, 51] Microfluidic chips ("organs on a chip"), which are lined with human cells and recreate the functions of human organs, are in advanced stages of development. Computer models, such as virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures, can predict the toxicity of substances without invasive experiments on animals. [50]Animals are very different from human beings and therefore make poor test subjects. The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models for human beings. [52] Paul Furlong, Professor of Clinical Neuroimaging at Aston University (UK), states that "it's very hard to create an animal model that even equates closely to what we're trying to achieve in the human." [53] Thomas Hartung, Professor of evidence-based toxicology at Johns Hopkins University, argues for alternatives to animal testing because "we are not 70 kg rats." [54] Drugs that pass animal tests are not necessarily safe. The 1950s sleeping pill thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities, was tested on animals prior to its commercial release. [5] Later tests on pregnant mice, rats, guinea pigs, cats, and hamsters did not result in birth defects unless the drug was administered at extremely high doses. [109, 110] 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. [55, 56]Animal tests may mislead researchers into ignoring potential cures and treatments. Some chemicals that are harmful to animals prove valuable when used by humans. Aspirin, for example, is dangerous for some animal species, and Fk-506 (tacrolimus), used to lower the risk of organ transplant rejection, was "almost shelved" because of animal test results, according to neurologist Aysha Akhtar, MD, MPH. [105] A June 1, 2006 report on Slate.com stated that a "source of human suffering may be the dozens of promising drugs that get shelved when they cause problems in animals that may not be relevant for humans." [106] 95% of animals used in experiments are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act. The AWA does not cover rats, mice, fish and birds, which comprise around 95% of the animals used in research. The AWA covered 1,134,693 animals used for testing in fiscal year 2010, which leaves around 25 million other animals that are not covered. These animals are especially vulnerable to mistreatment and abuse without the protection of the AWA. [1, 2, 26]Animal tests do not reliably predict results in human beings. 94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials. [57] According to neurologist Aysha Akhtar, MD, MPH, over 100 stroke drugs that were effective when tested on animals have failed in humans, and over 85 HIV vaccines failed in humans after working well in non-human primates. [58] A 2013 study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) found that nearly 150 clinical trials (human tests) of treatments to reduce inflammation in critically ill patients have been undertaken, and all of them failed, despite being successful in animal tests. [59, 58] A 2013 study in Archives of Toxicology stated that "The low predictivity of animal experiments in research areas allowing direct comparisons of mouse versus human data puts strong doubt on the usefulness of animal data as key technology to predict human safety." [60] Animal tests are more expensive than alternative methods and are a waste of government research dollars. Humane Society International compared a variety of animal tests with their in vitro counterparts. An "unscheduled DNA synthesis" animal test costs $32,000, while the in vitro alternative costs $11,000. A "rat phototoxicity test" costs $11,500, whereas the non-animal equivalent costs $1,300. A "rat uterotrophic assay" costs $29,600, while the corresponding in vitro test costs $7,200. A two-species lifetime cancer study can cost from $2 million to $4 million, and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) spends $14 billion of its $31 billion annual budget on animal research. [61, 62, 63]Most experiments involving animals are flawed, wasting the lives of the animal subjects. A 2009 peer-reviewed study found serious flaws in the majority of publicly funded US and UK animal studies using rodents and primates. 87% of the studies failed to randomize the selection of animals (a technique used to reduce "selection bias") and 86% did not use "blinding" (another technique to reduce researcher bias). Also, "only 59% of the studies stated the hypothesis or objective of the study and the number and characteristics of the animals used." [64] Since the majority of animals used in biomedical research are killed during or after the experiments, and since many suffer during the studies, the lives and wellbeing of animals are routinely sacrificed for poor research. [65]Animals can suffer like humans do, so it is speciesism to experiment on them while we refrain from experimenting on humans. All suffering is undesirable, whether it be in humans or animals. Discriminating against animals because they do not have the cognitive ability, language, or moral judgment that humans do is no more justifiable than discriminating against human beings with severe mental impairments. [66, 67] As English philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote in the 1700s, "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" [66]The Animal Welfare Act has not succeeded in preventing horrific cases of animal abuse in research laboratories. In Mar. 2009, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) found 338 possible violations of the Animal Welfare Act at the federally funded New Iberia Research Center (NIRC) in Louisiana. Some of the primates housed at NIRC were suffering such severe psychological stress that they engaged in self-mutilation, "tearing gaping wounds into their arms and legs." Video footage shows infant chimps screaming as they are forcibly removed from their mothers, infant primates awake and alert during painful experiments, and chimpanzees being intimidated and shot with a dart gun. [68] In a 2011 incident at the University of California at Davis Center for Neuroscience, "three baby mice were found sealed alive in a plastic baggie and left unattended" on a laboratory counter, according to the Sacramento Bee. [69]Religious traditions tell us to be merciful to animals, so we should not cause them suffering by experimenting on them. In the Bible, Proverbs 12:10 states: "A righteous [man] regardeth the life of his beast..." [70] The Hindu doctrine of ahimsa teaches the principle of not doing harm to other living beings. [103] The Buddhist doctrine of right livelihood dissuades Buddhists from doing any harm to animals. [46]Medical breakthroughs involving animal research may still have been made without the use of animals. There is no evidence that animal experiments were essential in making major medical advances, and if enough money and resources were devoted to animal-free alternatives, other solutions would be found.

Animal Testing Animal testing is cruel and inhumane. According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and "killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means." The Draize eye test, used by cosmetics companies to evaluate irritation caused by shampoos and other products, involves rabbits being incapacitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for multiple days, so they cannot blink away the products being tested. The commonly used LD50 (lethal dose 50) test involves finding out which dose of a chemical will kill 50% of the animals being used in the experiment. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported in 2010 that 97,123 animals suffered pain during experiments while being given no anesthesia for relief, including 1,395 primates, 5,996 rabbits, 33,652 guinea pigs, and 48,015 hamsters. a. The Animal Welfare Act has not succeeded in preventing horrific cases of animal abuse in research laboratories. In Mar. 2009, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) found 338 possible violations of the Animal Welfare Act at the federally funded New Iberia Research Center (NIRC) in Louisiana. Some of the primates housed at NIRC were suffering such severe psychological stress that they engaged in self-mutilation, "tearing gaping wounds into their arms and legs." Video footage shows infant chimps screaming as they are forcibly removed from their mothers, infant primates awake and alert during painful experiments, and chimpanzees being intimidated and shot with a dart gun. In a 2011 incident at the University of California at Davis Center for Neuroscience, "three baby mice were found sealed alive in a plastic baggie and left unattended" on a laboratory counter, according to the Sacramento Bee.b. 95% of animals used in experiments are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act. The AWA does not cover rats, mice, fish and birds, which comprise around 95% of the animals used in research. The AWA covered 1,134,693 animals used for testing in fiscal year 2010, which leaves around 25 million other animals that are not covered. These animals are especially vulnerable to mistreatment and abuse without the protection of the AWA. c. Animals can suffer like humans do, so it is speciesism to experiment on them while we refrain from experimenting on humans. All suffering is undesirable, whether it be in humans or animals. Discriminating against animals because they do not have the cognitive ability, language, or moral judgment that humans do is no more justifiable than discriminating against human beings with severe mental impairments. As English philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote in the 1700s, "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" 2. Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. In vitro (in glass) testing, such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used. Microdosing, the administering of doses too small to cause adverse reactions, can be used in human volunteers, whose blood is then analyzed. Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and ThinCert, is made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and can produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin. Microfluidic chips ("organs on a chip"), which are lined with human cells and recreate the functions of human organs, are in advanced stages of development. Computer models, such as virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures, can predict the toxicity of substances without invasive experiments on animals. a. Animals are very different from human beings and therefore make poor test subjects. The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models for human beings. Paul Furlong, Professor of Clinical Neuroimaging at Aston University (UK), states that "it's very hard to create an animal model that even equates closely to what we're trying to achieve in the human." Thomas Hartung, Professor of evidence-based toxicology at Johns Hopkins University, argues for alternatives to animal testing because "we are not 70 kg rats." [ b. Animal tests are more expensive than alternative methods and are a waste of government research dollars. Humane Society International compared a variety of animal tests with their in vitro counterparts. An "unscheduled DNA synthesis" animal test costs $32,000, while thein vitro alternative costs $11,000. A "rat phototoxicity test" costs $11,500, whereas the non-animal equivalent costs $1,300. A "rat uterotrophic assay" costs $29,600, while the corresponding in vitro test costs $7,200. A two-species lifetime cancer study can cost from $2 million to $4 million, and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) spends $14 billion of its $31 billion annual budget on animal research.

animal testing I am against animal testing on both moral and scientific grounds. Morally, animal testing is often extremely cruel and completely unnecessary. For example, I once saw some undercover footage from a laboratory in which dogs were being force-fed weedkiller. Allegedly, this was to see how toxic said weedkiller was. However, it had already been tested on humans, and the dogs were being given 50 times what had been established as a dangerous dose for humans - what possible reason could there have been for this? It is nothing short of torture, just like pouring shampoo into an animal's eyes just to see what happens, or infecting it with horrific diseases like cancer just to see if a potential cure works. I find these sorts of things utterly repugnant. Scientifically, testing products meant for humans on animals is unreliable and potentially dangerous. Animals react differently to humans to many substances, rendering many tests pointless. For example, a contraceptive called Tamoxifen was once developed which was tested on rats. It worked as intended, and was given to humans. However, it had the opposite effect on women, actually increasing their fertility! There are many other examples, some of which had much more harmful consequences. You may remember Thalidomide, a drug given to pregnant women to prevent morning sickness. It had been tested on animals and declared safe for humans, but it caused severe deformities in many of the babies born after their mothers had taken it. A couple of years ago a drug called TGN1412 was tested on some human volunteers, and very nearly killed them - they were on life support for some time, and were left with permanent health problems. Prior to being given to these people, this drug had already been tested on monkeys at a dose 500 times stronger than that which was given to the humans, without causing the monkeys any ill effects. Aspirin causes birth defects in cats. Penicillin kills guinea pigs. 6-azauridine, a cancer drug which can be used in humans for long periods, will kill dogs in a few days in even small doses. The list goes on. My personal view is that products meant for humans should be tested on humans. It's the only way to know if they will work as intended, and we have the choice of whether or not to volunteer for testing - animals are given no choice, they are simply used and discarded like objects. They have as much right to live as we do, and the right to live that life free of pain and misery. As noted philosopher Jeremy Bentham put it, the central question is not "Can they reason?" nor "Can they talk?", but "Can they suffer?" And obviously they can. Our greater intelligence gives us a responsibility to protect other species, not the right to use and abuse them in any way we see fit - that should be abhorrent to any sentient, compassionate being. Poisoning, shocking, burning, and killing animals is all in a day's work for vivisectors. If these atrocious acts were committed outside laboratories, they would be felonies. But animals suffer and die every day in laboratories with little or no protection from cruelty. Here are the top five reasons why it needs to stop: 1. It's unethical to sentence 100 million thinking, feeling animals to life in a laboratory cage and intentionally cause them pain, loneliness, and fear. 2. It's bad science. The Food and Drug Administration reports that 92 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal tests fail in humans. 3. It's wasteful. Animal experiments prolong the suffering of people waiting for effective cures by misleading experimenters and squandering precious money, time, and resources that could have been spent on human-relevant research. 4. It's archaic. Forward-thinking scientists have developed humane, modern, and effective non-animal research methods, including human-based microdosing, in vitro technology, human-patient simulators, and sophisticated computer modeling, that are cheaper, faster, and more accurate than animal tests. 5. The world doesn't need another eyeliner, hand soap, food ingredient, drug for erectile dysfunction, or pesticide so badly that it should come at the expense of animals' lives. For everyday ways to keep animals out of cruel experiments, see PETA's list of surprising ways to help animals in laboratories.

Animal testing should be banned. Poisoning, shocking, burning, and killing animals is all in a day"s work for vivisectors. If these atrocious acts were committed outside laboratories, they would be felonies. But animals suffer and die every day in laboratories with little or no protection from cruelty. Here are the top five reasons why it needs to stop: It"s unethical to sentence 100 million thinking, feeling animals to life in a laboratory cage and intentionally cause them pain, loneliness, and fear. It"s bad science. The Food and Drug Administration reports that 92 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal tests fail in humans. It"s wasteful. Animal experiments prolong the suffering of people waiting for effective cures by misleading experimenters and squandering precious money, time, and resources that could have been spent on human-relevant research. It"s archaic. Forward-thinking scientists have developed humane, modern, and effective non-animal research methods, including human-based microdosing, in vitro technology, human-patient simulators, and sophisticated computer modeling, that are cheaper, faster, and more accurate than animal tests. The world doesn"t need another eyeliner, hand soap, food ingredient, drug for erectile dysfunction, or pesticide so badly that it should come at the expense of animals" lives.

Animal testing should be banned. All suffering is undesirable, whether it be in humans or animals. Discriminating against animals because they do not have the cognitive ability, language, or moral judgment that humans do is no more justifiable than discriminating against human beings with severe mental impairments. There are many prisoners set for the death penalty, why not use them?

Animal Testing for Cosmetics I love animals but it really comes down to the benefits outweighing the cost. We as humans use and are effected by many things. Testing on animals allows us to be able to test these potentially dangerous drugs and ointments that if proven safe can save more a significantly higher amount of lives then it put in risk. It also allows us to try and figure out how to treat or deal with diseases and vaccines a list of some of medical cures advanced by use of animal subjects include: Penicillin, Blood transfusion, Tuberculosis, Macular degeneration, Asthma, Meningitis, Kidney Transplants, Breast cancer, Parkinson"s disease, and Insulin. The sad truth is that without it we would be possibly denying advancement for treatment of horrible diseases. And yes they should be used sparingly not just subjected to cruelty for no good reason. IACUCs or the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and other similar boards looks to try and minimize this exact things for both medical testing and physiological studies if you are interested look up the IACUC protocol review in which you have to hit three major requirements to be approved for testing.

Animal testing should be banned First of all, I would like to state that I am new to this site. I extend my thanks to Daniyar for putting forward this stimulating topic, and accepting my input on the debate of this issue. I would also like to ask the community at large for leniency in view of my relative inexperience! As Daniyar says, this is both a contentious topic and there are few easy answers as to the right and wrong of it. I would first contend that to argue that a specific mode of research has previously provided vital and valuable information is meaningless in the context that most of this research has been undertaken with no other methodology available. Studies can be undertaken upon human cell cultures and engineered tissues, often at less cost than testing on animals. A company by the name of Pharmagene Laboratories in the UK utilises only tissue cultures and computer modelling in it's drug development and testing. (http://www.newscientist.com....) I put forth the argument that historically, animal testing was essential due to the lack of viable alternatives; the existence of this company shows that this is now no longer the case. Whether or not this is enough as a method to review a drug's effects on the entire system remains contested by those in favour of medical testing. The UK authorities and relevant boards however accept that this company meets stringent criteria for test safety. In short - I can be grateful to the animal tests of the past for the drugs they have provided us, without seeing a need for animal tests in the future. The next point would be to discuss the failures of animal testing. Animal physiology is not human physiology. The trial of TGN1412, an experimental drug intended to suppress immune system response, is a clear case in point. Despite extensive animal testing, the agent turned out to have an adverse and indeed almost lethal effect on humans (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Aidsvax failed to protect human test volunteers, despite protecting chimpanzees (http://www.safermedicines.org...). It has long been stated that animal testing can certainly be downright contradictory in the results it provides, as well as merely misleading. (Indeed, the previously referenced article highlights the uncertainty amongst UK medical professionals that animal testing indeed has clinical relevance). In Dr. Andrew Knight's 'The Costs And Benefits of Animal Experiments' it is stated that in a study of twenty randomly chosen cases, only two proved useful in further developing medicines and/or consistent with clinical trial data. Several additional reviews illustrated cases where adverse effects failed to predict negative effects through animal testing methods. (http://www.newint.org...) Then we may consider cost. The cost to rear, feed and maintain animal subjects is extremely high, as stated even by proponents of animal testing (http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...). Alternative methods are cheaper and thus less burdensome on the economy. In societies where governmental funding is provided for medical research, there is a corresponding lessened burden on the taxpayer. The ethical debate is also of primary concern here. No one would put forward the idea that testing on humans in the same manner would be acceptable. Yet animals evince 'intelligence' and quite certainly feel. Scientists have considered it possible to develop a universal intelligence test which animals could take (http://www.newscientist.com...) and have variously noted that even molluscs show signs of consciousness (New Scientist, 11th June 2011, p38 'A beautiful mind') and that signs of intelligence and indeed emotion are not wanting from animals (New Scientist, 2nd July 2011, p41 'Claws for Thought'). If someone were to put to me that a small number of humans should be experimented on for research purposes for 'the greater good', I would be adamant in my objection to the idea. The same argument still applies when referring to animals. Of course, I put my species and self-aware consciousness first. If there was a greater good to be achieved by harming animals , if animal research provided a humanitarian benefit, I would support it wholeheartedly. However, my previous arguments indicate that continued animal research is prolonging unnecessary suffering. It goes without saying that cosmetic testing on animals is completely abhorrent and unnecessary. The argument can be put forward for consideration that a great deal of continued experimentation exists because the structure of scientific society, even within ethical boards, is geared toward a psychological comfort with retaining familiar tests, rather than out of strict necessity. It can also be put forward that such experimentation continues because the traditional methods provide psychological comfort to scientists with an emotional investment in them, namely the avoidance of any discomfort they might feel if they were forced to concede that they had participated in acts of needless harm. These arguments are of course not possible to prove, but I feel they are nonetheless worth offering up for consideration. In UK law comprehensive regulations already limit the extent of permissible animal testing allowed in the laboratory, and is not acceptable unless it is believed that no other means of validating an experiment are available. In short, animal testing is already being phased out. It is my belief that as familiarity with new technologies increases and emotional attachments to animal testing falter, what would amount in practice to a ban would result in any case. Discussions of whether or not a complete, immediate ban is practical, I put it to the reader, are based on individual economic concerns with regards to jobs, as opposed to wider socio-economic concerns or research necessity. I conclude by reiterating my arguments as follows. Firstly, to congratulate animal testing on it's previous successes and therefore conclude that it is essential now is a failure of logic. Second, there exist viable alternatives to animal testing such that it is no longer a necessity for a commercial company to satisfy safety testing requirements. Third, the usefulness of testing with regards to the differences in animal and human physiology is in question amongst a large number of practicing medical professionals, and systemic investigations of such trials have shown that animal tests can be misleading and often do not go on to provide the same results in humans at clinical trial. Some indeed have proven harmful. Fourth, the ethics of testing on animals when they can be shown to have intelligence and awareness, if not equal to that of humans, is highly questionable when alternate methods exist. Fifth, there are arguments to be made as to the reasons for scientific 'clinginess' over animal testing in both review boards and the scientists offering up proposals for review. Finally, an immediate ban would not necessarily have a far-reaching negative impact in an economic sense, given the astronomical costs of animal testing as a whole. I respectfully submit these points for perusal, and await the response with interest.

