mteb/BIRCO-Arguana-Test huggingface dataset:
disease health general house would allow production generic drugs Allowing production of generic drugs saves lives, particularly in the developing world  Many developing countries are fraught with terrible disease. Much of Africa and Asia are devastated by malaria, and in many parts of Africa AIDS is a horrendous scourge, infecting large percentages of many countries populations. For example, in Swaziland, 26% of the adult population is infected with the virus1. In light of these obscenely high infection rates, African governments have sought to find means of acquiring enough drugs to treat their ailing populations. The producers of the major AIDS medications do donate substantial amounts of drugs to stricken countries, yet at the same time they charge ruinously high prices for that which they do sell, leading to serious shortages in countries that cannot afford them. The denial of the right to produce or acquire generic drugs is effectively a death sentence to people in these countries. With generic drugs freely available on the market, the access to such drugs would be facilitated far more readily and cheaply; prices would be pushed down to market levels and African governments would be able to stand a chance of providing the requisite care to their people2. Under the current system attempts by governments to access generic drugs can be met by denials of free treatments, leading to even further suffering. There is no ethical justification to allow pharmaceutical companies to charge artificially high prices for drugs that save lives. Furthermore, many firms that develop and patent drugs do not share them, nor do they act upon them themselves due to their unprofitability. This has been the case with various treatments for malaria, which affects the developing world almost exclusively, thus limiting the market to customers with little money to pay for the drugs3. The result is patents and viable treatments sitting on shelves, effectively gathering dust within company records, when they could be used to save lives. But when there is no profit there is no production. Allowing the production of generic drugs is to allow justice to be done in the developing world, saving lives and ending human suffering.  1 United Nations. 2006. "Country Program Outline for Swaziland, 2006-2010". United Nations Development Program. Available: 2 Mercer, Illana. 2001. "Patent Wrongs". Mises Daily. Available: 3 Boseley, Sarah. 2006. "Rich Countries 'Blocking Cheap Drugs for Developing World'". The Guardian. Available:
animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal This logic assumes that one positive moral action can cancel out a negative moral action. That an animal is well treated before being involved in animal testing and its suffering during testing is kept to a minimum does not balance the very real suffering the animal experiences during the experiments themselves. Regulation would not be helpful in addressing this contradiction as the suffering during the experiments could never be eliminated as if we knew the effects the experiment will have on the animal the experiment would not be necessary in the first place.
animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Animal research is only used where other research methods are not suitable  Developed countries, including the US and all members of the EU (since EU Directive 2010/63/EU) have created laws and professional regulations that prevent scientists from using animals for research if other, non-animal research methods would produce equally clear and detailed results.  The principle described above is also enshrined in the "3Rs" doctrine, which states that researchers and their employers have a duty to identify ways to refine experiments conducted on animals, so that yield better results and cause less suffering; replace animals used in research the non-animal alternatives where possible; and reduce the number of animals used in research. Not only does the 3Rs doctrine represent a practical way to reconcile the necessity of animal research with the universal human desire not to cause suffering, it also drives scientists to increase the overall quality of the research that they conduct. Governments and academic institutions take the 3Rs doctrine very seriously. In EU countries scientists are required to show that they have considered other methods of research before being granted a license for an animal experiment.  There are a huge number of ways of learning about our physiology and the pathologies which affect it, including to computer models, cell cultures, animal models, human microdosing and population studies. These methods are used to complement one another, for example animal models may well produce data that creates a computer model. Nonetheless, there is some research which cannot be done any other way. It is difficult to understand the interaction of specific sets of genes without being able to change only these genes – something possible through genetically modified animals.  Finally, as noted above, given the high cost of conducting animal research relative to other methods, there is a financial incentive for institutions to adopt non-animal methods where they produce as useful and accurate results.
animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal To argue that the ends justify the means does not justify research upon animals. Firstly we do not know the extent to which animals are capable of holding interests or experiencing suffering, as they are unable to communicate with us. Our shared similarities give us cause to believe they must have at least a truncated experience of the world to us, but we cannot know the level of that truncation. Thus in order to avoid committing a significant moral harm upon a being we do not fully understand, a precautionary principle of non-experimentation would be well advised. Secondly, even if we would be achieving a net gain on the utilitarian calculator, that is insufficient justification on its own. By that same logic, experimenting on one person to save the lives of many could be justified, even if it caused them suffering, and even if they did not consent. Common morality suggests that this is an objectionable position to hold, as the moral principle would allow us to treat any being as a means to an end rather than existing as a being of independent value. [1] In short such logic would allow us to experiment not only on animals but also on non-consenting people, and we posit that to be an unreasonable position to hold in this debate.  [1] Crisp. R., Mill on Utilitarianism, (Routledge, 1997)
education general secondary crime policing house supports random drug testing School's duty of care  Peer pressure drives most drug use among children and teenagers. [1] The fact that the state requires all children to be engaged in education means that most of them will be gathered into large groups in schools for most of the day, five days a week, essentially creating the necessary conditions for peer pressure to take place and be powerful. This occurs as some children face ostracism or exclusion from their peers in the social environment that the state compels them to be in if they refuse to take illegal drugs, if drug use is deemed necessary to be 'cool' or 'popular'.  It is, generally, the state that operates a western liberal democracy’s education system. Under circumstances in which children are placed into the care of the state, and are made vulnerable to peer pressure the state has a duty to ensure that children are not coerced into using drugs. This means that concerns of 'privacy' are secondary to protecting the choice not to take drugs, as ensuring the 'privacy' of all students by not having random drug tests empowers some students to socially coerce other students into using drugs when they otherwise would not.  Random drug tests help prevent cultures or norms of drug-taking (by which it can become the 'cool' thing to do) by ensuring that most drug users will be caught and helped to quit, thus protecting the choice of others not to be pressured into drug use.  [1] Rosenbaum, Marsha. “Safety First: A Reality-Based Approach to Teens and Drugs”. Drug Policy Alliance. January 1, 2007
animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Most developed countries, including the United States and the member-states of the European Union, have regulations and laws which require the research methods that do not involve animal models should be used wherever they would produce equally accurate results. In other words, scientists are barred from using animals in research where non-animal methods would be just as effective.  Further, research animals are extremely expensive to breed, house and care for. Developed countries have very strict laws governing the welfare of animals used in research; obtaining the training and expert advice required to comply with these laws is costly. As a result, academic institutions and medical or pharmaceutical businesses function under constant pressure to find viable alternatives to using animals in research. Researchers have a strong motive to use alternatives to animal models wherever possible.  If we ban animal research even if research advances continue we will never know how much further and faster that research could have gone with the aid of experiments on animals. Animal research conducted today produces higher quality results than alternative research methodologies, and is thus it is likely necessary for it to remain in order for us to enjoy the rate of scientific advancement we have become used to in recent years. [1] Precisely because we never know where the next big breakthrough is going to come, we do not want to be narrowing research options. Instead, all options - computer models, tissue cultures, microdosing and animal experiments - should be explored, making it more likely that there will be a breakthrough.  [1] Ator, N. A., “Conducting Behavioural Research”, in Akins, C. Panicker, S. &amp; Cunningham, C. L (eds.), Laboratory animals in research and teaching: Ethics, care and methods, (Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, 2005, Ch. 3.
animals science science general ban animal testing junior 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.
th law crime policing law general house would fund needle exchanges Needle exchanges will increase the incidence of drug use  Beyond increasing drug use through condoning the practice