Animals don’t have human rights To argue that “the ends justify the means” isn’t enough. We don’t know how much animals suffer, as they can’t talk to us. We therefore don’t know how aware they are of themselves. In order to stop a moral harm on animals we don’t understand, we shouldn’t do animal testing. Even if it were a “net gain” because of the results, by that logic human experimentation could be justified. Common morality says that isn’t OK, as people shouldn’t be used to a means to an end. [12]

Animal testing Save Animals: Don't Test on Them Animal testing is a huge controversy. Some argue that animal testing is a necessity to make medical breakthroughs. Opponents believe that animal testing is inhuman. Clearly, animal testing is a bad practice because it has caused suffering on a massive scale, it's a bad form of science, and is unethical. Throughout the world animal testing has caused suffering on a massive scale. In 2016, US Government statistics put the number of laboratory animals used in research at 820,812, a 7% increase from 2015 (PETA). Studies show that 4.1 million experiments are conducted on animals in laboratories in the UK each year ( National Antivisection Society). This is proof that laboratories have been on a rise lately, showing that the use of animal testing is a problem in other parts of the world, not only in the United States. Animal testing is a bad form of science. The food and drug administration reported that 92 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal testing would fail on testing on humans (PETA). After seven years of testing on animals the anti-Rheumatic drug, Orpen, was declared safe for use on humans. After initiation of use on humans, this so-called "safe" drug was responsible for killing 76 people and caused a very serious illness to 3,500 others in Britain (NewStatesman). Some feel that animal testing is a unethical form of testing. More than 100 million animals are killed in the US each year. Laboratories are used for biology lessons, medical training, drugs, and cosmetic testing. Before animals die, most are forced to inhale toxic fumes or they are also immortalized and stuck to multiple devices for hours suffering. Scientist from PETA announced that companies/ testing laboratories could put stress and suffering on animals by have drilling holes into their skulls, have skin burned off, or their spinal cords crushed (PETA). Studies have also shown that because of the torment of the experiments animals are deprived of everything that is natural and important to them. Animals are taken out of their natural habitat and confined in barred cages and are socially isolated, which is not helping the animals in any way. On the other hand, many scientists and companies believe that animal testing is the best form of testing drugs for humans cures. Those against animal testing feel this isn"t right, they feel that scientists should start testing on humans for their own cures because animals and humans function differently. Why make animals suffer for them to possibly die after the scientist are done trying to see if the drug worked on the animal? The animals are under unnatural testing environments and the scientists are doing this in a very unhealthy and unnatural way. There is really no thought out processes behind testing on animals. How do animals benefit from dying? Animals don't have any say in getting tested on in a laboratory. If companies and scientist started testing on humans it could lead to more cures found in viruses and diseases, because the testing would be done on the very being that the drug would be used on to cure the ailment. Testing on animals doesn't benefit from much. Yes, scientist do find cures for viruses and disease, but scientist are killing creatures that can't fight for what they want. Animals have no say in what is happening to them. They get put into a situation that they can't protect themselves from. Animal testing shouldn't exist because of the pain and suffering they make them go through just to find a cure that they could test on a human instead of risking animals lives in the process.

This house believes that animal testing should continue. Animals have been repeatedly used for testing such as in biomedical research before applying to humans. Proponents of animal testing would probably say that animal testing enabled the development of numerous life-saving treatments. However, I am of the view that animal testing is inhumane and can also yield irrelevant results. Therefore, animal testing should not continue.

The Use of Animals within Scientific Research Animals are not necessarily helping us because they have no choice to participate in the testings. Again, we are in an period of time where we have improved our technology and our lab work to create synthetic materials that could be used to test chemicals on. What also poses the issues of animal use if the way that they are being treated, and whether or not their living conditions are inhumane. Many animals that are being tested are placed in conditions that are unhealthy and will harm them, whether or not the testing itself is physically or mentally harmful.

Animal testing should be banned. A brief overview of animal testing: the inhumane practice has been around for thousands of years, back in the days of Aristotle and Erasistratus (roughly 300 BCE). Animals used most commonly in testing include birds, ferrets, mice, rats, rabbits, dogs, cats, and fish. You may have noticed that all of the aforementioned animals are frequently kept as domesticated pets. These animals are among nearly 25 million vertebrate animals[1] who undergo cruel testing procedures every year. These procedures include the testing of cosmetics and medical experiments, among other things. To exemplify the cruelty of these testing procedures, there is the Draize eye test. This test was developed in 1944 by John H. Draize, PhD, to test the level of eye irritation caused by various chemicals. [2] The test is frequently associated with rabbits, but has also been performed on dogs and nonhuman primates. [3] The rabbits, again most frequently used in the experiment, suffer from redness, bleeding, ulcers, and even blindness, and are likely killed upon completion of the experiment. [3] Anesthetics are not required--the rabbits are fully conscious as chemicals are forced into their eyes. The pain is often so severe and so excruciating that the rabbits struggle against restraints, breaking their backs and dying in agony. [4]The example of a rabbit is usually not close enough to home for most. Dogs, however, all. The furry, loving companions that gratefully lap up their food, wag their tails once we pick up the tennis ball, and curl up close to us at night are frequently kept in cold, stark research labs, going unloved and waiting in terror to be pulled from the cage and being forced to endure a painful and unnecessary experiment. In an appallingly cruel experiment at the University of Pennsylvania, puppies were bred to have a degenerative disease which culminates in total blindness. [5] As if this wasn't enough, the beagles, only three weeks old, then had their eyes cut out before they were finally killed. [5]An oft-heard cry from the masses is that these experiments are necessary. The suffering of these loving creatures, necessary? Alas, many are of this belief, the belief that, in over two millennia of animal experimentation, we still have a need to inflict unspeakable suffering on another creature. In these two thousand-plus years, however, we have created more humane alternatives to animal testing. Among these are stem cells and genetic testing methods, microdosing, computerized patients, and in vitro testing methods. [6] Many are skeptical of alternative testing methods, but fail to realize the additional benefits to alternative testing--benefits that go beyond stopping cruelty to animals. These include higher reliability than animal tests, greater accuracy due to the use of human tissue, a more cost-effective procedure, and a more environmentally friendly procedure. [6]The ineffectiveness of animal experiments cannot be denied. A staggering 92% of pharmaceutical drugs that are deemed safe after an animal test fail to pass clinical trials. [7] Of the 8% that do pass these trials, half are pulled from shelves, as they resulted in grave, even lethal side effects for humans. [7] An extremely poignant example of this was the 'invention' of the so-called cancer mouse in the 1980's. A human cancer gene was inserted into the genome of these mice--since then, thousands of cancer mice have been cured, yet we still do not have a cure for cancer. [7] In a German experiment, 51 applications for animal experiments that had been approved in Bavaria were analyzed in regard to their clinical implementation. Ten years later, the research team discovered that not one single project had been demonstrably implemented in human medicine. [7]To allow animal testing to continue is to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the suffering of the same creatures we welcome into our homes with open arms and outpouring affection. These animal cannot speak, and the human race has an obligation to give voices to the voiceless, and to help those who cannot help themselves. Animals are creatures who think and feel just as we do, and there are no circumstances under which they deserve to endure the cruelty and pain of experimentation. Sources [1] . http://www.humanesociety.org... [2] . http://www.aavs.org... [3] . http://www.aavs.org... [4] . http://massanimalrights.org... [5] . http://www.peta.org... [6] . http://www.neavs.org... [7] . http://aerzte-gegen-tierversuche.de...

Animal Testing EXTENTIONAnimals have a right not to be harmed The differences between us and other vertebrates are a matter of degree rather than kind. Not only do they closely resemble us anatomically and physiologically, but so too do they behave in ways which seem to convey meaning. They recoil from pain, appear to express fear of a tormentor, and appear to take pleasure in activities; a point clear to anyone who has observed the behaviour of a pet dog on hearing the word “walk”. Our reasons for believing that our fellow humans are capable of experiencing feelings like ourselves can surely only be that they resemble us both in appearance and behaviour (we cannot read their minds). Thus any animal sharing our anatomical, physiological, and behavioural characteristics is surely likely to have feelings like us. If we accept as true for sake of argument, that all humans have a right not to be harmed, simply by virtue of existing as a being of moral worth, then we must ask what makes animals so different. If animals can feel what we feel, and suffer as we suffer, then to discriminate merely on the arbitrary difference of belonging to a different species, is analogous to discriminating on the basis of any other morally arbitrary characteristic, such as race or sex. If sexual and racial moral discrimination is wrong, then so too is specieism. Animal research necessitates significant harm to the animals involved Animal research, by its very nature necessitates harm to the animals. Even if they are not made to suffer as part of the experiment, the vast majority of animals used, must be killed at the conclusion of the experiment. With 115 million animals being used in the status quo this is no small issue. Even if we were to vastly reduce animal experimentation, releasing domesticated animals into the wild, would be a death sentence, and it hardly seems realistic to think that many behaviourally abnormal animals, often mice or rats, might be readily moveable into the pet trade. It is prima fasciae obvious, that it is not in the interest of the animals involved to be killed, or harmed to such an extent that such killing might seem merciful. Even if the opposition counterargument, that animals lack the capacity to truly suffer, is believed, research should none the less be banned in order to prevent the death of millions of animals. Research can be done effectively without experimenting on living creature As experimenting on animals is immoral we should stop using animals for experiments. But apart from it being morally wrong practically we will never know how much we will be able to advance without animal experimentation if we never stop experimenting on animals. Animal research has been the historical gold standard, and in the case of some chemical screening tests, was for many years, by many western states, required by law before a compound could be released on sale. Science and technology has moved faster than research protocols however, and so there is no longer a need for animals to be experimented on. We now know the chemical properties of most substances, and powerful computers allow us to predict the outcome of chemical interactions. Experimenting on live tissue culture also allows us to gain insight as to how living cells react when exposed to different substances, with no animals required. Even human skin leftover from operations provides an effective medium for experimentation, and being human, provides a more reliable guide to the likely impact on a human subject. The previous necessity of the use of animals is no longer a good excuse for continued use of animals for research. We would still retain all the benefits that previous animal research has brought us but should not engage in any more. Thus modern research has no excuse for using animals. Some groups of people have less capacity for suffering than most animals It is possible to conceive of human persons almost totally lacking in a capacity for suffering, or indeed a capacity to develop and possess interests. Take for example a person in a persistent vegetative state, or a person born with the most severe of cognitive impairments. We can take three possible stances toward such persons within this debate. Firstly we could experiment on animals, but not such persons. This would be a morally inconsistent and specieist stance to adopt, and as such unsatisfactory. We could be morally consistent, and experiment on both animals and such persons. Common morality suggests that it would be abhorrent to conduct potentially painful medical research on the severely disabled, and so this stance seems equally unsatisfactory. Finally we could maintain moral consistency and avoid experimenting on the disabled, by adopting the stance of experimenting on neither group, thus prohibiting experimentation upon animals. Would send a positive social message, increasing animal welfare rights more generally in society Most countries have laws restricting the ways in which animals can be treated. These would ordinarily prohibit treating animals in the manner that animal research laboratories claim is necessary for their research. Thus legal exceptions such as the 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act in the UK exist to protect these organisations, from what would otherwise be a criminal offense. This creates a clear moral tension, as one group within society is able to inflect what to any other group would be illegal suffering and cruelty toward animals. If states are serious about persuading people against cock fighting, dancing bears, and the simple maltreatment of pets and farm animals, then such goals would be enhanced by a more consistent legal position about the treatment of animals by everyone in society.REBUTTAL Propositoin's only argument was that there were some medical advancements because of animal testing.They've stated:Think of all the great medical advances we've had in the past century or so. For pretty much every medical advancement in the past century, there's been an animal behind it. Let's just take a look at how far we've come just from animals alone.The University of Minnesota actually published a small, but not insignficant, list of medical advances due to animals, along with what animal was credited for the discovery[2]. I won't cover them all, but let's just get some of the highlights for the road:1990 - We developed more advanced organ transplant technicques thanks to dogs, pigs, sheep, and cows.1982 - We developed a treatment for leprosy thanks to the armadillo.1964 - We discovered ways to regulate one's cholestoral, thanks to the rat.1956 - We developed ways to perform open-heart surgery and invented pacemakers thanks to the dog.1954 - We made a vaccine for polio thanks to mice and monkeys1921 - We discovered insulin thanks to dogs and fish.It even goes back further than the past century, going all the way to 1881 where we developed a vaccine for anthrax because of sheep and 1796 where we developed a vaccine for smallpox thanks to cows.But why freaking stop there? Lets throw out some more discoveries from animal testing[3]. Breast Cancer? Animal research was crucial when we developed Herceptin and Tamoxifen, which help cure breast cancer. Leukemia? Testing on mice lead to the development of Gleevec, which is the first molecularly targeted drug against cancer, and we also use Gleevec to gastrointestinal stromal tumor (known as GIST) which was untreatable before it's development.Lung Cancer? Researching on mice is critical to understanding, preventing, and detecting lung cancer, as well as for developing new therapies for treating it. Heart Disease or Stroke? Everything from what foods to eat to minimze risk to the development of statins, a pill that helps control cholestoral and reduce risk for heart disease, come off of the back of animal studies.I could keep going, but I think I've made my point fairly clear: medical advances stop if we stop testing on animals.Responce: i. Animal testing isn't always the solution to these medical problems. There are various other factors needed to curing diseases. ii. There are alternative methods than to animal testing as instigated before.iii. Even if we accept the fact that animal testing helped in curing diseases, it doesn't mean that we have to stick to animal testing in the future, nor is there proof that animal testing will bring further advancements.iv. Proposition's most 'recent' example of animal testing used was back in 1990, meaning that there is not much significance in animal testing in the status quo. v. There is a major difference that my opponents is unable to understand: that there is a major difference from researching on animals and testing on animals. Animal testing implies the use of non-human animals in experiments.vi. Moreover, animals don't get human diseases, meaning that their logic is completely flawed anyways. This means that there is no use in testing on animals in the first place, as they are different and animal testing is proven to not work. In example, Artificially inducing stroke in animals does not recreate the complex physiology that causes the natural disease in humans, which may develop over decades. Animal stroke models don't usually include the underlying conditions, which contribute to human stroke. Artificially inducing in animals the underlying conditions that lead to human stroke does not replicate the processes that occur in humans.vii. In regards to physicology, animals aren't little humans.I will extend on my rebuttals/reconstruction later in my final speech.

Cost It has allowed for the advancement of science and new drugs to be developed (HIV Retrovirals and Cancer drugs). However, huge advancements in science came about from (awful) experimentation on Jews during WW2. Were these worth it? It should be the same argument for animals. Every creature has the right to live, dignity and a pain-free existence.

Animals should be tested on Introduction The status quo is that animals are widely and generally used to be experimented on with certain chemicals and products to find out if those certain chemical and products are safe and effective to humans. Thus, it is the burden of the Con to prove why this status quo should change. He must provide strong arguments supported by evidence and alternatives as to why his proposal should be accepted. On other hand, I will be defend the status quo by also providing good arguments backed by pieces of evidence. The proposal of Con is ambiguous as he fails to set the parameters of this debate as to what extent the ban on animal testing should be, whether it is absolute or not. Because of that, I would assume that it is an absolute ban that he wants. Rebuttals: a. Animals should not be tested on because animal testing is cruel and inhumane. Response: It is given that animals do experience cruelty and pain to some extent. However, the question is not whether they experience pain, but whether that pain is justified. I would say that it is justified because the benefits outweigh the cost. Take note that scientists inflict pain on animals not for fun but for research. Consequently, this research would greatly enhance both human and animal lives and welfare. (I would elaborate this later) b. A 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% "agreed that the use of animals in research is essential. Response: Con, thank you for giving this statistics that would support my case. c. Other alternatives to animal testing exists. Response: Living systems like human beings and animals are extremely complex. Studying cell cultures in a petri dish, while sometimes useful, does not provide the opportunity to study interrelated processes occurring in the central nervous system, endocrine system, and immune system. Evaluating a drug for side effects requires a circulatory system to carry the medicine to different organs. Also, conditions such as blindness and high blood pressure cannot be studied in tissue cultures. Computer models can only be reliable if accurate information gleaned from animal research is used to build the models in the first place. [16] Furthermore, even the most powerful supercomputers are unable to accurately simulate the workings of complex organs such as the brain.1 In short, those alternatives you stated are not as effective as animal testing. With your alternatives, it would only endanger the lives of humans for producing inaccurate results. Arguments: a. Animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments The California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals. [Experiments in which dogs had their pancreases removed led directly to the discovery of insulin, critical to saving the lives of diabetics. The polio vaccine, tested on animals, reduced the global occurrence of the disease from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 223 cases in 2012. Animal research has also contributed to major advances in understanding and treating conditions such as breast cancer, brain injury, childhood leukemia, cystic fibrosis, malaria, multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis, and many others, and was instrumental in the development of pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes, and anesthetics. Chris Abee, Director of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center's animal research facility, states that "we wouldn't have a vaccine for hepatitis B without chimpanzees," and says that the use of chimps is "our best hope" for finding a vaccine for Hepatitis C, a disease that kills 15,000 people every year in the United States. 2 Moreover, because animal research, many diseases that once killed millions of people every year are either treatable or have been eradicated altogether. Immunizations against polio, diphtheria, mumps, rubella and hepatitis save countless lives, and the survival rates from many major diseases are at an all-time high, thanks to the discovery of new drugs, medical devices and surgical procedures. According to the American Cancer Society, the fight against cancer has seen 24 significant biomedical advances in the past 30 years.3 Similarly, Animal research for animal health also has resulted in many life-saving and life-extending treatments for cats, dogs, farm animals, wildlife and endangered species. Pacemakers, artificial joints, organ transplants, freedom from arthritic pain, and vaccines for rabies, distemper, parvo virus, infectious hepatitis, anthrax, tetanus and feline leukemia contribute to longer, happier and healthier lives for animals. New treatments for glaucoma, heart disease, cancer and hip dysplasia can save, extend or enhance the life of a beloved pet, and new reproductive techniques are helping to protect threatened species.4 b. Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing. If vaccines were not tested on animals, millions of animals would have died from rabies, distemper, feline leukemia, infectious hepatitis virus, tetanus, anthrax, and canine parvo virus. Treatments for animals developed using animal testing also include pacemakers for heart disease and remedies for glaucoma and hip dysplasia. [] Animal testing has also been instrumental in saving endangered species from extinction, including the black-footed ferret, the California condor and the tamarins of Brazil. [Koalas, ravaged by an epidemic of sexually transmitted chlamydia and now classified as endangered in some regions of Australia, are being tested with new chlamydia vaccines that may stall the animal's disappearance. [The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) endorses animal testing. 5 c. Animals are appropriate research subjects because they are similar to human beings in many ways. Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans. [All mammals, including humans, are descended from common ancestors, and all have the same set of organs (heart, kidneys, lungs, etc.) that function in essentially the same way with the help of a bloodstream and central nervous system. Because animals and humans are so biologically similar, they are susceptible to many of the same conditions and illnesses, including heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. 6 Sources: 1 2Animal testing. URL: http://animal-testing.procon.org... 3 4 Trull, F. Animal-test research has saved many human lives. URL: http://www.mofed.org... 5 6 Animal testing. URL: http://animal-testing.procon.org...

Animal testing should be banned! Animals feel just as much pain as humans do. The only difference is that they do not have a voice. Millions of innocent animals such as dogs, cats, rabbits, and many others, die each year due to the gruesome torture of animal testing. Animal testing should be banned for its cruelty, inefficiency, and uselessness. The killing of harmless animals for human testing and research is malevolent. Many multi-product manufacturers, including Johnson & Johnson and Clorox, poison and abuse animals during experimentation that is not required by law. Approximately 1.13 million animals are tested on each year, and 76,000 of which are subjected to torture without pain relief. In addition to not receiving proper pain relief treatment, animals are locked up in undersized cages with no space to move around in without any toys. This action itself causes many animals to die due to loneliness and lack of intellectual and physical stimulation. Although Congress has passed the Unites States Animal Welfare Act to set a certain minimum requirements for humane treatment of nonhuman animals, it is still ineffective! The Animal Welfare Act excludes protection of mice and rats, which make up 95% of animals in laboratories. Though many consider them to be rodents and are worthless, shockingly, mice and rats have very similar nervous systems to humans, meaning they are able to experience just as much happiness, affection, and most importantly, pain. Aside from the brutality of animal testing, animal testing is also inefficient. Research of the importance of animal experimentation have shown how animal experimentation is unneeded, misleading, and does not provide comparable results to other methods. Studies of the Medical Research Modernization Committee have discovered that treatments effective in animals tended to have excessive side effects on humans. Furthermore, the Food and Drug Administration stated that 92% of drugs found safe in animals often fail during human clinical trials. In fact, Vioxx, a painkiller, had been tested in many examinations and found safe and even helpful to the heart. Consequently, Vioxx was withdrawn from the market in 2004 for causing 320,000 heart attacks, in which 140,000 were vital. Not only is animal experimentation inefficient, but it is also pointless. There are a significant amount of alternatives that scientists can and do use, and with the advanced technology we have, as of today, many laboratories have designed substitutes for living animals. For instance, Ceetox, a contract research laboratory, uses human cell-based in vitro toxicity while biotechnology firm, H?REL, created a three-dimensional human "liver" to study the breakdowns of chemistry. Also, researched of the National Cancer Institute and United States military have shown that Mat Tek"s three-dimensional skin tissue is a great replacement for testing cosmetics, weapons, radiations, etc. Though one might argue that human-suffering is our main priority and that it could possibly endanger human health by allowing products to enter the market before tested for toxicity, animal testing cannot determine whether it is toxic of not. Animals do not have replicate DNA to humans, therefore products tested on at present are still toxic for humans, even if claimed to have been safe on animals. Sciences have accelerated increasingly over the couple decades, giving scientists and researchers much technology for human safety usage. To sum up, experimentation on animals should be outlawed. It is inhumane, ineffective, and pointless. Being an animal is no different that being a human. Everyone is able to feel pain, but we everyone can also step up for the movement opposing animal testing and speak for the speechless.

Animal testing should be banned Hello! Thank you for accepting the debate! It is a big honor to debate with you! Your arguments are strong. However, there are another argument that animal testing is beneficial for us. Testing on animals it is important to mention that animal organs are the most adaptable to human body for transplantation. So it does not destroy a genetic structure, as a result we have various successful surgeries. According to Batul Nafisa Baxamusa, (2010), such surgeries like coronary bypass surgery and heart transplantation came to existence because of experiments on dogs. Furthermore, such serious diseases like polio, rubella, chicken pox can be treated and controlled by carrying out testing on animals. Moreover, Batul Nafisa Baxamusa says that, on DNA level, chimpanzees' body matches up with humans' in 90%. This big number facilitates successful surgeries and transplantations because of similar inner organs of chimpanzees and pigs with human's organs. According to University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), liver from baboon was successfully transplanted to a 35 year- old man in June 1992. This case was the first known transplantation from animal to human. In addition organs and genetic structure of such animals like rats, horses, dogs, mice, monkeys are similar to human beings, which can be also used for open heart surgeries and transplantations. As a result of animal use we have many saved lives. In spite of opinion that using animals for people's curing is wrong, we cannot deny that fact that annually millions of animals killed for food, they are used for agriculture, hunted for a pleasure of people and even euthanized. (Natalie Kustcher, n. d). So using animals for saving people's lives and treating them, by using their organs in surgeries, is not the worst deal. To conclude, there is a strong opinion that using creatures for experiments gives us more reliable results, however animal protectors like you think that it is a cruel and unethical thing. Advocates of animal testing say that, outcomes of testing on animals are the most credible. The proportion of successful cases goes beyond 70%. Moreover, such an important thing like testing drugs on beasts has saved and keeps saving millions of people. Due to experiments on animals medicine made a big step forward and found cure to some horrible, infection diseases. Besides, not only testing drugs, transplantation is also very important. Nowadays it is possible to make open heart surgeries, coronary bypass surgeries and transplant healthy organs to humans in order to save people's lives. Nevertheless you claim that using animals for humans' benefits is merciless and awful?! After examining all these given arguments it seems obvious that all debates on this issue will continue until opponents will understand all importance of animal testing in medicine and advocates will find the alternative which can replace them.

is animal testing ethical I. The major pro for animal testing is that it aids researchers in finding drugs and treatments to improve health and medicine. Many Medical Treatments have been made possible by animal testing, including cancer and HIV drugs, insulin, antibiotics, vaccines and many more. It is for this reason that animal testing is considered vital for improving human health and it is also why the scientific community and many members of the public support its use. In fact, there are also individuals who are against animal testing for cosmetics but still support Animal Testing for medicine and the development of new drugs for disease. II. Another important aspect to note is that animal testing helps to ensure the safety of drugs and many other substances humans use or are exposed to regularly. Drugs in particular can carry significant dangers with their use but animal testing allows researchers to initially gauge the safety of drugs prior to commencing Trials On Humans. This means that human harm is reduced and human lives are saved – not simply from avoidance of the dangers of drugs but because the drugs themselves save lives as well as improve the quality of human life. III. Biomedical research is a difficult process, to say the least. The human body is the most complex machine yet encountered, consisting of trillions of cells, each containing billions of molecules, many of which are composed of tens of thousands of atoms. These molecular machines perform their designated tasks with incredible precision, working within a stunningly interdependent environment, from the level of molecules communicating with each other over minute distances right up to entire organ systems interacting with one another. Biomedical researchers need tools capable of mimicking this level of complexity. The past century or so has seen an explosion in the availability of investigative tools – cell cultures, non-invasive imaging, computer models – these are all powerful techniques in humanity's arsenal in the war against disease and ignorance, but none of them fully replicates the intricacy of a living organism. IV. Without the ability to use animals in their research, scientists' efforts would be massively hampered, not only in the direct development of new treatments, but also in the fundamental research which underpins all biomedical knowledge. For example, it was Alan Lloyd Hodgkin and Andrew Huxley's work on the nerves of squid that elucidated the basis of nervous transmission; and it was John C Eccles' work on cats' spinal cords that first incontrovertibly demonstrated the nature of the synapse, earning him a share of the 1963 Nobel in Physiology, along with Hodgkin and Huxley. Without their work on animals, we would know far less about the workings of our own nervous systems and how to treat them.

Animal Experimentation for the benefit of humans. The fact of the matter is that to make advances in the field of medicines, animal testing is a must. Restraining or banning the testing by animal activists will not help in any way. It is up to us and all individuals belonging to animal organizations and medical research to ensure that the same is carried out in a safe, ethical manner causing as little pain and discomfort possible to the animal. If animal testing was to be outlawed then there would be very little scope of obtaining information that would be very necessary to eliminate suffering and premature deaths in both humans and animals. We are all animals...it just so happens that we are at the TOP of the food chain!

Animal Testing Finding the Cure Animal testing is used in the process of finding a cure for diseases but I wouldn't say that the cure for a disease is found just from testing on animals. The diseases get cured when they start using human trails and improving the drugs at the last stage for the best results. You said that "The alternatives to animal testing are not reliable", but most of the time is animal testing isn't reliable either. Furthermore once scientist start human trails, that is when they learn that some drugs that were tested on animals whether they have any effect on humans or not. In today's day and age there is more non-human testing methods being developed. Since scientists are able to create human tissue and have the actual human gene information I believe there is no point in going back to testing on animals. There are scientist who are working on human tissues and have created human ears and bladders through scientific experiments. If scientist enforced these techniques more than animal testing can become obsolete and not needed anymore. Technology The technology in this time is very advanced and can offer a great alternative to animal testing. Sure, using a computer might not be as good as using real organisms but it can help and reduce the amount of animals being tested on enormously. Computers can be an effective tool for conducting certain experiments and research. Technology is also advancing rapidly each year offering more and more reliable testing techniques. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is also a great piece of technology that can be used to help examine diseases through human scans. Negative Effects You mentioned that animal testing reduces the risks of negative effects that a drug can have on human but even after animal testing scientist don't know how the drug will affect the human body. There are many warning signs and side effects on almost every drug out there, so testing on animals doesn't take all of the negative effects away. Animal testing may even be the reason why there are so many side effects on medication nowadays. Unfair Treatment Even though animal test may reduce some negative effects and may reduce human suffering it still isn't right on many accounts. Animal testing is an unfair and excruciating process that innocent animals have to endure. You stated that, "We live in a society that values human life over the lives of animals". Which is very true but who are we to say that we are more important than other living animals? It's morally wrong to inflict pain on one species in order to help another. Just because animals cannot verbally express their emotions and feelings doesn't mean they don't have any or feel pain. The fact that these animals can feel everything that is being tested on to them through the experiments makes this whole issue unsettling. There are company's out there that don't need to be using animal testing but are anyway. The FDA doesn't require animal testing for cosmetics but companies are still killing millions of animals each year while they test there cosmetic products on animals. Researchers should be using more reliable test subjects instead. However, there are a few companies that do use non-animal testing to make sure there products are safe like Avon and Mary Kay. More companies need to realize what they are actually administering to the animals and need to try alternative techniques because they do exist and they are available.

Animal Experimentation for the benefit of humans. There are both practical and moral arguments for animal testing. On the practical side; Animal testing has helped to develop vaccines against diseases like rabies, polio, measles, mumps, rubella and TB. Antibiotics, HIV drugs, insulin and cancer treatments rely on animal tests. Other testing methods aren't advanced enough. Scientists claim there are no differences in lab animals and humans that cannot be factored into tests. Operations on animals helped to develop organ transplant and open-heart surgery techniques. Moral arguments include; Human life has greater intrinsic value than animal life. Legislation protects all lab animals from cruelty or mistreatment. Millions of animals are killed for food every year - if anything, medical research is a more worthy death. Few animals feel any pain as they are killed before they have the chance to suffer.

Research can be done effectively without experimenting on living creature As experimenting on animals is immoral we should stop using animals for experiments. But apart from it being morally wrong practically we will never know how much we will be able to advance without animal experimentation if we never stop experimenting on animals. Animal research has been the historical gold standard, and in the case of some chemical screening tests, was for many years, by many western states, required by law before a compound could be released on sale. Science and technology has moved faster than research protocols however, and so there is no longer a need for animals to be experimented on. We now know the chemical properties of most substances, and powerful computers allow us to predict the outcome of chemical interactions. Experimenting on live tissue culture also allows us to gain insight as to how living cells react when exposed to different substances, with no animals required. Even human skin leftover from operations provides an effective medium for experimentation, and being human, provides a more reliable guide to the likely impact on a human subject. The previous necessity of the use of animals is no longer a good excuse for continued use of animals for research. We would still retain all the benefits that previous animal research has brought us but should not engage in any more. Thus modern research has no excuse for using animals.[1] [1] PETA. 2011. Alternatives: Testing Without Torture.

Animals Should Be Used For Scientific Research Animals can further our understand of science vastly by experimentation, as well as save millions of lives.. Would you rather a albino rat die or a young girl with leukemia die? Most people (unless you belong to PETA which is another debate entirely) would prefer the girl.

Animals should be used for Medical Research Animals do not have the same rights as humans do, therefore it is acceptable to experiment on them. If we granted animals rights, all humans would have to become vegetarians and hunting would be outlawed. While animal testing is not pretty, a 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% "agreed that the use of animals in research is essential." A small amount of animals are used for progression in advancing medical technology when you consider that just the U.S. alone consumes 9 billion chickens a year, while only 26 million animals are used for animal research. Wouldn't it be considered a waste if we didn't use animals for research to help progress in Medical Technology?

Animal Testing A product is being tested due to no knowledge of how the product will affect what it is being used for. For example, skin products. There is no way of knowing if the product being tested on the animal will be safe or not. It is a big risk that can end in harm for an innocent animal.

Animal testing should be banned. The results obtained from animal testing are used to check whether a particular medicine or cosmetic product would have any side-effects on human beings. The body systems of animals are different from those of human beings. Aspirin is widely used for the treatment of fever, pain, inflammation, etc. in human beings. However, this very medicine proves to be toxic for mice. Most experiments are conducted on animals which cannot be a reliable source for predicting results on human beings. http://www.buzzle.com... Not only the effects but its very costly to upkeep these animals. There are many other methods you could use. Animals have hyeart beats just like us, why make them suffer?

Animal testing has significantly improved human welfare Past experience has shown what invaluable advances can be made in medicine by experimenting on animals, and that live animals are the most reliable subjects for testing medicines and other products for toxicity. In many countries (e.g. the US and the UK) all prescription drugs must be tested on animals before they are allowed onto the market. To ban animal experiments would be to paralyse modern medicine, to perpetuate human suffering, and to endanger human health by allowing products such as insecticides onto the market before testing them for toxicity.

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.

animal testing Of course humans lives have a big value. But nowadays there is a big progress in technology and there are a lot of new innovations. I think people should search for alternatives , because they are too dependant from animals. We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans. One more reason to support my point of view, is reduction of animals. The new studies show that each year about 115 million animals in the world used for experimental purposes. Keeping the number of animals used to a minimum is extremely important. As much we use as much we lose. The animals are the essential part of our life. They have played various roles; that of a friend, companion, benefactor, protector, comforter, and more. This world would be a very different place were its sole inhabitants humans

should animals be used for scientific research Because it is not possible to develop drugs or perform many different sorts of important scientific investigation without animal research. You wouldn't test on humans so the next best thing is animals, and i only think it alright to test on rats not endangered species.

The Use of Animals within Scientific Research Sure, we used animals in the past to understand the human body and to further our knowledge, but nowadays, they should not be used. We have other methods to researching. What about the animals that are being harmed? Should we then continue to use animals even though they are being harmed, for the benefit for ourselves? If we use chimpanzees to see ourselves in a third person point of view, then what is the point of naturalistic observation of humans?

Many experimental animals are killed before they have a chance to suffer. If animal testing were to be outlawed it would be impossible to attain the significant knowledge that is necessary to eliminate the suffering and premature deaths of humans.

animal testing For starters, Con's link is broken (for me, anyway), and it strikes me as probably being an appeal to emotion anyway.Even though I have plenty of rounds, I might as well write my case now.Argument:Contention One: Animal testing of products is beneficial for humansIt is clear that we realize many benefits from animal testing, especially for medicines. The Royal Society argues:'Humans have benefited immensely from scientific research involving animals, with virtually every medical achievement in the past century reliant on the use of animals in some way.' [1]There is no doubt that we realize great benefits from testing products on animals, as the development of antibiotics, insulin, vaccines for polio and cervical cancer, organ transplantation, HIV treatments, and heart-bypass surgery all involved animals. It is even claimed that 70% of Nobel prizes for medicine were awarded for discoveries that in some way was tested on animals [2].Without animal testing, there is little doubt that we would not have made much progress medicinally. Since humans have gained so much from animal testing, and the medicines produced from animal testing have saved so many lives and improved quality of life so much, from a purely utilitarian perspective it makes sense to continue animal testing for science.After all, if you could save a thousands of humans by experimenting on a few animals, wouldn't you?Contention Two: Animals have no rightsAnimals (using the term colloquially, excluding humans) are generally considered to be inherently less valuable by many and most. In fact, there are few who would argue that all nonhumans are deserving of rights. For instance, if you swat a fly that's buzzing around your house, are you morally condemnable? Do you really have any right to turn that bear out of your garage? You might claim it's your property, but how did you get that property? Was it immorally seized from the bear's ancestors? Does the bear in fact have more right to your property than you?From a nontheist persepctive, you can view rights as a series of contracts:'The best means through which we enable all people to pursue their own ends is through individual, hypothetical contracts that we make to not violate each others' ability to pursue ends. We constrain our interests if others constrain their interests so that we do not violate each others' autonomy. From these contracts, we create the basis of rights like life, liberty, and property. If we did not accept these contracts, there would be no reason for other people to do so either, and thus we could very easily violate autonomy and eliminate the basis for self-worth.' [3]However, we cannot form these contracts with animals. If I say to a tiger that's looking at me hungrily 'Hey, you know what would be cool? If we both decided not to harm each other. That will maximize happiness for the both of us!', that's not going to stop it from gulping me down. Since animals won't agree to not harm us, we're under no obligation to agree not to harm them.Conclusion:Since animal testing is beneficial to humans and we have no reason to recognize animal rights, animal testing should continue.Sources:1. http://royalsociety.org...;2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...;3. http://www.debate.org...;

Animal Testing I agree that animal testing has provided valuable information in finding vaccines and saving thousands of lives. However, animals should not be the cost of us trying to find cures/vaccines for HUMAN diseases. Animals were not put on this earth to be poked and prodded with needles at the sake of scientific advancements. Some are here to be companions to humans while others are to roam among the wild. "Humans are the only hunters who kill when not hungry." -Steven Spielberg. Right this very moment there are chimps being tested for HIV, but ironically enough, they can't acquire HIV. There is only one monkey who has ever died from AIDS, Jerom, and it was only because he was injected with three different strains of the virus which ultimately created a hybrid strain. Some people argue that "animals don't have feelings," but just because they can't talk to tell you that they're in pain, doesn't mean that they aren't. Animals can become happy, sad, depressed, etc. In his final months that Jerom was alive, he became severely depressed and frustrated. His "keepers" say that they would see him sobbing quietly and would even curl up in a fetal position to comfort himself. Does that sound like an animal that doesn't have feelings? Rodents are almost always the ones used in research, however, rodents are only 37% effective in determining the cause of cancer in humans. Flipping a coin would be more accurate. 95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately discarded as useless or dangerous to humans. An example would be the drug Vioxx, a drug to treat arthritis. It was found to be safe in monkeys (and five other animal species) but has been estimated to have caused around 320,000 heart attacks/strokes and about 140,000 deaths worldwide. So not only did the drug cost thousands of animal lives, but nearly a half of a million humans were impacted, and not for the better. If scientists want to find a cure/vaccine for human diseases, they should use willing HUMANS to find it, not poor helpless animals. I know animals can't talk, but I guarantee that is they could, they would be begging for freedom, pleading to be let out of the cages and released into their natural habitat. Despite what you might think, there are alternatives to animal testing. One that is catching the eyes of pharmaceutical companies is a device called "organ-on-a-chip." It's a microchip lined with human cells through which air, nutrients, blood, and infection-causing bacteria could be pumped. They are meant to mimic the function of human organs, which will be a huge scientific advancement. Not only can it eradicate animals from being tested on, but it will provide more precise and accurate information as to what happens to the human body after being injected with a potential drug. It's more accurate because it's using human cells and not animal cells. No more playing the guessing game when it comes to determining what will happen to the human body when given a drug. This alternative costs a lot less and will take a couple days to a few weeks for results, opposed to the months-years it takes for testing animals. 1. "Cruelty Free International." Cruelty Free International. Publisher. n.d. Web. 19 November. 2015. 2. Burrell, Teal. "Can We Eliminate Animals from Medical Research?" PBS. PBS, 7 Aug. 2013. Web. 19 Feb. 2016. 3. Moxley, Angela. "The End of Animal Testing." The Humane Society of the United States, 2010.

Animal testing for non-life-saving human products is unjust "Animal Experiments". BBC.co.uk. Updated August 17th, 2004 - "Animals are still used to test items like cleaning products, which benefit mankind less than medicines or surgery". Animal testing should only be conducted where it could potentially save human life. This is the only way in which the intentional harm and destruction of animal lives could be justified.

animal testing be banned Animal testing should not be banned. The use of animal testing is the only reason that we as humans have been able to make so many medical breakthroughs. We have horses to thank for the tetanus shot, and rats, mice, and monkeys for the polio vaccine. Rats are also to thank for one of the most effective breast cancer treatments in use today. Humans are the most advanced species on the planet; we are superior to all of the other animals, which is also taught in Christianity. If we cannot test on animals, then we must test on humans. However, that makes no sense at all, for human lives are more important than animal lives. Testing humans on their deathbeds would not work, because their body is not in an acceptable state for testing. Therefore, our only option is to test medicinal drugs and other products on animals.

Animal Testing is essential Animal research has played a part in nearly every medical advancement over the past decade. Nearly every Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine since 1901 has relied on animal data for their research. Modern painkillers, the tetanus vaccine, penicillin, insulin and many more drugs all relied on animal research in their development. Also it's not just medicine. Many people wear make-up, many people wear hair-styling products etc. All these different products rely on animal testing in the stages of manufacture, without animal testing these products would be unsafe to use. At current, there is no viable alternative which could completely replace animal testing in trials therefore making animal testing essential.

Animal experimentation in the context of medical science The main arguments of those opposed to animal testing (especially in regards to medical science) are: 1) Humans and animals are too different for results from animal tests to be extrapolated to humans. 2) Animal testing is morally bankrupt. It is not justifiable under any circumstances. 3) There is inadequate government regulation of animal testing. 4) Animals are exposed to unnecessary suffering. 5) There are alternatives to animal testing.[/spoiler] Arguments for: I, on the other hand, happen to support animal testing (in medical science) for these reasons: 1) "Humans and animals are too different for results from animal tests to be extrapolated to humans." While it is true that every species is unique, all mammals share commonalities (mammals are the most highly represented group of animals in medical science). This is because all mammals are descended from a group of common ancestors. In general, all mammalian bodies operate in the same basic way (eg. circulatory, vascular, digestive, endocrine and immune systems are all quite similar in mammals). Obviously, however, there are differences between species, but these tend to be at the level of the cell, rather than at the level of the various sytems. This is important because it is reasonable to then say, "Well, drug x poisons this animal. Therefore, it is unlikely to be safe in humans, however further tests should be done to prove this." Several examples of discoveries which were directly reliant on animal testing include genetic therapy for cystic fibrosis, immunosuppresant drugs for organ transplants, and electronic implants for deafness and immobility. 2) "Animal testing is morally bankrupt. It is not justifiable under any circumstances." True. Ethically, animal testing is largerly indefensible, except on the grounds of providing life-saving medical advances to human patients, which, to me, seems like a fairly good argument 'for'. 3) "There is inadequate government regulation of animal testing." While some activists claim that there is no regulation and that researchers are able to do as they please, this is simply not true. The Home Office in the UK, for example, administers extremely stringent laws regarding the use of animals in research. Other countries have similar guidlines. 4) "Animals are exposed to unnecessary suffering." Activists tend to quote slogans such as "STOP ANIMAL SUFFERING" "COMPANY X BRUTALLY TORTURES ANIMALS", while showing a picture of a badly treated kitty from 50 years ago. Obviously, there are areas of research which require the animal to experience some degree of pain, but this is minimised as much as possible. In most cases, animals are anaesthetised when undergoing painful procedures, and receive post-operative anaelgesia. Others will say that anaesthetics are not used because they are "expensive." Just as a point of interest, anaesthetics are actually rather cheap. Again, the Home Office (and other agencies in other countries) strictly controls the conditions animals are housed in, as well as conditions relating to scientific procedures. These conditions do need to be improved in certain less developed countries. 5) "There are alternatives to animal testing." There are alternatives to animal testing, and a lot of money has been invested in the area. However, it is ludicrous for activists to claim that all animal testing should stop because we have alternatives. Certain things can only be tested in a live model. Activists claim that we have computer models, cell cultures, and tissue cultures in which to do any and all testing. Research is done using these methods, in fact, most medical research does not involve animals at all. But, for example, measuring an immune response, or levels of inflammation following administration of a particular drug or procedure are only possible in a live model. It seems silly to point it out, but animals are not a beaker of cells, or a petri dish of tissue. Animals are a complex interaction of many systems composed of many different types of cells. it is impossible for any environment in a test tube or dish to mimick a living body. Indeed, even computers are not able to virtually duplicate a living body. To summarise, animal testing is not perfect, however it is necessary and, at the moment, is the best alternative we have to testing on humans.

Animal Testing does more harm than good In my opponent's Round 2 response, there was no discernable rebuttal to my arguments in Round 1. It even appears that my opponent actually took up my position, which I welcome.Again, I want to reiterate that I do share my opponent's passion about animal rights and do believe animals should be protected by modern laws. I also believe that animals that are involved in animal research and animal testing must be treated humanely when they're not enduring these kinds of potentially painful and gruesome tests; and I think the use of animals in experiments should be avoided where they can be. This is the subject of intense debate surrounding the biomedical research field and other fields where animals are tested, such as the cosmetics industry.Preclinical Trials (Animal Testing) Are an Inescapable First Step in the Development of a Safe DrugHowever, a lot of animal research and testing is unavoidable, especially whenever scientists have to examine whether a medicine or substance is safe for human testing. Animals are used in early trials of a new medicine or chemical (or cocktail of either) because scientists first have to evaluate likely effects before the substance is used in human trials. This is done not only to evaluate potential health risks with the new medicine or chemical--including risks of death--but also to get an understanding of how the substance(s) work inside the organism, to see which systems are affected and how. Understanding how these substances work inside the organism can likewise provide scientists with a critical understanding of how these substances are likely to work within a human. In other words, the efficacy and possible side-effects of the new drug are being determined as well (obviously). There's just too much risks in going straight to human trials, and we would see potentially thousands of human fatalities/casualties before these trials produced just one effective drug. The use of animals in biomedical research is an unavoidable first step if our aim as a nation is to prevent the loss of human life altogether. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), an agency of the US Department of Health and Human Services, has to first scrutinize an experimental drug tested on animals, and deem it "reasonably safe", before it can even approve it for clinical trials (human trials) [1][2]. In fact, the FDA reports on its website that "most drugs that undergo preclinical (animal) testing never even make it to human testing" or even to the review process, because of self-evident defects [1]. Could you imagine the harm caused to human subjects if animal testing was avoided altogether?Preclinical (animal) testing is so important to the drug development process and to the assessment of a drug's potential dangers and performance that most drugs aren't tested exclusively on a single animal type, but have to be tested on several [2]. This is "because one drug can affect one species differently from another" [2]. This is an important fact to know because "some animals serve as accurate representatives of a human's anatomy, while others share identical biochemical pathways" [3]. One animal might be a perfect representative of a particular human system or organ, while another more accurately reflects a human metabolic pathway. In most instances, the use of at least two or more species in preclinical trials can't be avoided, out of human safety concerns.That's not to say that researchers are at liberty to test on an endless supply of animals in these trials. They're not. The FDA explains that drug companies are required to test on as few animals as possible, and are still obligated to ensure their humane and proper treatment [2]. There are also federal laws within the United States that explain how research animals must be treated, and what the limitations of drug companies are with respect to these animals--something which I'll cover in a following Round.Some Animal Research also Benefits Animals!It's true that most research with laboratory animals benefits humans. But some animal research has also benefited animals. Animals could not profit from this research unless testing on laboratory animals happened in the first place!According to the Foundation for Biomedical Research, animal testing has led to "life-saving and life-extending treatments for cats, dogs, farm animals, wildlife and endangered species" [4]. Vaccinations for rabies, tetanus, feline leukemia, distemper, parvo virus and current treatments for glaucoma, heart disease, cancer and other animal illnesses would not be possible unless research was conducted on laboratory animals [4]. Because of this research, many familiar animals (and some wild) now have extended, healthier, happier lives. Such research has even yielded advanced treatments like joint replacement and pacemakers for animals [4].For a Following Round . . . Laboratory animals are also important in understanding potential bioterror threats posed by terrorists, and in researching possible vaccinations and treatments.[1] http://www.fda.gov...[2] http://www.fda.gov...[3] http://www.pro-test.org.uk...[4] http://fbresearch.org...

Medical testing on animals does more good than harm. Round 2Before I start elaborating on my second argument, I would first like to address my disappointment towards my opponent. Forfeiting is not the spirit of debate and I expect a better treatment than ignorance to my article that I spent effort on writing. On Debate.org, I have noticed some cases where no more information was posted after a concession. But I would like to proceed on elaborating my case regardless. ARGUMENTATIONEven if we decide to forsake morality and go for the practical measure, animal testing still should not occur for three reasons.Reason 1 (Inefficiency)Firstly, they are inefficient. Alternatives of animal testing cost so much less and take fraction of the time that the inhumane test takes. When an experiment is carried out on animals, obtaining of many difference species of sample animal is necessary, observation period is compulsory and replacement cost is considerable.Reason 2 (Inaccuracy)But are the results gained after such havoc and pricey investment accurate? They are poor. Results gained from animal testing obviously depict how certain substances affect animals, not humans. The effect on the substances on human is done by comparing the results with human tissues which is very inaccurate and archaic. Gordon Baxter, a scientist from a private experimenting company called the "Pharmagene Laboratories", once said, "If you have information on human genes, what"s the point of going back to animals?" Although words from Gordon Baxter are not the golden words, the quote in fact is very correct. When we already have so many samples of human genes, there is no purpose on experimenting on animals which is not even the ultimate subject to apply those experimental results on. Failure in discovering HIV/AIDS vaccines through animal testing would be a good example to show how animal testing is ineffective due to the difference of human being and animals. According to The National Institutes of Health, more than 80 HIV/AIDS vaccines that previously passed animal testing turned out to fail on human clinical trials. To give another example, a famous pain reliever Vioxx that was recalled on September 30, 2004 passed numerous animal tests but had a critical side-effect on human body. The drug increased the risk of blood clots. This fact was confirmed after five years of observation period (from 1996~2001) and FDA estimates that this drug caused death of 27,000 patients. Each year in United States, more than 106,000 people die from side-effects of animal-tested drugs and about 2.2 million of the population is seriously injured. Death due to animal-tested drugs is the fourth leading cause of death and this dilemma causes economic damage of 136 billion US dollars. To those who still are not satisfied with failure examples, here is a link that will please your dissatisfaction: http://www.vivisectioninformation.com.... The site lists 50 cases from US Doctors Group, of disastrous consequences caused due to misleading animal testing. The site also at the bottom of their webpage included detailed references for each and every case. Reason 3 (Ineffective & Purposeless)It is also very noteworthy that 92 percent of animal-tested drugs are rejected at stage of clinical trial and more than half of those drugs that survived clinical trial are removed from the market due to additional harms. Hence, animal testing has a failure rate of 96% and a success rate of 4%. There is absolutely no purpose in leading time-consuming, money-consuming, effort-consuming and life-consuming experiments when the success rate is merely 4%. The cost outweighs benefit in such a huge rate that the benefit is almost negligible. Reason 4 (Loophole Exploitation)But in some cases, companies also exploit such failures in animal testing. It is a general knowledge that cigarettes cause lung cancer. However, many cigarette companies use animal testing to deny the direct correlation between smoking and cancer. Because animal tests are very misleading, a deliberate attempt to misuse such data occurs. Because cancer cells are very unlikely and in fact difficult to reproduce in lab animals, the test results on cigarettes turned out to pose no threat. For some while smoking was considered to be non-carcinogenic. We all know that is completely false. Nevertheless, some tobacco companies exploit this misleading experiment and deny that smoking has no direct correlation with cancer. (This fact can be confirmed on Lancet, the world-class medical journal published on June 25 of 1977 pages 1348-9) This misleading nature of animal testing (that sometimes things are different when it is tested on animal and human) can be potential danger for further exploitation and by banning animal testing which is so immoral, problematic and inefficient in the first place, we can eliminate this liability. Isn"t that very practical as well? SUMMARY Other than being immensely immoral, animal testing also carry so much practical drawbacks. It is inefficient to begin with and also very inaccurate. At the end of the day, it is not only purposeless but poses a potential threat to the society. There is absolutely no purpose in practicing an outdated, obsolete and gamble-like technology when it can be replaced with something that is better in various aspects and moral.REFERECEShttp://www.peta.org... http://www.prijatelji-zivotinja.hr... http://www.vivisectioninformation.com...

Animal Testing Is Unethical Hello and I would like to start the rebuttal round Moral Community->While this is a valid argument, this can be refuted. While animals cannot show or "appreciate" human's rights, they are completely at our mercy. "The other animals humans eat, use in science, hunt, trap, and exploit in a variety of ways, have a life of their own that is of importance to them apart from their utility to us. They are not only in the world, they are aware of it. What happens to them matters to them. By insisting upon and justifying the independent value and rights of other animals, it gives scientifically informed and morally impartial reasons for denying that these animals exist to serve us."-Tom Regan. "The Philosophy of Animal Rights" "Even if we apply the notion of "dominion", and if we deprive animals of rights, the principle of "dominion" should be applied in a way that requires humans to see themselves as "stewards" of animals. As outlined by Matthew Scully in Dominion, humans should apply the principle of mercy to animals, which requires that they inflict no pain or suffering on them. He writes, "We are called to treat them with kindness, not because they have rights or power or some claim to equality but...because they stand unequal and powerless before us." -Dominion by Matthew Scully Con, if you were powerless before someone, would YOU want them to show mercy? A world without animal testing->However, these medical benefits are not due to animal testing. Humane Research Australia (HRA) reports that many discoveries made by non-animal methods were later verified by animal experiments, "giving false credit" to animal use. For example, HRA notes, "Ovarian function was demonstrated by physician Dr. Robert.T. Morris in 1895 in surgical procedures on women, yet history credits the discovery to Emil Knauer who reproduced the procedure in rabbits in 1896... [and] Banting and Best are often cited as having discovered insulin through animal experiments in 1922. However... the discovery of insulin dates back to 1788 when an English physician, Thomas Cawley, performed an autopsy on a dead diabetic." No complete alternative to animal testing-However, we could use the data already collected from animal testing to fuel these alternatives, which due to the irreversible effects of time we have. 3 R's-> R1-Con, does it matter what species is skilled if it is a sentient or sapient one? R2-Contradicting yourself. You said that the other alternatives where implausible, then, according to your argument, the 2nd R would be nonexistent R3-Here, I will give examples of testing conducted in the last 2 months Endotracheal intubation, a procedure in which a tube is passed through the mouth into the windpipe, is used on sick and injured children and adults who are experiencing breathing difficulties. Many cats, kittens, and ferrets are still tormented and killed in order to teach pediatric intubation to doctors, nurses, and others at a number of facilities across the country. During these training sessions, live animals endure repeated intubations by inexperienced students, and most are forced to undergo this trauma every few months, often for many years. Cats and ferrets often suffer bruising, bleeding, scarring, pain, chronic coughing, collapsed lungs, or even death . To determine the danger of a single short-term exposure to a product or chemical, the substance is administered to animals (usually rodents) in extremely high doses via force-feeding, forced inhalation, and/or eye or skin contact. Animals in the highest-dose groups often endure severe abdominal pain, diarrhea, convulsions, seizures, paralysis, or bleeding from the nose, mouth, or genitals before they ultimately die or are killed. The Draize eye and skin irritation and corrosion tests date back to the 1940s. In these tests, a substance is dripped into rabbits" eyes or smeared onto their shaved skin. Laboratory technicians then record the damage"which can include inflamed skin, ulcers, bleeding, bloody scabs, swollen eyelids, irritated and cloudy eyes, or even blindness"at specific intervals for up to two weeks. There is no requirement to provide the animals with any pain-relieving drugs during this prolonged process. The rodent carcinogenicity bioassay is a test in which rats or mice are forced to ingest or inhale a test substance or the test substance is injected into or spread on their skin. The substances are administered to the animals for up to two years before they are killed so that researchers can look for signs of cancer, such as abnormal cells or tumor formation. A 2002 review of existing data suggests a high degree of both false positives and false negatives when using rodents to predict carcinogenicity in humans For years, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) conducted so-called "wound labs," during which conscious or semiconscious dogs and other animals were suspended from slings and shot with high-powered weapons to inflict injuries for crude medical training drills. Sources: Peta.org DOD Onegreenplanet Nytimes Thank you, and I await opposing rebuttals

Animal testing Since he didn't really post a case of any kind, I'll just post my case and wait for his responses. == Case ==Before I begin, I want to be very specific about what I'm advocating for. I'm advocating for animal testing in the development of medical vaccines or additional treatments to benefit both human lives and animal lives. I do not support, nor will I advocate for, the use of animal testing for things such as cosmetic purposes. This one is simple enough: think of all the great medical advances we've had in the past century or so. For pretty much every medical advancement in the past century, there's been an animal behind it. Let's just take a look at how far we've come just from animals alone. The University of Minnesota actually published a small, but not insignficant, list of medical advances due to animals, along with what animal was credited for the discovery[1]. I won't cover them all, but let's just get some of the highlights for the road:1990 - We developed more advanced organ transplant technicques thanks to dogs, pigs, sheep, and cows.1982 - We developed a treatment for leprosy thanks to the armadillo.1964 - We discovered ways to regulate one's cholestoral, thanks to the rat.1956 - We developed ways to perform open-heart surgery and invented pacemakers thanks to the dog.1954 - We made a vaccine for polio thanks to mice and monkeys1921 - We discovered insulin thanks to dogs and fish. It even goes back further than the past century, going all the way to 1881 where we developed a vaccine for anthrax because of sheep and 1796 where we developed a vaccine for smallpox thanks to cows. Furthermore, the impact of animals in medical testing is incredible. The medical breakthroughs that have come as a result that have drastically improved the quality of life of both humans and animals. The road to a better life for both animals and humans is is through animal testing. Still explains[2]: "Biotechnology companies have depended on animal research to develop more than 160 drugs and vaccines approved by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration . .. Those discoveries have helped hundreds of millions of people worldwide and prevented incalculable human suffering. In addition, BIO has reported, animal research has led to 111 USDA-approved biotech-derived veterinary biologics and vaccines that improve the health of . .. animals. . .. Biotechnology has improved the way veterinarians address animal health issues through the use of biotech vaccines and diagnostic kits and improved breeding programs that can help to eliminate hereditary diseases. " == Conclusion ==I've shown that animal testing has lead to amazing breakthroughs, and continues to provide us with ways to not only improve the lives of humans, but the lives of animals as well. Getting rid of animal testing would be silly. == Sources ==(1) - . http://cflegacy.research.umn.edu...(2) - . http://theconversation.com...

Animal Testing should be allowed Nowadays, the topic of animal testing is often discussed. It is considered that animal testing is a major benefit and allows us, as human beings, to advance in our medical research. We should continue animal testing. We depend on these animals for our health. Animal testing allows us to advance our drugs. Would you rather sacrificing ten animals a day for ten million people any day or the other way around?

we need animal testing for the safety of humans Animal testing is the most humane way for scientist to make scientific discoveries, testing on humans could kill us for the benifet of others. Like an eye for an eye. Well remeber an eye for an eye makes the world go blind.

animals should stop being used as testing subjects Using the agreed question (from the comments), I am debating based on the following question: Be it resolved that animals should not be used for testing. I will be debating the Con side of this argument, however will not be debating that animals SHOULD be used for testing, but rather that it is not in and of itself immoral that animals ARE used for testing. I am using the following definition: Animal: a living, multi-cellular biological organism which derives nourishment through ingestion rather than photosynthesis, and which are spontaneously and independently mobile, and not a human being. I will use Round 2 to rebut Pro, and I will conclude in Round 3. Ultimately, the question of whether or not it is right to use animals for product testing is a moral one. As such, I will be arguing from moral grounds. So, given that this is to be a moral argument, why does man have morals if but to serve our values? What does a rational human being hold as their highest value or highest purpose? I would argue that the first principle of morality is to pursue man's primary purpose " that being survival of man qua man.[1] In other words, in order to survive as a human being ought to survive. In other words, the prime moral directive of a human being is to choose his actions, values, and goals, in such a way as to maintain and enjoy that which we value the highest " our own life.[2] Given that products which are tested upon animals are generally either necessary for the direct preservation of our lives (pharmaceuticals), or aid us in the enjoyment of our own lives (shampoo, soap, cosmetics). It is necessary to perform testing on living cellular structures similar to that of human beings in order to determine safety for human use. Given that necessity, it is therefore morally justifiable to use animals for testing purposes. 1) Ayn Rand, "The Virtue of Selfishness", p21 http://philo.abhinav.ac.in... 2) Ibid, p22

Animal testing The benefits to human beings cannot outweigh the suffering of the animals

The ends (human benefits) don't justify the means (animal testing) It is a common argument that it is dangerous and invalid for the ends to justify the means in society. This is often argued against utilitarian government actions that are performed with the intention of producing a certain desirable societal end, but whose means are unethical and violate human rights. Animal experimentation falls squarely into this ethical trap of justifying the ends (human benefits) by the means (animal testing). This is wrong, particularly because animals should enjoy many of the basic rights extended to humans, such as life and/or dignity. It is not acceptable to argue, "it's true that animal testing is really tortuous, but the human benefits justify it". Such utilitarian arguments fallaciously violate basic animal rights, and so can never be justified, no matter how great the supposed human benefits.

animal expirimentation Animals Needs to be Heard "If slaughterhouses had glass walls, we would all be vegetarian." ( McCartney). Not having animal testing would be unrealistic. But minimizing it could cause no harm. Technology gets better and better every day and could save many lives. Laboratory scientist should cut back on animal testing because it is harmful and deadly for them. By not using that many animals for scientific experiments humans could save more lives and not let animal"s lives to go to waste.26 million animals in the United States are used every year to do research. With that many animals being tested on many of them die or are permanently affected with all the dangerous chemicals that get injected into their bodies. Proponents of animal testing say many life-saving treatments for both humans and animals are very difficult to find. Many of these chemicals are never even approved for humans. At the same time many scientist believe that in order to cure diseases like Alzheimer"s a few animals should die if it is for a greater cause. "Animals do not have the cognitive ability or moral judgment that humans do and because of this they have been treated differently than humans by nearly every culture throughout recorded history. But we could still achieve great things without animals being affected. Equally important, our bodies and animals bodies are different. Something that can be harmful to a rat might not be for humans. 94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials. "Pick any drug you"ve heard of; it was probably tested on by rats. But there is significant room for improvement," (Ericson). Knowing that animals and humans are not perfectly alike humans should not put that many animals lives at risk. However many scientist believe that with a rats body being only 95% different then human that it is worth risking their life if that means getting closer to making it safer for humans by just adjusting a few things. Because animals and humans are so biologically similar, they are susceptible to many of the same conditions and illnesses, including heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. But even with all those similarities that doesn"t make it okay to risk their lives just for a lipstick. When humans cut back man should not use animals to be tested on for cosmetics but instead diseases but before they should be researched and for sure that it will not cause that animals excruciating pain or there life. At the same time technology gets better. "Advanced computer-modeling techniques can be used instead of animals in disease research, drug development and chemical testing" (Clippinger). This makes cutting back on animal testing that much easier. Also computer-models have already started to save millions of animals suffering from deadly chemicals. Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace animals. Besides technology there are options such as artificial human skin, which is made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and can produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin. But even with all these amazing new discoveries the need for animal experimentation will stand. Laboratory scientist might not be able to stop animal testing 100% but they should try to minimize on the amount of animals used. The world is changing every day, and if the future is getting brighter for humans by cutting back, humans could also make it brighter for all the animals as well.

Animal Testing My opponent made good arguments. My turn. :) Society: Animal Testing is just unscientific. You cannot replicate the exact results to humans. Apes and rats do share 99% of their DNA, but that means little to nothing it is still not 100%. Science needs to be 100% concrete to defined as science, therefore animal testing is unscientific. What does DNA similarity even mean? Bananas share 50% of their DNA with humans. Should we test on them? Of course not, that would lead to faulty results, just like how animal testing leads to faulty results. Humans share 100% of their DNA. Still, even with that, drugs react differently to everyone. DNA compatability does nothing to prove it's effectiveness. Animal testings does little to contribute society in the modern era. In 2004, a paper published in the British Medical Journal concluded that there was little actual scientific evidence that animal experimentation was essential to medical research. Experimenters perpetually attempt to justify the terrible suffering they inflict on animals by claiming there is a cure just around the corner, but decades of animal experiments on AIDS vaccines (more than 80 that passed animal tests have failed in people), strokes (150 treatments have worked in animals and failed in people) and other diseases have failed to deliver any cures for the millions of people who suffer from these conditions. That's because while humans and animals are alike in our ability to feel pain, fear, sadness, joy, and other emotions, we vary enormously in our physical reactions to toxins and diseases and in how our bodies metabolise drugs. Trying to apply the results of animal tests to humans is a shot in the dark. US Food and Drug Administration figures show that 92% of drugs which pass animal trials are later found to be unsafe or ineffective in human trials. Everytime humanity takes one step forward, animal testing takes us two steps back. Human and animal testing agree only 5-25% of the time, according to Huntingdon Life Sciences. Corneal transplants were delayed for 90 years and blood transfusions were delayed 200 years due to animal studies. The cure AIDS could've possibly already been found if it wasn't for animal testing My opponent says, the benefits of animal testing outweight the risks. I have posted a link that says 50 ways how animal testing has hurt humans. I would like my opponent to link a list that says 50 or more ways that animal testing benefited humans. 50 WAYS ANIMAL TESTING HARMS HUMANITY: http://www.healingcancernaturally.com... Inhumanity and animal cruelty: Animal testing harms animals. It's just plain wrong. Those animal suffer, feel pain and are lonely just like people do. Life in a cage or between four walls, doesn't sound like life it sounds like prison. These animals deserve to be with their family roaming free in the wild. They suffer fron stress and anxiety just like we do. The Animal Welfare Act is poorly regulated by the government. Alot of this cruelty and pain happens in private behind closed doors, which the government has no control over. Sure, there are many scientist who love animals and try to protect them. Though there are just as many or more, who beat and bash animals, who treat them like dummys and punching bag rather than a real life. Every year, tens of millions of animals are dissected, infected, injected, gassed, burned and blinded in hidden laboratories on college campuses and research facilities throughout the U.S. Still more animals are used to test the safety of cosmetics, household cleansers and other consumer products. These innocent primates, dogs, cats, rabbits, rodents and other animals are used against their will as research subjects in experiments and procedures that would be considered sadistically cruel were they not conducted in the name of science. This is fact, not made up there is plenty evidence that shows this. Just look up "Animal Testing" any where on Youtube and you will see the cruelty these creatures face agaisnt their will. Researchers claim that they must be allowed unfettered access to animals for experiments in order to find cures for human diseases, yet they refuse to address the serious ethical problems of torturing sentient creatures for research purposes. On top of that, over-reliance on animal experimentation has historically hindered scientific advancement and endangered human safety because results from animal research typically cannot be applied to humans. In fact, scientists could save more human lives by using humane non-animal research and testing methods that are more accurate and efficient. Proof Animal Cruelty Exist in Laboratories: "USDA Charges UCSF for Animal Welfare Act Violations" In 2005, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) charged the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) with 89 violations of the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). Instead of defending themselves in court and revealing their mistreatment of animals to public scrutiny, UCSF chose to pay a $92,500 fine, one of the largest ever levied against a research institution by the USDA. "Coulston Foundation Forced Out of Business" At one time, the Coulston Foundation had possession of an astonishing 650 chimpanzees almost half the population of chimpanzees used for research in the United States. Frederick Coulston was flush with millions in federal funding, as well as contracts with pharmaceutical, chemical and medical device companies, and was pursuing plans to become the sole source of chimpanzees for research in the country. They later closed, humiliated." These are just a few examples that cruelty exist no matter what regulations. Philosophy: Quoting one of the greatest peace maker in history. Animal life is equivalent in value to human life. Mahatma Gandhi - "To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. The more helpless the creature, the more that it is entitled to protection by man from the cruelty of man." My opponent mentions, the analogy of lions and gazelles. Yet animal testing has nothing to do with the "predator/prey" complex. A lion needs to kill a gazelle to survive. A human doesn't need to hurt a rodent, ape or dog/cat to survive. We survived thousands of year without animal testing. Animals don't exist to serve humans. In cosmetics, do we need more mascara? Did caveman use hairspray? Don't we have enough eyeliner? In medicine, it's not helping it's hurting us. Hurting an animal for experiments is like hurting a pet, which people would not do. People would never want their own pets tested; why other animals? People that have pets typically develop an affection and even love for their pets, and often believe that their pets return that love and affection. They generally believe that animals have feelings, express happiness, and feel pain and suffering at times. Most would never allow their own pets to be subjected to testing for most of the above reasons. Why then would they believe it acceptable to subject other animals to such testing; animals that have the same capacity for the above feelings? Cost: My opponent never gave a counter agument. All wasteful spending must be reduced. Animal testing is wasteful since it does little to nothing to help society. Alternatives: Ninety-four percent of animal testing is done to determine the safety of cosmetics and household products leaving only 6% for medical research! Animal experiments can be replaced by at least 450 methods known at this time, according to the scientific community. Cloning of human skin has already been done. Why are still burning animals? Antibiodies (Request) http://m.phys.org... Sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... http://www.vivisectioninfo.org... http://www.aboutmyplanet.com... Thank you. :)

animal testing throughout the history, animal testing has played an imperative role in leading to new discoveries and human advantaged. However, many people tend to forget the great numbers of animal have suffered serious damage during the process of those experimentations. So, my point of view is that animal experimentations should be stopped. Using animals is bitter, because they are living creatures like people and feel pain. the are a lot of facts and researches which prove it.

Animal Testing I propose that research performed using animals is justified and should continue. Animal testing is necessary for improvements in human medicine through understanding of genetics, development of vaccines and other drugs, and further research into surgical procedures and cures for diseases. To define the terms of the argument, I am defining research as both laboratory and non-laboratory experimentation which is designed to gain a general knowledge (ie. medicine, behavioral qualities, etc…). Research performed includes both living and deceased animal testing and experimentation. I am defining the term justified as being both warranted and well grounded. While this argument may be expanded globally, when focusing on welfare standards I will primarily focus on US regulations and standards. In recent years, genetics has been highly researched in animals. Genome mapping and subsequent testing has answered questions about gene expression, regulation, and genetic mutation. Protein function has become clearer after this research as well as drug interaction with certain bacteria and viruses which may infect a host animal. Genetics research is leading toward advancement in medicine which may be able to affect gene expression of certain disorders or genetic predisposition to certain diseases. Cancer research is one of the largest areas of genetic research; however many new drugs have been and are being developed from this research. Animal testing has also been critical in the development of numerous vaccines. For example the rabies, MMR, and polio all were developed with the use of animal testing. These vaccines are able to save numerous lives and are mass distributed. Without prior animal testing it is exceedingly unlikely that scientists will be able to determine certainty of long term effects of the vaccines and their safety for live patients. Simply testing the vaccine strains on cultures would not provide evidence of long term effects and the use of an untested vaccine on humans would be exceedingly harmful. Animal research is able to provide answers in the medical field that cannot be obtained through test tube experiments, use of cultures, or computer models. Testing on humans is restricted by the IRB and animals are the next closest models. Differences between human and animal models can be accounted for and still provide relevant results that can be applied to human medicine. Numerous medical advances in surgery and treatment have come about as of a result of animal testing. Organ transplants, by-pass surgery, chemotherapy, join replacements, etc… were all first tested on animals before they were performed on humans. Treatments for AIDS, tetanus, diabetes, and many other diseases and disorders were also developed based on animal research. On the side of animal welfare, it must be noted that research performed on animals is monitored by organizations including the FDA, USDA, and IACUC. While not all animals are covered under the US Animal Welfare Act, the act does seek to provide what has been noted as adequate welfare standards for many key species. Animal testing has led to many improvements in the treatment of animals. Veterinary drugs and surgical procedures are the result of such testing and nutritionally balanced diets for pets and production animals have been developed after this research. With this evidence, I find research performed on animals to be necessary and is therefore justified.

animals should stop being used as testing subjects Do all animals have the same rights as humans? Some but not all, animal rights activists believe animals have inherent legal and moral rights, just as humans do. According to this viewpoint it is unethical to use animals for any purpose, whether for pets, research, recreation, clothing, or as food. Animal use in testing is a huge controversial issue. Some believe animals have the same rights as humans and should for no reason be used as test subjects for research. Others, including members of medical and scientific communities say it is unethical not to use animals in research because animal experiments can lead to medical discoveries that improve the health and well-being of both humans and animals. Human health will not improve without animal experimentation. There is of course two sides to this issue. Worldwide, animals are used in numerous experiments which inflict pain and suffering to the animal. The first testing of animals started over one hundred years ago. Since then, animal testing has been a source of emotional conflict for humans. In 1966, the Animal Welfare Act took place. This was the start of the animal rights movement. Over the years, animal activists have become increasingly vocal and/or destructive. The ways in which animal activists try to get their message across to the public varies greatly. Some conduct letter-writing campaigns, others attack laboratories and harass scientists. One of these groups is the PETA founded in 1980 by Alex Pacheco and Ingrid Newkirk. PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The group works on a wide range of issues such as biochemical testing, cosmetic testing, dissection, factory farming, neglect and abuse to animals in pet stores, and through hunting and trapping, and the wearing of fur, and non-leather footwear. The PETA is not known to be a violent group. Instead it often pulls public stunts. For example three members dressed in rabbit suits and chained themselves to a flagpole in front of Gillette head quarters in Boston, Mass. to protest the company"s use of animals in product testing. The stunt was an embarrassment to the company. While PETA may be the most visible animal rights group, it is by no means alone. There are dozens of "rights" groups who pursue a more far-reaching agenda. One of these groups is the ALF, Animal Liberation Front. This group emerged in the United States in the late 1970"s and has claimed responsibility for destroying or damaging more than one hundred labs and farms around the nation. In a world of animal testing there are a wide range of tests. These tests are done for multiple purposes, from finding a cure for a disease to testing the harshness of a shampoo or floor cleaner. Many activists claim that animal testing is not only unethical but also often scientifically unproductive. "There have been some medical advances of course but the pay off is slight. When you"re doing billions of animal experiments, it would be a miracle if there weren"t some developments," says George Cave an animal activist. When Dr. Hamm was told what George Cave said, Hamm came back with a strong argument. He discussed how childhood leukemia, used to be a death sentence but now those kids get to go home. He also discussed Hodgkin"s disease and how it is now a treatable cancer when ten years ago it was also a death sentence. Another argument he stated was how we can treat some types of liver cancer today and the research that got us there was done on animals because it had to be. There are no other alternatives exist that could give us this progress. One species that humans tend to use often in testing because they are most like ourselves is the chimpanzee. They are used in different experiments. Because chimpanzees are more like humans than any other species they are popular subjects for the development of vaccines for prevention of hepatitis B, hepatitis C and onchocerciasis. Chimpanzees are the only nonhuman animal species susceptible to these infections (Prince 115). Animal Activists are against the use of chimpanzees b/c of the decline in the chimpanzee population. In approximately the past ten years the chimpanzee population of Gabon, containing some of the best habitats, was reduced by twenty percent. There is an estimate between four thousand and five thousand chimpanzees that exist worldwide in medical institutions, zoological exhibits, roadside menageries, and entertainment compounds.

Animals should be used for testing Many animal welfare groups stand strongly against animal testing claiming that they have rights just like our own, but would any of them actually lay down their life for their pet or favourite zoo animal? And if we did ban animal testing how else would we test our vaccinations and countless other crucial experiments?

It morally acceptable to experiment on animals for human purposes Contenton IV: Animals generally benefit from advances made in animal testing IVA: Animal testing has improved understanding of animals and their welfare. What is often overlooked in this debate is the subject of veterinary medicine. It is in the interests of animals themselves that experiments be done on animals to test medicines and surgical procedures for using on animals themselves, not just on humans. Animal experimentation can be in the interests of animals as well as of humans. Heart worm medication was devised from research on animals and has to day helped in saving the lives of many dogs. Animal research has also provided better understanding of cat nutrition and the reasons behind as to why cats live longer and remain healthier are better understood. Contention V: Animal testing actually helps in testing whether products are environmentally friendly. VA: No organisation can commission animal testing without being sensitive to understandable concerns about the issue in society. However, all responsible businesses have to ensure that their products are safe for their employees, customers, the wider public and the environment. New product developments have delivered many benefits to society, but they must be demonstrated to be safe. In the case of oil and chemical products, the use of animals for testing is required where there is no other way of establishing their safety. Although new testing methods have significantly reduced the number of animals used, animals are still needed for some safety testing. Contention VI: The use of animals in cosmetic testing is appropriate. VIA: The Food and Drug Administration approves of animal testing in the case of cosmetics. The FD&C Act does not specifically require the use of animals in testing cosmetics for safety, nor does the Act subject cosmetics to FDA premarket approval. However, the agency has consistently advised cosmetic manufacturers to employ whatever testing is appropriate and effective for substantiating the safety of their products. It remains the responsibility of the manufacturer to substantiate the safety of both ingredients and finished cosmetic products prior to marketing.Animal testing by manufacturers seeking to market new products may be used to establish product safety.

Animal Testing should be banned Testing animals shouldn't be banned. Testing animals helps identify things that are either harmful for humans or helpful for science. Animal testing helps us identify diseases and how animals act. Animals aren't usually killed or tortured during animal testing. It doesn't hurt animals, and it helps humans.

This house believes that animal testing should continue. I would agree that animal research has given humans great cure as described by proponent. I would agree that animal testing had a positive impact in saving human lives . However, it would be wise to note that given the great advances in science and technology today, it would be impossible to believe that there are no alternatives to animal testing. Point: Research can be done effectively without experimenting on any living creature As of now, there are methods such as growing and testing human tissue cultures rather than on animals. Hence, there is no longer a need for animals to be experimented on. We now know the chemical properties of most substances, and powerful computers allow us to predict the outcome of chemical interactions. Experimenting on live tissue culture also allows us to gain insight as to how living cells react when exposed to different substances, with no animals required. There have been many examples of success in research which does not require animal testing. Here are some examples: The National Research Council advocates testing on human cells rather than animals and the council also encourages companies to make the switch. One great achievement was the 3-dimensional model of breast cancer so scientist are able to study cancer in its earliest stage which allows scientists to test for possible treatment. Instead of using animals like rats to study cancer, the 3D model uses actual human tissue. Actual human tissue would well be a much more effective medium for experimentation compared to other animals which could provide a more reliable guide to the likely impact on a human subject. This could bring research to a whole new level. (References: https://academic.oup.com...) Addressing the proponent's point of sacrificing a rat would be better than a human, it would seem to me that a human have more rights than a rat. However, I feel that animals have as much right to life as human beings. Animals do behave in ways that can convey meaning just like a typical human. For instance, animals recoil from pain or appear to express fear from being tormented. If animals can feel what a human can feel, shouldn't they not be discriminated just because they belong to a different species? Like humans, animals are sentient beings. So, animal testing should not continue as animals have their rights too. Addressing the proponents second point about people are free willed. Of course, it is against human rights to test on humans. However, given the advances in technology as mentioned in the point made in the beginning, I believe there are better ways to do testing rather than on animals. To sum this up, I feel that animal testing should not continue given the fact that science and technology have been so advanced which provides us with much more testing alternatives as compared to in the past, where science and technology are more backward. Animals have as much right to life as human beings and given the fact that there are other alternatives, people could make a much better choice that would allow us to reap a greater benefits.

Animals should be used for testing Yes, it is true that it would be better for an animal to die than a human. However, the reason I am against animal testing is its inefficiency and lack of necessity. We have more effective, alternative methods than causing the suffering of fellow mammals. The saddest part is that we have to use animals that are similar enough to humans that it may work, so we use creatures with an actual form of consciousness, versus, say, a lizard. https://www.neavs.org...

This house will ban animal testing I will now rebut them one by one and proceed onto my own case. REBUTTALSR1) "Animals have the right not to be harmed"My rebuttal is simply that animals do NOT have such a right, and this can be proven in two ways. Firstly, a "right" is essentially a social contract, whereby two parties are guaranteed equal entitlement to said right given that neither party infringes on the rights and privileges of the other party. This is known as a quid pro quo - a world where I give you the right to speak without restrictions so long as you allow me to express my ideas freely as well. Animals do not have the intellectual capacity to assure humans that they will not inflict harm on us under the premise that we promise to leave them unscathed. This does not fulfill the quid pro quo specification and thus does not constitute the right for animals not to be harmed. Secondly, let us analyse the nature of what rights really are. "Natural law" is synonymous with the birth of the concept of rights, in association with the fact that rights are a set of unwritten rules that people tend to follow, not because of any constitutional incentive or restriction, but rather because people are instinctively inclined to based off of their moral conscience [1]. In other words, rights are self-recognised and self-authorised. Whether the animal kingdom implements and exercises a system of rights is something that we humans do not know. In the face of such uncertainty, simply imposing the idea that animals inherently have rights without knowing whether or not the animals themselves observe the idea of 'rights' to begin with is an ill-founded and hollow claim. Even if we grant PRO his argument and argue this debate under the precondition that animals do have rights, we still do not see how this warrants a ban on animal testing. Rights are sometimes contradictory, and in the event that they are, some rights will need to be overridden in order for at least one right to be exercised. Animals have the right not to be harmed, but humans also have the right to access to means of ensuring adequate quality of life, including access to decent healthcare (Article 25 of UNUDHR) [2]. It is upon PRO to justify why animal rights should override human rights under the proposition that animal rights are in fact beneficial to humanity, which PRO does not deny. R2) "Animal research necessitates significant harm to the animals"PRO deviated from his/her argument and instead went on to talk about how there are other medical alternatives to animal testing. The only relevant assertion he/she made was that "it is morally wrong" which has yet to be substantiated. I will address this in my second substantive. The argument that animal research necessitates significant harm relies on the previous argument about how animals have the right not to be harmed to stand. Even if we ignore my rebuttal and assume that it stands, we still see that animal research does not equate to harm to the animals involved. Animal test subjects are kept in good health condition as that facilitates the derivation of accurate test results, and should the testing physically harm or kill the animal, painkillers and harmless euthanasia are used respectively [3]. PRO needs to prove to us that ALL animal testing methods, by nature, harm animals (which he/she has not done) in order for the motion to stand. Even if we disregard this and assume ALL methods of animal research do end in pain for the animals, we can draw a parallel with other activities that administer pain for the animals involved. The consumption of meat, for instance, is indisputably painful for the animal, but that does not justify an outright ban on meat consumption. In other words, there is a gap that needs to be bridged between "activities that are harmful to animals" and banning these activities. R3) "Is it acceptable? "PRO tries to pull the pathos card by getting us to empathise with the experience of going through animal research in the eyes of an animal. A criminal could easily do the same by getting their prosecutors to step into their shoes in the hopes of showing them the cruelties of prison life so that they can be set free. We all agree that being harmed is not exactly enjoyable, but PRO has yet to tie that in with the question of moral acceptability (which was ironically the title of his/her point). SUBSTANTIVESP1) In essence, animal testing is just another way of humans utilising our intelligence to our advantageMuch like how humans hunt to eat or hunt for the furs of animals for clothing, animal testing is simply another form of human intelligence in action. We hunt for food to sustain our lives, and we test on animals so that we can advance our knowledge on diseases and cures to save the lives of many that are vulnerable to lethal diseases, and prevent others from contracting said diseases and putting their lives at risk to begin with. Both are done with the goal of survival in mind, and there is no principle discrepancy between the two. To argue that animal testing is wrong principle-wise is to argue that the practices that contributed to the longevity of humans as a species is also wrong in principle. PRO, then, must either distinguish between said practices and animal testing by nature, or argue why both are wrong altogether in order for his case to be morally consistent. P2) Animal testing is only used when other alternatives are inadequateIt is important to note that animal testing is considerably more expensive than other forms of medical research and involve a lot more bureaucratic paperwork, hence it makes all the more sense for researchers to opt for methods other than animal testing whenever possible. However, the fact of the matter is, animal research is a commonplace in the field of biological studies, indicating that researchers are choosing to test on animals purely based on its statistical and informational merit. There is some truth to this. Computer testing, by way of illustration, may suffice when one wishes to perform basic tests on cell lines, but it is a daunting task, to say the least, for even the most advanced of computers to account for the dynamic elements of a disease or a product. The biological configuration of the human, or the animal for that matter, are extremely complex in the sense that all of its biological mechanisms (nervous system, endocrine system, immune system) are intertwined and interdependent. The relationships between these systems and how they directly and/or inversely affect one another is something that, at present, cannot be factored into consideration by computer research or isolated samples of human/animal remains. Contrarily, the DNA of chimpanzees and mice are approximately 99% and 98% identical to that of humans respectively, making them susceptible to many of the conditional phenomenon of the human body [4]. To quantify the magnitude of the challenge of replacing animal testing with other methods, the world's fastest supercomputer was employed to conduct a simulation of just half a mouse's brain, not to mention that the results were far from perfect - the computer was only capable of running the test for ten seconds at a speed ten times slower than the rate at which a mouse brain functions. Even the computer itself was only made possible by the knowledge and findings derived from animal testing [5]. P3) Animal testing has the potential to benefit both humanity and the animalMany tend to stumble into this debate under the assumption that animal testing only exists to fulfill the interests of humans and that the consequences, whether they be intentional or unforeseen, only benefit the human side of this matter. This is far from the truth. Many advances in medical science that were originally aimed at protecting the welfare of humans have now made their way into many veterinary practices. One such example is the pacemaker, which, initially implanted into the cardiovascular systems of dogs in 1967, now sees its application to be for both humans and cardiovascularly challenged household pets. Similar stories can be said for gum disease, sight impairment, and premature birth [6]. Additionally, animal testing as an entity has now matured and familiarised itself with the medical industry so much so that it is not uncommon to see scientists conduct tests on animals for the purpose of bettering the lives of the animals themselves. Vaccines have been developed in recent years that target animal-exclusive diseases including distemper, rabies, canine parvovirus, and feline leukemia. With a more in-depth understanding of animal illnesses and the biological workings of said animals, biologists are now more successful than ever in their attempts to preserve biodiversity and minimises extinction rates through means such as artificial insemination and embryo transfer [7]. What all of this means is that in any plausible scenario, animal testing does not jeopardise the animals, if not benefit them. Animal testing may not impact the animal in any way, or it may benefit the animal in cases of human and animal-oriented testing. SOURCES USED[1] . http://www.humanrights.com...[2] . http://www.un.org...[3] . http://idebate.org...[4] . http://ca-biomed.org...[5] . http://speakingofresearch.com...[6] . http://swaebr.org...[7] . http://www.nap.edu...

Animal research necessitates significant harm to the animals involved Animal research, by its very nature necessitates harm to the animals. Even if they are not made to suffer as part of the experiment, the vast majority of animals used, must be killed at the conclusion of the experiment. With 115 million animals being used in the status quo this is no small issue. Even if we were to vastly reduce animal experimentation, releasing domesticated animals into the wild, would be a death sentence, and it hardly seems realistic to think that many behaviourally abnormal animals, often mice or rats, might be readily moveable into the pet trade.[1] It is prima fasciae obvious, that it is not in the interest of the animals involved to be killed, or harmed to such an extent that such killing might seem merciful. Even if the opposition counterargument, that animals lack the capacity to truly suffer, is believed, research should none the less be banned in order to prevent the death of millions of animals. [1] European Commission, 1997. Euthanasia of experimental animals. Luxembourg: Office for official publications

The US federal Government should ban ALL testing that requires the use of animals. I would like to start my argument with a favorite quote of mine: Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction. - Charles Magel Animal experimentation is less reliable, more expensive, and considerably less humane than alternative options. I'm going to avoid delving into consumer good research at this time, and focus more on medical research as that seems to be where the OP is aiming. Contention: Animal experimentation is not actually useful and is not reliable. A recent experiment involved surgically embedding coils into the heads of monkeys in order to track neural activity, but further inspection of the test revealed that the neural pathway being researched was not involved in the progression of Alzheimer"s disease (Hansen). The testing of drugs is no more accurate. The American Anti-Vivisection Society states that "nine out of ten drugs that appear promising in animal studies go on to fail in human clinical trials (AAVS " Problems With Animal Research)." A prominent example of this is thalidomide, a drug designed as a sedative and an anti-nausea medicine for pregnant women, which in animal tests had very few issues in pregnant dogs, cats, rats, monkeys, hamsters, and chickens. However, when released in the late 1950s for human use, it caused high amounts of birth defects, as well as issues in adults after prolonged use (Singer 57). Oftentimes, drug research on animals can skew in a different direction. For a remarkable number of drugs, animal tests indicate little to no benefits and the test subjects may develop significant issues. As a result, these drugs never continue on to clinical studies, or need to be pushed through to human clinical trials via back channels. Lipitor, a medicine designed to lower cholesterol, failed in animal testing but was an important medical development for humans (AAVS " Problems With Animal Research). Synthetic insulin, crucial for diabetic people, causes deformities in rabbits and mice. Morphine, used for sedation and pain management, is stimulating to mice. Penicillin, an oft-used antibiotic, is fatal to guinea pigs (Singer 57). Animal tests run on these drugs, and many more, were inaccurate, and had they been relied on, would have held up medical advancement. Contention: There are plenty of alternatives that are more reliable. Animal experimentation is not the only option, and it is not the best option. Alternative research methods have been developed and approved, and studies show that they are often more accurate, faster, and less expensive. Researchers at the National Cancer Institute use cell cultures to test chemicals for anti-cancer properties, and have been able to recreate sixty different types of tumors and cancers, including brain, lung, and reproductive cancer. Using this method, over 20,000 drugs can be tested per year (SHAC). Dr. Bjorn Ekwall developed a test using donated human tissue to test toxicity, in place of the LD50 test. Not only does this test have more accurate results at 84% compared to the LD50"s 52%, but it is able to target the toxicity on specific organs. Skin corrosivity testing has a 40% error rate when using animals, but is 100% accurate when using synthetic skins, such as EpiDerm or SkinEthic. Computer-based Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship models (QSAR) can also predict skin irritation correctly 95% of the time by comparing a new chemical to similar established chemicals using its properties (NEAVS " Alternatives In Testing). Scientists have used human cells to develop "microbrains" and bone marrow, and have been able to use egg membranes and blood samples to test drugs (Newkirk 63). The Embryonic Cell Test (EST) is often used to ensure drug safety for pregnant women, and has been named more valuable than all animal tests combined (SHAC). As Gordon Bacter, founder of the cruelty-free Pharmagene Labratories, said, "If you have information on human genes, what"s the point of going back to animals (Newkirk 68)?" Other alternative testing options include microdosing, where human volunteers are given extremely small amounts of the test drug so as to learn effects of the drug without compromising the entire human body, in vitro testing, where cells are given diseases and results are found within hours, epidemiological studies, or studying the population to learn how diseases work, and clinical studies. Clinical studies often involve people who have already contracted an illness volunteering for drug trials (NEAVS " Alternatives In Research). The studies are carefully managed and so the risk to volunteers is minimal. Another option is computer models, which were used in the development of the "AIDS Cocktail", a potent combination of drugs used to slow the progress of HIV (Newkirk 225). These programs are able to simulate anatomical functions and can collect and manage a large number of research data points (NEAVS " Alternatives In Research). Contention: Animal testing is too expensive and slow. Using animal testing, it takes five years, eight hundred animals, and four million dollars to test a single drug. Alternative methods allow, for the same cost, 350 chemicals to be tested in one week (Pacelle 342). Supporting Material: <http://www.neavs.org...;. <http://www.neavs.org...;. <http://www.shac.net...;. Cohen, Daniel. Animal Rights: A Handbook for Young Adults. Brookfield, CT: Millbrook, 1993. Print. <http://chronicle.com...;. Newkirk, Ingrid. The PETA Practical Guide to Animal Rights: Simple Acts of Kindness to Help Animals in Trouble. New York: St. Martin's Griffin, 2009. Print. Pacelle, Wayne. The Bond. New York: Harper Collins, 2011. Print. <http://www.aavs.org...;. Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement. New York: Harper Collins, 2002. Print.

That animal testing should be banned Animal experimenters want us to believe that if they gave up their archaic habit, sick children and other disease and accident victims would drop dead in droves. But the most significant trend in modern research in recent years has been the recognition that animals rarely serve as good models for the human body. Studies published in prestigious medical journals have shown time and again that animal experimenters are often wasting lives"both animal and human"and precious resources by trying to infect animals with diseases that they would never normally contract. Fortunately, a wealth of cutting-edge, non-animal research methodologies promises a brighter future for both animal and human health. The following are some statements supporting animal experimentation followed by the arguments against them. "Every major medical advance is attributable to experiments on animals." This is simply not true. An article published in the esteemed Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine has even evaluated this very claim and concluded that it was not supported by any evidence. Most animal experiments are not relevant to human health, they do not contribute meaningfully to medical advances and many are undertaken simply of out curiosity and do not even pretend to hold promise for curing illnesses. The only reason people are under the misconception that animal experiments help humans is because the media, experimenters, universities and lobbying groups exaggerate the potential of animal experiments to lead to new cures and the role they have played in past medical advances. Therefore as my evidence says animal testing does no good for animals or people. It sometimes out of curiosity by the scientist to test something on an animal for fun, with most likely the result of hurting an animal. This may be clich" but, "animals are people too"!

Experimenting on animals for science purposes shouldn't be banned 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 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...

Animal experimetation should be banned around the world In my opinion your argument is irrelevant to the topic, we're talking about the cruelty of people because of the act that they are using animals for experimentation; we can really say that the experimentation on modern technology is much more expensive than the expenses on the experimentation of animals to make medicines. I am now going to state my facts. --Argument-- If you think human beings are the only living creatures that have benefited from animal testing, then you are mistaken. Heartworm medicine was a product of animal testing and has proved to save the lives of millions of dogs across the globe. Animal research has also provided better understanding of cat nutrition and the reasons behind the long life of cats. Moreover, several other animal drugs available today are the products of animal testing itself. Let us not forget that laws have been developed for the protection of animals, during the process of laboratory testing. However, some scientists break this law as well, just like any other law. Such cruelty has to be definitely punished and cannot be ignored. Nevertheless, it is also important for us to remember that there are several laboratories, in which animal testing is carried out in an ethical manner. Thus, animal testing is not something to be blacklisted completely. What one should be against is unethical animal testing. It is up to us and all individuals belonging to animal organizations and medical research to work hand in hand, and prevent this injustice from happening. We should ensure that animal testing is carried out in a safe, ethical manner causing as little pain and discomfort to the animal as possible. If animal testing was to be outlawed, then there would be very little scope of obtaining vital information necessary to eliminate suffering and premature deaths in both humans and animals.

animal testing should be legal, but only for medicinal uses Well, as my opponent made no attacks or defenses, I will extend all my previous arguments.

Animal Testing Should be Banned With that being said, I believe the fundamental nature of animal testing is acceptable. To begin, your original premise posits that animal testing is fundamentally immoral because we have not been given consent by said animals to be used. As of yet, there seems to be no way of obtaining consent from a plethora of animals. While it is true that we can observe and predict the behaviors and reactions of certain animals and species different than us (for example, we can generally tell when animals are happy/sad/angry etc. ), this premise relies on the notion that all animals are able to give consent. However, while we do have swaths of knowledge about animal behavior available to us, we have yet to encounter animals with the complicated executive capabilities of humans, so comparing humans to all other animals can't possibly be a fair comparison because humans are unlike all other animals in a variety of quantifiable ways. For example, out of all of the animals studied and observed by humans, it is extremely rare to establish that other animals have theory of mind, the ability to complexly understand the emotions, desires, actions, etc. of themselves and others around them. Even in animals that have the potential to develop theory of mind, it is often at rudimentary levels and often disputed by other researchers regarding the significance of the study's findings. Another reason animal testing isn't inherently immoral is because any alternative would stunt the progress and development of new medicines, treatments, vaccinations, etc. For example, banning animal testing would either 1) extend to all humans, because, as you suggested, they're animals too or 2) not place restrictions on human testing. In the case of the second instance, you must then concede that humans are uniquely distinct from other animals, in which case we are back to the first point I suggested. Animal testing has helped to accelerate medical and scientific advents for both domesticated pets and for humans. Leapfrogging off of my previous point, if you extend a ban on animal testing, you must then establish if it is ethical to do social experiments or milder forms of testing on those same animals. If your response is no, then we are stuck in the situation I previously described in which you must subjectively arbitrate which procedures and which animals are acceptable to test. If your answer is none of them, then the result of that policy would be a cessation of the mounds of scientific value obtained from testing on animals, even as simple as social and behavioral experiments. Overall, I believe animal testing is not only ethical, but ought to be encouraged for the purposes of scientific and medical advents and because, as I pointed out earlier, any concrete restrictions placed on animal testing will lead to a slippery slope that is inevitably invalidated.

Animals Should Be Used For Scientific Research I am not a strong supporter of any animal groups such as PETA, but I still think that animal testing should be banned. And I will proceed to tell you why, but first, I will argue with you on your points. "Would you rather a albino rat die or a young girl with leukemia die? Most people (unless you belong to PETA which is another debate entirely) would prefer the girl. " Therefore, you prefer the girl to die? But I thought you were on the other side. "Would you rather a albino rat die or a young girl with leukemia die? "I don't think that you understand animal testing thoroughly. One lab rat isn't going to provide the key to a strong vaccination. Thousands of animals have to be tortured, tested, and killed. And it usually takes a lot longer than a day to get a scientific breakthrough. If one lab rat could find the cure to cancer, then I'd be all for it. But I'm going to dig a bit deeper into the statistics. As a population, the whole world uses up to THREE every SECOND for testing. That's. .. 274,000 per day, 100 million per year [1]. Yep. That's right. 3 per second. I don't know how you can be possibly for this, even with all of the PROS that it does have. .. which actually isn't anything besides cures. Now for my own arguments, which I have stacked up like a pile of books waiting to fall over. Argument 1: The cost of testing is around $136 million per year [1]We are spending way too much on something we shouldn't even be doing in the first place. If you think your taxes are going mostly towards roads and schools, that is wrong. A ton of it is going to animal testing. If we just stop animal testing, we wouldn't have to pay as much money and tons of innocent animals would be saved from the harm that animal testing causes them. Argument 2: They feel pain, too! Since the beginning of time, animals felt pain. We feel pain. Every living thing (that has a brain) feels pain. Imagine if that was you. How would you feel? Because this is exactly what we are doing to the animals. We know they feel pain, and yet we continue to do what we do. Even in extremely painful procedures, animals are not given anything, like drugs that we are given so we don't feel any pain during surgery [2]. They also can't express their pain to us, so even if a drug passes in an animal, they can't express how much the drug hurt them. If they could talk, we would all be crying because of how much pain in felt. Argument 3: Why is a human life more valued than an animals life? Well? Have an answer? I do. It shouldn't be. Humans are just animals too, we just don't realize it. At the most, a humans life MIGHT, in the best of circumstances, be worth two tested animals. But more than 100 million animals are used yearly to find a cure for something. In ten years, that is a billion. Say the flu shot saves 500,000 in the U. S from getting the flu. 36,000 of them would die [3]. Another 4 million who get the shot wouldn't be sick that year. 36,000 human lives= 1,000,000,000 animal lives? Nope. 36,000 human lives= 36,000 animal lives? That's a bit better. But it's still pretty outrageous. To conclude, I said why pros arguments were wrong and stated three of mine with links to prove my points. Thank you for reading so far and God Bless! !! :)[1] . http://www.vivisectioninformation.com...[2] . https://sites.google.com...[3] . http://www.npr.org...

Animal Testing Animal testing is a good thing. While it is not the only possibility, the alternatives are worse. I therefore advocate the continuation of animal testing. First, I will explain the other possibilities I can see. First, we could test products not on animals, but on humans. Second, we could not test products at all. Both of these lead to the same dreadful end: those same misfortunes that are sometimes brought upon animals would be brought upon humans instead. This is by no means more fair than the alternative, and by most viewpoints, it is a far worse crime (humans are generally considered to have more worth than animals). Now, let me expand upon my argument. We are a people in the habit of harming other beings in order to help ourselves. Unfortunately, it is something that simply must be done: the human race, as well as most other species, rely on harming other life to prosper. A predator kills its prey - are you against the food chain? People, too, kill animals for food - are you advocating vegetarianism? People also take advantage of animals to make other products, including some food and fabric - are you advocating the discontinuation of this practice? People kill bacteria that are living inside them - are you advocating the disuse of medicine? Construction ends the lives of trees - are you advocating that it too is wrong? Animal testing should be done, as should all the things above. Why? Because they are helpful practices for us to use. In none of the examples above did the victim 'ask' for it, but sometimes you get something you didn't ask for. My opponent is correct when he says that animals have no voice, and we must speak for them. However, that voice is clearly and justifiably saying that we should continue testing on animals. Without testing on animals, all the negative consequences that are currently given to the animals would be given to humans instead. What next, should we become cannibals to satisfy our need for meat? We, just as every other type of animal out there does, place some of our own burdens onto other beings. A cow gets hungry? He eats some grass. A lion gets hungry? He eats a cow. A beaver wants to make a dam? He destroys some trees. A man needs a jacket and a meal? He kills a cow. A man needs to test a new product or do research? When he can, he places this burden on another lifeform. It is a matter of self interest, and I see no justifiable reason to betray it. I look forward to my opponent's response.

Animal tests proceed only when animal suffering is "worth it" The potential human benefits of a particular animal test are typically weighed against the harms that it will entail for animals. Scientists are not wanton in inflicting tests on animals. Rather, they are often bound to meet specific ethical requirements in the trade-off. The harm of the testing must be thought "worth it" for the benefits that it will produce. animal research is justified because it has reducing human suffering.

Animal testing Animal testing for non-life-saving human products is unjust

Animal testing should be banned Just like humans, animals too have a life, and cutting it short because of our needs is selfish, insensitive and incorrect. Therefore, Animal testing should be banned is a statement I strongly agree with.

Animal Testing for Cosmetics Argument: Should animal testing be used in the field of cosmetics? By cosmetics I mean household products such as shampoo,conditioner,soap, makeup, skincare etc. This does not include the use of animal testing for drugs, only cosmetics. My position: Animal testing should not be used in the field of cosmetic testing in the U.S. due to the cruelty the animals experience, the millions of animals that are killed each year in the tests, and because of modern technological advances that allow for products to be tested without the use of animals. Definitions Cruelty: text book definition 2

animal experimentation Each year more than 115 million animals, Counting only vertebrates, Are subjected to experimentation with the supposed purpose of benefiting human beings. This includes practices such as forcing them to inhale toxic gases, Apply corrosive substances to skin and eyes, Infect them with HIV or remove part of their brains. Certainly, The number of nonhuman animals that suffer and die because of these practices is much less than that of those who are victims of the food industry, Or of individuals in the wild who suffer from natural events. Now, Since the basic interests of these animals in not suffering and not dying matter, It is nevertheless necessary to reflect on whether the experimentation with them is ethically justified. We often associate animal experimentation with efforts to increase the quality and duration of human lives. However, As will be seen, This is not the objective pursued in most cases. In addition, Regarding those in which it is, There are strong ethical reasons to reject the current practice of animal experimentation, If we consider that it would not be justified with human beings either. In the first place, The majority of experiments performed on non-human animals have no biomedical purpose, That is, They do not seek improvements in human health. In some cases it is about environmental impact tests of chemical products. In others it is about safety testing of cosmetic or household products. On other occasions, Non-human animals are used in military research. All these cases have in common that the benefit that human beings can receive thanks to these practices is irrelevant or non-existent. Despite this, A large number of non-human animals are subjected to serious damage. Now, Reasoning ethically requires rejecting all forms of discrimination based on the characteristics of individuals that have nothing to do with their ability to be harmed or benefited. Not taking into account the damage that animals suffer in these experiments, Or giving them a minor importance, Simply because they do not belong to the human species, Is a type of arbitrary discrimination, Speciesism. Just as not respecting someone for their skin color or gender is unjustified, So is not respecting him for his species. From an impartial point of view, The suffering and death of these animals outweighs the trivial benefit obtained by human beings. Experimentation with animals for environmental, Cosmetic or military purposes should, Therefore, Be rejected. Fortunately, Part of these practices are already being banned in some legal systems, As is the case of experimentation for cosmetic products in the European Union or India.

Should animals be used for research (pro:yes con:no) I have certainly learned alot and am looking forward to having a good time with this debate. Now lets just cut to the chase without any furthur delay. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------My case is as represented by this syllogismP1 : Killing or toruring animals is cruel and unethical. P2 : Animals are being killed and tortured in the name of animal research. C1 : Using animals for research is cruel and unethical. P3(a) : Animal research is expensive and unreliable. P3(b) : Advancements in science and technology has brought about alternatives for the expensive,immoral and unreliable method of using animals for research animal researchC2 : Animals need no longer be used in research__________________________________________________________________________________________________And now i will be offering arguments for each of my premises. Premise 1: Animals are sentient creatures capable of feeling pain and distress it is unethical and immoral to exploit their lives for our benifits. Research on animals involves them undergoing a great deal of hardship,pain and possibly meeting their deaths in an unnatural way. Human beings consider themselves superior to animals based on the fact that we have the ability to reason and have greater intellect however, science has shown that animals can have cognitive faculties that are much superior to human beings[1]. Animals in actaulity possess abilities that are only different from that of a human They are not inferior and have only been under-rated due to humans' fixation on language and technology. Animals also show incredible social and kinaesthetic intelligence, only that, their way is quite different and divergent from ours because of which their abilities are belittled and go unacknowledged[1]. A quick read throught these two articlesArticle 1: . http://www.cracked.com...Article 2: . http://www.buzzfeed.com...is enough to realize how varied yet phenominal some of their capabilities are. Animals are intelligent in their own ways and assuming them to be inferioir to us and exploiting the fact that they are defenceless for our own gains is extremely preposterous, inhumane and egocentric. ___________________________________________________________________________________________Premise 2: Each year, more than 100 million animals—including mice, rats, frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, monkeys, fish, and birds—are traumatized and killed in the United States itself in laboratories for biology lessons, medical training, curiosity-driven experimentation, and chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics testing. Before their deaths, some are forced to inhale toxic fumes, others are immobilized in restraint devices for hours, some have holes drilled into their skulls, and others have their skin burned off or their spinal cords crushed. In addition to the torment of the actual experiments, animals in laboratories are deprived of everything that is natural and important to them—they are confined to barren cages, socially isolated, and psychologically traumatized. The sentient thinking, feeling animals who are used in experiments are treated like nothing more than disposable laboratory equipment. [2] Despite the countless animals killed each year in laboratories worldwide, most countries have grossly inadequate regulatory measures in place to protect animals from suffering and distress or to prevent them from being used when a non-animal approach is readily available. In the U. S. , the most commonly used species in laboratory experiments (mice, rats, birds, reptiles, and amphibians) are specifically exempted from even the minimal protections of the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). [2]I think this report sums up and proves beyond any rational doubts that animals are being killed and tortured in the name of animal research. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________Premise 3(a,b): Gallup polls have found that more than 40 percent of U. S. adults oppose the use of animals in scientific research, and other surveys suggest that the shrinking group that does accept animal experimentation does so only because it believes it to be necessary for medical progress. The reality is that the majority of animal experiments do not contribute to improving human health, and the value of the role that animal experimentation plays in most medical advances is questionable[2]according to former National Cancer Institute Director Dr. Richard Klausner, “We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn’t work in humans. ” This conclusion was echoed by former National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Dr. Elias Zerhouni, who acknowledged that experimenting on animals has been a boondoggle. “We have moved away from studying human disease in humans,” he said. “We all drank the Kool-Aid on that one, me included. … The problem is that it hasn’t worked, and it’s time we stopped dancing around the problem. … We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans. ”[2][2]The data is sobering: Although at least 85 HIV/AIDS vaccines have been successful in nonhuman primate studies, as of 2013, every one has failed to demonstrate a benefit to humans. In one case, an AIDS vaccine that was shown to be effective in monkeys failed in human clinical trials because it did not prevent people from developing AIDS, and some believe that it made them more susceptible to the disease. According to a report in the British newspaper The Independent, one conclusion from the failed study was that “testing HIV vaccines on monkeys before they are used on humans, does not in fact work. ”[2]These are not anomalies. The U. S. Food and Drug Administration has stated, “Currently, nine out of ten experimental drugs fail in clinical studies because we cannot accurately predict how they will behave in people based on laboratory and animal studies. ”[2]Also the animals that are to be used for testing have to be bred and kept alive till they are needed and because of this animal research becomes very expensive. Most of the money that goes into Animal research comes from the pockets of the public with or without their knowledge. [2]Through their taxes, charitable donations, and purchases of consumer products, members of the public are ultimately the ones who—knowingly or unknowingly —fund animal experimentation. [2] But luckily with the advancements in medical and scientific research, forward thinking scientists have developed more humane, modern, and effective non-animal research methods and alternatives for the expensive,outdated and unreliable method of animal research. Two major alternatives in vivo-animal testing are in vitro cell culture techniques and in silico computer simulation. Other alternatives include the use of humans for skin irritancy tests and donated human blood for pyrogenicity studies. Another alternative is so-called microdosing, in which the basic behaviour of drugs is assessed using human volunteers receiving doses well below those expected to produce whole-body effects. [3]These methods have proved to be cheaper faster and more accurate than animal research_________________________________________________________________________________________________________-Rebuttals: PRO's arguments were mainly centered around mice and animal testing used in the medical field, I would like to remind PRO that mice are not the only animal species that are being used for research and animal research is used not only in the medical field but also in the cosmetics and consumer production area. This means lives are being tortured and sacrificed merely for humans to maybe look good in the next party we go. The world doesn’t need another eyeliner, hand soap, food ingredient, drug for erectile dysfunction, or pesticide so badly that it should come at the expense of animals’ lives. Addressing to PRO's arguments about animal research finding cure for some diseases,something which offers a few advantages but the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, on the whole, is still disadvantageous. Animal research may have been the cause of curing some deseases, Yes, but at what costs? Hundreds of failed experiments with probably thousands or even more animals brought to UNnatural deaths just to save a few people from dying 'Naturally-brought-deaths',How is this worth the price? .Also PRO's job is to show that animals SHOULD be used for research. And in order to fulfil his BOP he must argue for the animals as whole and all researches that involve animals. Only then will he meet his BOP. Sources: 1 : . http://phys.org...2 : . http://www.peta.org...3 : . http://en.wikipedia.org...----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------And answering to your questions,I'm neither and I believe in 'a god',if you have furthur questions like these you can just shoot me a message I'll be glad to address them. Back to you PRO!

Animals should be used for Medical Research Albert Sabin who developed the polio vaccine once stated "Without Animal research, polio would still be claiming thousands of lives each year." Animal research has played a vital part in nearly every medical breakthrough throughout the past decade. I feel compelled to affirm today"s resolution that animals should be used for medical research because animal testing has contributed to many life saving cures and treatments, animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing, and that there is no adequate alternative to testing on a living whole body system. Contention 1: Animal testing has contributed to many life saving cures and treatments. The California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals. Imagine how many more possible medical breakthroughs that could be discovered with animal experimentation. An example of a life saving treatment discovered from animal testing is the Polio Vaccine. The Polio Vaccine tested on animals, reduced the global amount of those with polio from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 223 cases in 2012. ( animal-testing.procon.org ) Chris Abee, director of the University of Texas Anderson Cancer Centers animal research facility states that "we wouldn't have a vaccine for hepatitis B without chimpanzees" and says that the use of animal research is are "our best hope" for finding a vaccine for Hepatitis C, a disease that kills 15,000 people every year in the united states. ( animal-testing.procon.org ) A poll taken in 2011 by the science journal Nature showed that nearly 90% of biomedical scientists agreed that the use of animals in research is essential. Contention 2: Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing. If vaccines were not tested on animals, millions of animals would have died from rabies, distemper, feline leukemia, infectious hepatitis virus, tetanus, anthrax, and canine parvovirus. (animal-testing.procon.org ) Isnt it reasonable to test on animals if its gonna save more animals? Without Animal testing, many species would soon become extinct. Koalas, aravaged by chlamydia are being tested with new chlamydia vaccines that may stall the animals disappearance. Without animal testing, we could soon lose many species such as the Koala. Even the American Veterinary Medical Association endorses animal testing. Contention 3: Animals are appropriate research subjects due to their similarity to humans. Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans. Every mammal including humans have the same set of organs such as the heart, kidneys, and lungs that function in the same way as humans. Because mammals and humans are so similar, they are open to many of the same conditions and illnesses as human such as heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. Animals do not have rights, therefore it is acceptable to experiment on them. Animals do not have moral judgment or cognitive ability that humans do and because of this every culture recorded throughout human history has treated them differently than humans. If we grant animals rights, all humans would therefore have to become vegetarians, and hunting would be illegal. Conclusion: In today"s round I have shown why Animal Experimentation is essential for progress in Medical Technology due to the fact that Animal testing has contributed to many life saving cures and treatments, Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing, and that Animals are appropriate research subjects due to their similarity to humans. For these reasons, we can clearly conclude that progress ( value) should be upheld and we should affirm the resolution that animals should be used for medical research. Clearly we must affirm today"s resolution.

animal testing should be banned First, I thank clajen for giving me a chance to debate this topic. To start, animal tests are really helpful for the development of scientific studies. Animal tests are the experiment that the humans do for such medical development and scientific development. Animals are comfortable, fest, and easy for the humans to do experiments since they have similar body structure like the humans. For example, chimpanzees share 99%of their DNA with the humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to the humans. That may save the time of the experiment. Animal tests may give much help to the life time of the humans. Humans have life cycle, and these animal experiments may expand the humans' life cycles. It is because it deveops the medical curing system for the humans.Animal tests creates the products to be better and safe. Also, science became more and more important these days because of environmental problems and the development of technology. So, improving the science will be helpful. Also, animal tests may even benefit the animals themselves. If vaccines were not developed by animal testings, the animals might have died from some diseases. Animal testing benefits the health of the animals and the medical cares for them

Animals should be used for testing Thanks you, Pro. This debate should be fun. In response to the two questions Pro poses in Round 1: 1) No, they would probably not lay down their life for their pet, but they would also probably not lay down their life for anyone. There is a reason that killing someone in self-defense is not the moral equivalent of killing someone to steal their money. The difference lies in the intention: in one case you kill someone to save your own life. Killing animals, pets, whatever, makes sense when there is a direct threat to your own life. 2) Pro's second question already presupposes that testing our "vaccinations" and other "crucial experiments" on animals works. Before we can ask if their are alternatives to using animals for testing, we have to know whether testing on animals is relevant to human health in the first place. Of course, the answer is that animal testing has not been relevant to advancements in medicine or human health. In an article published in the esteemed "Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine," the very notion itself was debunked. In the article, it was pointed out that "animal experiments are not relevant to human health, they do not contribute meaningfully to medical advances and many are undertaken simply out of curiosity and do not even pretend to hold promise for curing illnesses." Furthermore, there is the obvious fact that animal biology is very different from human biology, and therefore, is unreliable. The FDA has noted that 92 percent of drugs shown to be safe and effective animal tests fail in human trials because they don't work or are dangerous to humans. It has been shown that physiological reactions to drugs vary enormously from species to species. Penicillin kills guinea pigs but is inactive in rabbits; aspirin kills cats and causes birth defects in rats, mice, guinea pigs, dogs, and monkeys; and morphine, a depressant in humans, stimulates goats, cats, and horses. The point is, using animals for our experiments has no medical value for us, because it is simply unreliable. Animal biology is different from ours.

Animal Experimentation for the benefit of humans. It is an ASSUMED fact that all of these things helped us discover all of these things but, in reality, it is chance that all of these things have worked. Experimenting on animals is NOT anything close to experimenting on a human. The physiological makeup is astronomically different. "Each year in the United States, an estimated 70 million animals are maimed, blinded, scalded, force-fed chemicals, genetically manipulated, and otherwise hurt and killed in the name of science, by private institutions, household product and cosmetics companies, government agencies, educational institutions, and scientific centers. Substances we use everyday, such as eye shadow, soap, furniture polish and oven cleaner, may be tested on rats, rabbits, guinea pigs, dogs, cats, and other animals. These tests are mainly used to test the degree of harmfulness of products and their ingredients. No antidoes are ever sought, so animal tests cannot be used to prevent or treat potential human injuries. These tests are not required by the law, and they are only done to protect companies from consumer lawsuits." Look at all of these unnecessary things that are being tested on innocent animals. Cosmetics, furniture and appliance cleaners, things that we wash our bodies with .. It is unethical to use an animal just so that, on the bottle, it can say tested on animals or whatever have you. ** THESE TESTS ARE NOT REQUIRED BY THE LAW, AND THEY ARE ONLY DONE TO PROTECT COMPANIES FROM CONSUMER LAWSUITS. It is safe to say, that there is no respect for animals on a personal level. The people that do this do not understand that an animal, has the right to protect themselves just like we do. If we have the opportunity to consent or not consent to things like this, then the animals should be able to also. They live, breath and walk this earth JUST LIKE US, they deserve to be treated just like us. We fight so hard for animals to have rights when they are being abused in their own homes, starved to death, beaten and left to die on the side of the street. But then we have "an estimated 70 million animals that are maimed, blinded, scalded, force-fed chemicals, genetically manipulated and otherwise hurt and killed in the name of science" and nobody wants to do anything about that? This is a form of abuse because there is NO CONSENT from the animal. Until there is a more safe and efficient way to experiment on animals, it should be banned universally. It is unethical to treat an animal this way, considering you would not want to be used as an experiment either.

Animal Testing This round I shall be working on my opening arguments only. Contention 1: UtilitarianismFor this case of Utilitarianism I will be focusing on John Stuart Mill's case of Utility here. We have to look at the Greatest Happiness for the Greatest Number of Sentient Beings. I will concede to the fact that animals are Sentient beings, but something we should focus on is the Greatest number portion. Before we dive into that I would like to point out a key argument that Mill makes and that is humans have priority over animals concidereing that humans can expierence a greater amount of pleasure and a better potential in this case. [1]Now as we begin here I have to prove that through Animal Testing we would be providing the Greatest Utility in this case and henceforth win the debate on these grounds, because if the ultamate utility isn't achieved then we will have more pain than pleasure and thus harming humanity which will ultamately lead to our downfall and depletion of human progress. First let's look at the benefits that these animal tests have provided humans. If we can look at the past 100 years we can see that almost all of the medical break throughs have actually came directly from Animal tests. [2] There have been tests of which the dog's pancrease was removed and insulin was discovered this way. Now we save tons of diabetic patient lives each year. We have also used animals to test for polio and this has effectively helped bring down those numbers from 350,000 in 1988 to a mere 233 in 2012. [3] There's also progress and come close to vaccines and treatments on a long chain of other illnesses it has helped with that I don't have time to go into detail with them all, but to list a few: Hep B, Hep C, polio, Brain Injuries, Breast Cancer, TB, Leukemia, Cardic Valve Subsitutes, and several others. [4][5]Let's move on to animals and how they actually benefit from this. Now I would like to clarify to the voters here. I'm not the anti-PETA guy who thinks that we should put lipstick on a bunny to see if it makes it bullet proof, but more of a reasonable expierements over these vacines and such. First we have to look at some of the cures that actually came from testing on animals and the animal diseases that had vacines for them. There has been a countless list, but just to name a few: Rabbies, CPV, Feline Hep, Distemper, Antrax, and Feline Leukemia. [2] We can see that in this case countless millions upon millions of animals lives would have been lost if it wasn't for animal testing. As for the number of research subjects it is just over 26 million total. We consume more than 1800 more animals than test subjects. [6] We cannot deem this unethical without attacking eating meat amongst other things. Now we can see that overal more humans and animals have been saved than those animals who have lost their lives and in current use. This is important when weighing this argument as we can see that this plan creates a net benefit of pleasure while my opponent's plan would be that of a net pain and shouldn't be ennacted as her position not only harms society and ends the golden age of medical research, but it kills humans of which we could have saved through animal research. Contention 2: Ethic of Care This will be another key argument as in this contention will I not only show that animals get better treatment than the PETA narrative paints, but will show that animal testing is necessary for the Ethic of Care. The Ethic of Care argument is dependent of that of one's relationships and whether they entered upon it voluntarially. We can see that there may be a relationship between a human and an animal, BUT we must apply an offshoot of ecofeminism. Here we can see that humanity must preserve our society and better it for our future generations. Our future generations are that of the next immidate generation here. [7] Most of these relationships are actually maternal and for that we have to think of the future generations of which not only would we be saving more animals in the future, but more animals. It is for this great fact that we still need animal testing in order to protect the unborn and save them from these diseases. Some PETA activists may claim the same naritive that Brian Griffin did in Family Guy of which they put lipstick on a bunny to see if it's bullet proof. (video provided for humor) That's an absurd and an incorrect narrative as we can see that this industry is heavily regulated by the US Federal Government. According to the Animal Welfare Act Passed in the mid 1960's animals had to be provided with adiquete housing, food, water, way to use the bathroom, receive regular check-ups from vets, and all research testing has to be approved by a Congressional Committe in order for it to go forward. [8] Believe it or not, but they get play breaks, their choice of toys, and relaxation for several hours a day, so countrary to belief they aren't just used all day and night with end, but are in a good condition and relitively happy about their status. [9]When we look at this situation we can see that animals are the perfect fit here as humans are out of the question. We have to see that many mammals are key in this research as they have similiar builds to humans like how certain monkey's share 99% of Human DNA and their similiarities can help cure key diseases and solve key medical issues. [10] These testings must continue or we might suffer another Thalidomide Tragedy where a sleeping and pain killer pill lead to people having to amputate limbs. [11] This issue shows us that we need to push for more animal testing not less. This is needed to prevent more tragedies like this one from happening. We can see that this is another very important argument here as we can see that if we do not continue this animal testing we will be violating our relationship with our future generations and harming them by killing them before they are even born. We must preserving our future generations and our relations for the safety and stability of our soceity and the human race. With that I will pass things off to my opponent. Sources1. (. http://faculty.frostburg.edu...)2. California Biomedical Research Association, "CBRA Fact Sheet: Why Are Animals Necessary in Biomedical Research? ," ca-biomed. org (accessed Oct. 15, 2013) 3. National Academy of Sciences, "Report Calls for New Directions, Innovative Approaches in Testing Chemicals for Toxicity to Humans," nationalacademies. org, June 12, 20074. AnimalResearch. info, "Diseases & Research," animalresearch. info (accessed Oct. 15, 2013)5. Elizabeth Fisher, "Why We Should Accept Animal Testing," huffingtonpost. co. uk, July 17, 2013 6. Tom Holder, "Animal Research Is an Ethical and Vital Tool to Fight Disease," blogs. law. harvard. edu, Jan. 14, 2013 7. MacGregor, Sherilyn (2006). Beyond mothering earth: ecological citizenship and the politics of care. Vancouver: UBC Press. p. 286 8. (. http://animal-testing.procon.org...) 9. Americans for Medical Progress, "Touring an Animal Research Facility," youtube. com, Oct. 21, 2008 10. David Wright, Cole Kazdin, and Lauren Effron, "'Zoobiquity': 7 Diseases Animals Share with Humans," abcnews. go. com, June 12, 2012 11. (. https://helix.northwestern.edu...)

Animal Testing Ok. Last round. Yay. :) Society: I would first like to say that I never denied animal testing in past medication before scientific advancement. I would like to make it clear animal testing WAS beneficial and DID help humanity. However, this debate is about the present and how it benefits or hurts society today. It DID bring polio down and it DID hurt people in the past. However, today in the 21st century it is no longer helping us. Nor is it hurting us. It helped, it hurt. Now it is not helping nor hurting humans. Therefore it shouldn't be persued anymore. Without animal testing scientist would scramble to find even more alternative making more scientific advancements. Animals: Animal testing today is not helping or hurting humans, like I mentioned previously. It is still hurting animal though. Life in a cage is still life in a cage. Quoting the link my opponent gave. "On the other hand, they are still kept in cages. A cage can never be as interesting, stimulating, or open as a natural habitat. This can be a problem especially for the more intelligent animals like dogs, cats, pigs, and primates. They can become tremendously lonely and bored unless they have things to play with or ways to get more exercise." Many of us would hate being subjected to boredom and loniless. While SOME institutions use medicine to prevent physical pain, there is nothing that can prevent emotional or pdychological pain. These animals would rather live free in the jungle rather than in a laboratory where they must wait and wait for a procedure. When these animals are no longer in use they are euthanized involuntarily instead of being set free. I already gave links to that in my previous arguments. Philosophy: The philosphy argument will never lead anywhere it's just what people believe. With that being said I would still like to give my opinion. Animals are not our tools. I have never heard of people take their tools to the groomer, or feed them tool food, I've heard of animal doctors(vets) but not tool doctors. Just like a mother can't hit a child for not listening, a person can't hit their pet for not listening. Sure, we must teach our pets obedience, we must also teach our kids obedience. Abuse of a pet is no better than abuse of a child. Unfortunately, that is what animal testing is today, abuse. I would not want to live with cure it means thousands of animal dies for me. I don't see my life as more important than an animals. I hope I would never have to come to a decision between an animal or my mom. I would choose my mom. But obviously I could rephrase that and say a stranger or my mom. I would still choose my mom. Not because one species is inferior to the other, but because emotion will always play a part in society. We can't base our judgement on 100% facts. It always has to be 50/50. Let's try that again, stranger or my pet. Bye human. :) I don't believe animals exist for humams. I mean why do spiders exist then. We don't eat them we don't use them. Why do sharks exist, we don't eat them, we don't use them. Animals existed millions of years before humans. Why would animal exist if there was no human to use them? Maybe because it isn't our duty to use them. This was just my opinion. As I mentioned in the first sentence of this argument. Obviously, other people would feel different. Cost: As I said in the first round it is not necessary. Those 16 billion dollars are 6.4 times the cost the Mars Rover($2.5 billion). All that money could be used to for patients who don't have health insurance to help them with their disease, instead of hurting another living being. It is still a lot of money. I would not like to see my tax money being used on something that kills many creatures but only saves a few. Alternatives: Animal testing is no longer necessary with over 450 alternatives that work. Scientist are not using alternatives when it's possible. Which is wrong. No alternative can be denied, all of them work, otherwise we wouldn't call them alternatives. Three R's of Animal Testing alternatives: (From the link my opponent gave) Replacement - Whenever possible, we should replace living, feeling animals with other things like tissue cultures and computer simulations. In addition, we should actively search for new ways and try to develop new technologies that can replace live, feeling animals in the lab. ï¿½ Reduction - Reducing the number of animals used in research. While we are trying to replace animals, we need to reduce the number of animals used in research to the smallest number possible. We should use as few animals in an experiment as we can. We should be very careful to be sure that experiments on animals are necessary. ï¿½ Refinement - Improving the lives of animals used in research. If we have to do an experiment that uses animals, then we must improve the living conditions of the animals used in research. The Animal Welfare Act mostly addresses refinement. With these alternatives a tremendous of lives will be saved. All types of lives humans and animals. Sources: http://www.aspca.org... Thank you to my opponent TUF for accepting this debate. He's really good debater. Good luck everyone. :)

Animals should be tested on Animal tests do not reliably predict results in human beings. 94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials. [57] According to neurologist Aysha Akhtar, MD, MPH, over 100 stroke drugs that were effective when tested on animals have failed in humans, and over 85 HIV vaccines failed in humans after working well in non-human primates. [58] A 2013 study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) found that nearly 150 clinical trials (human tests) of treatments to reduce inflammation in critically ill patients have been undertaken, and all of them failed, despite being successful in animal tests. [59, 58] A 2013 study in Archives of Toxicology stated that "The low predictivity of animal experiments in research areas allowing direct comparisons of mouse versus human data puts strong doubt on the usefulness of animal data as key technology to predict human safety." [60] ---------Drugs that pass animal tests are not necessarily safe. The 1950s sleeping pill thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities, was tested on animals prior to its commercial release. [5] Later tests on pregnant mice, rats, guinea pigs, cats, and hamsters did not result in birth defects unless the drug was administered at extremely high doses. [109, 110] 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. [55, 56] Animals can suffer like humans do, so it is speciesism to experiment on them while we refrain from experimenting on humans. All suffering is undesirable, whether it be in humans or animals. Discriminating against animals because they do not have the cognitive ability, language, or moral judgment that humans do is no more justifiable than discriminating against human beings with severe mental impairments. [66, 67] As English philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote in the 1700s, "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" [66]

Animal testing should stop My opponent puts forth some seemingly well thought out arguments, yet I will approach them one by one in this round.(1) Cruelty of Animal Testing"Animal testing is the cruel science of testing products on animal [sic] in an extremely bestial way."This is wrong for several reasons. First, there was no definition to the term bestial, nor any explanation of what would make this cruelty "extreme". Furthermore, as I looked into the topic, I found this definition of 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]Nowhere in the definition does it state that the testing must be cruel, nor does it state that the testing is solely for testing products, such as shampoo, lotion, etc... It simply state that animal testing is is the use of non-human animals in research. (2) Different Anatomy"... animals have a very different bodies and anatomy than ours."Once again, this statement is wrong. The majority of animals share organ systems that mirror our internal workings. From personal experience (granted this cannot be proven, but I am willing to give a link to other related experiences), during a medical camp this summer we learned about the cardiovascular system. Yet when we did the dissections, the heart did not originate from a deceased human, but a slaughtered cow. How could this be helping our learning, or teaching us about the human anatomy, if the cow did not resemble the same systems that are seen in a human? This does not apply to cows alone. Monkeys, mice, rabbits, and many other animals (if not most) all share certain characteristics concerning bodily functions. Most animals (if not all) used in testing have a similar breathing system; these same animals all have a vascular system that transports blood throughout the body. I in no way see how these test animals have very different bodies or anatomy.Furthermore, the chocolate argument is somewhat irrelevant to the discussion. This is one example of something that harms animals (a select few) and not humans. Not relevant to the testing of animals. (3) Unreliable Tests"Another reason is that animal testing is unreliable."First, even if the BOP is split, Pro has failed to prove his side, instead simply stated some statistics that may or may not be true.Second, I would like to contend that this unreliability is not based in truth. There isn't really anything to back up this claim except for that statement alone, given by Pro. I would argue that this testing is in fact reliable. Pro also states that "92 percent of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials." This may be true, but one must look at another aspect of this. One must understand that even though these tests may fail, there are two points that show this is a good thing. First, animal testing prevents an outstanding amount of dangerous tests to making it to human trials. Second, there are a good majority of drugs that don't even make it to pre-clinical trials due to extensive non-animal testing. [3]Now I will address a few of my arguments in favor of animal testing.(1) Past Success in TestingI would like to open by saying that animal testing has been the basis of countless discoveries in the medical field. This can be seen in a number of vaccine discoveries, such as penicillin research (conducted by Chain and Florey), Tuberculosis research (conducted by Koch), advances in asthma research (conducted by Dale and Loewi), and many others. [4] With these few examples, it can be seen that, in an effort to better humanity and protect us from deadly diseases, animal research has been a great help.(2) RegulationsThere are already regulations in place protecting animals (for the most part). I will address these exceptions in my next argument. Going back to the regulations, however, it becomes known that these animals being used in testing are protected to maintain ethical treatment. In the UK, greater-apes are protected from testing. [5](3) Selective BreedingThe only animals not protected by these regulations stated in argument 2 would be mice, rats, and birds. However, while they are not protected (and sometimes not recorded due to millions of tests), these animals are bred for testing. They are not inhumanely taken from the wild to be tested on. There was never a chance for these animals to "go back to normal life" or other arguments posted by many anti-animal testing advocates, but instead only a life of testing. This selective breeding goes quite quickly, and allows scientists to choose certain traits across several generations. Ultimately, while individuals argue that this breeding solely for testing is inhumane, it is for the benefit of society. Though it is only my opinion, I would much rather have mice be subjected to testing that could ultimately end their lives than allow certain diseases to tear through the human race and cause devastation due to a lack of testing.Sources:[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://speakingofresearch.com...[3] http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...[4] http://speakingofresearch.com...[5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Animal research causes severe harm to the animals involved The point of animal research is that animals are harmed. Even if they don’t suffer in the experiment, almost all are killed afterwards. With 115 million animals used a year this is a big problem. Releasing medical research animals in to the wild would be dangerous for them, and they would not be usable as pets. [4]. The only solution is that they are wild from birth. It is obvious that it’s not in the interest of animals to be killed or harmed. Research should be banned in order to prevent the deaths of millions of animals.

Animal tests too infrequently lead to scientific advancements While it is undeniable that scientific advancements have been made on account of animal experimentation, these advancements have been too rare to justify animal testing. The basic problem is that there is never any guarantee that any instance of animal testing will lead to any advancement in science. There is always a significant risk that an entire line of study that involves killing thousands of animals will lead to no substantive scientific benefits. This makes it highly inconsistent that the ethical trade-off is "worth it", if it ever is. This inconsistency means that a large portion of tested animals will not meet the ethical criteria of being "worth it", and could thus be called ethically wrong.

The US federal Government should ban ALL testing that requires the use of animals. CON: Intro: Ever since the 17th century, we have been testing products on animals to make sure that they are safe for human use. Animal testing aids researchers in finding drugs and treatments to improve health and medicine. Many medical treatments have been made possible only through animal testing. This includes treatments for HIV"S, Cancer, insulin, antibiotics, and many more. Animal testing has proved itself to work and has saved many human lives already. Scientists use animal testing for one main reason. That is because animals are similar to humans and most cosmetics have the same effect on humans. Because we believe that animal testing is not only great but it is essential to advancing in society, we negate the resolution which states: RESOLVED: The US federal Government should ban all testing that requires the use of animals. CON FRAMEWORK: In this debate, the pro has the burden of proving that ALL animal testing should be banned and that nothing good comes out of it. On the other hand, the con has the privilege of demonstrating that animal testing benefits the humanity and the pros to animal testing outweigh the cons. CONTENTION 1: THE BENEFITS OF ANIMAL TESTING http://www.worldometers.info... According to the University of Oxford, Approximately 3 million human beings are killed each year by general cancer. Leukemia, malaria, and lung cancer are the main contributing factors to another 4 million human deaths. Currently, there are approximately 2.1 million children living with HIV"S in this country alone and over 1,300 deaths from HIV"S a day. Due to animal testing, these numbers are dropping as we speak by at least 70 percent. So what you have to see is that because of animal testing, the human life is being preserved. 6.3 percent of the U.S population suffers from either type 1 or 2 diabetes, that humans aren"t the only ones suffering. Every breed of dogs, cats and other animals also have been diagnosed with diabetes. It is through testing on different breeds of animals that we have been able to come up with a temporary cure for this chronic disease. CONTENTION 2: ALTERNATIVES WON"T PROVIDE ACCURATE RESULTS In order for medical advancements to be made, we need to continue to use animals in testing. Where animals are used in research projects, they are used for a wide range of scientific techniques. Animals are used only for parts of research where there are no other techniques are available and can deliver the same answer. You cannot copy a human on a computer and get the same results. A beating heart or a pulse is irreplaceable and complex. While we already know a lot about how it works, there is an enormous spectrum we have yet to discover. A computer hasn"t been invented that has the power to reproduce all the complexities of a human body which cannot be created in a test tube. While humans are used extensively in Oxford research, there are some things which it is ethically unacceptable to use humans for. There are also variables which you can control in a mouse like diet, housing, clean air, humidity, temperature, and genetic makeup that you could not control in human subjects. What we are basically saying in this contention is that even though there are alternatives, they won"t produce the same results that a real patient would. CONTENTION 3: THE PUBLIC SUPPORTS THE USE OF MEDICAL TESTING ON ANIMALS SO LONG AS THERE ARE REASONABLE LIMITS Simon Festing [Executive Director of the Research Defense Society, London] and Robin Wilkinson [Science Communications Officer at the Research Defense Society, London], "The ethics of animal research. Talking Point on the use of animals in scientific research," EMBO Reports, Volume 8(6), pp. 526-530. URL= http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.... Thanks to some extensive opinion polls by MORI (1999a, 2002, 2005), and subsequent polls by YouGov (2006) and ICM (2006), we now have a good understanding of the public's attitudes towards animal research. Although society views animal research as an ethical dilemma, polls show that a high proportion"84% in 1999, 90% in 2002 and 89% in 2005"is ready to accept the use of animals in medical research if the research is for serious medical purposes, suffering is minimized and/or alternatives are fully considered. When asked which factors should be taken into account in the regulatory system, people chose those that"unknown to them"are already part of the UK legislation. In general, they feel that animal welfare should be weighed against health benefits, that cosmetic-testing should not be allowed, that there should be supervision to ensure high standards of welfare, that animals should be used only if there is no alternative, and that spot-checks should be carried out. It is clear that the UK public would widely support the existing regulatory system if they knew more about it. What this means is that the public is fine with animal testing. A minimum of 84 % support it as long as we consider alternatives and that it is completely necessary. I love debating and look forward to their response.

It isn’t necessary We don’t know how we will be able to develop new drugs without animal testing until we end it. We now know how most chemicals work, and computer simulations of chemicals are very good.[6] Experimenting on tissue can show how drugs work, without the need for actual animals. Even skin left over from surgery can be experiment on, and being human, is more useful. The fact that animal research was needed in the past isn’t a good excuse any more. We still have all the advancements from animal testing in the past, but it’s no longer needed. [7]

Animal Testing Animal testing is a cruel and should be abolished. Apropos animal testing, what a deplorable procedure a vivisection is. Every year, tens of millions of animals are dissected, infected, injected, gassed, burned and blinded in hidden laboratories on college campuses and research facilities throughout the U.S. Of course there are benefits, but why should innocent animals have to suffer? The answer is: an animal's life is considered less valuable than a human's. Why? Animals veritably do not have a lesser capacity for pain then humans. Although it may sound anthropomorphic, animals can suffer emotionally. When an animal is separated from its young it grieves. Of course an animal can suffer pain. Most animals have the same pain sensory receptors that humans do. So why are they considered less valuable than humans? Animals don't have a voice and can't represent themselves in our society. Because of that, they must accept whatever fate humans impose on them. If anything, humans should be tested on because humans have the privilege of choice and can voluntarily volunteer their bodies. This too, however, is unacceptable. I propose that, with all of the technology we have at our fingertips, maybe a new solution could be innovated.

animal testing should be banned I believe animal testing should be banned. 1. Animals have their own rights. -freedom -life -happiness -protection Animal tests violates these rights. 2. Animal tests are replaceable. -inaccuracy -alternative

Animal Testing should be banned Actually, at the end of the testing session, the animals are almost always killed. The total scale of the animals used is hard to measure, but it is estimated about 115,000,000 animals are tested each year in the US. The vast majority of this is euthanized after the experiment is over. And contrary to what you say, many are tortured. Figures gathered in 2010 showed that in the US alone, 97,123 animals were used in experiments likely to involve both pain and suffering, and sedatives/pain killers would not be given to them. I don't see how this is fair at all. Source- Animal Research Database

animal testing should be banned Actually I disagree with my opponent. Animals aren't the only way to test drugs. The science technology has improved and the scientists in U.S.A have invented CHEMO SYNTHETIC LIVER . Instead of animals we can use this ......liver to test our medicines. over a 100 million animals die each from animal testing in USA. 300 thousand animals die each year in New Zealand. Animal population is going down. Even my opponent agree that we shouldn't kill animals.

It morally acceptable to experiment on animals for human purposes It is morally acceptable to experiment on non-domesticated animals for human purposes. Contention I: Humans have "dominion" over animals. IA: Humans have dominion over animals with a right to exploit them. Genesis 1:28 - And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. IB: Humans have always eaten/exploited animals; it has evolved into our DNA. Humans may not need to eat meat in order to survive, yet doing so is part of our evolutionary heritage, reflected in the design of our teeth and the structure of our digestion. Eating meat helped make us what we are, in a social and biological sense. Under the pressure of the hunt, the human brain grew in size and complexity, and around the fire where the meat was cooked, human culture first flourished. Granting rights to animals may lift us up from the brutal world of predation, but it will entail the sacrifice of part of our identity our own animality. Contention II: The results of animal experimentation are useful. IIA: Animal testing has significantly improved human welfare Past experience has shown what invaluable advances can be made in medicine by experimenting on animals, and that live animals are the most reliable subjects for testing medicines and other products for toxicity. In many countries (e.g. the US and the UK) all prescription drugs must be tested on animals before they are allowed onto the market. To ban animal experiments would be to paralyse modern medicine, to perpetuate human suffering, and to endanger human health by allowing products such as insecticides onto the market before testing them for toxicity. IIB: Animals are good research subjects because they are similar to humans. Human beings share over 99.4% of their genes with chimpanzees and about 99% with mice. It is instructive to consider that humans also share approximately 90% of their genes with cows. The physiologies of humans and these animals are very similar, with very similar organ and nerve systems. For this reason, it is useful and productive to study these animals as a means of advancing human sciences. The reactions of these creatures are a very good guide to possible reactions of human patients. Contention III: We hunt and eat animals. IIIA: Animals are exploited by humans without public outcry; why alienate animal experimentation? are used as pets and for work in the agriculture and police industries. In all of these cases, they are being exploited for certain human ends, without too much concern for their "rights". It should not be of major concern, therefore, that animals are being exploited experiments for human ends. And, given that the exploitation is aimed at saving human lives, it is possible to argue that the degree of exploitation could be even more sever than in other cases of animal exploitation where the human-interests are less compelling. IIIB: Animals are hunted and killed without public outcry; why alienate animal testing? Animals are hunted and fished and are culled by animal controllers (raccoons, rats mice for the purpose of pest control). 10 times the amount of animals that are used in animal testing are killed for other less honorable reasons. Cats and dogs are euthanized every year for not apparent reason than bored owners. Other millions of animals are killed by automobiles (Cats, dogs, raccoons, foxes, deer).

Experimenting on animals for science purposes shouldn't be banned Experimenting on animals for scientific purposes should not be banned because of several things, such as : 1. There is no such things as rights for animals,that's why scientist have been experimenting on animals. If there is rights for animals that means every human being must be a vegetarian. 2.If scientist don't use animals for experiment on diseases and cures then there's no medicine for such diseases. Imagine one of your family suffer a disease with cure that can't be found because scientists aren't allowed to work on them, Who'd you blame?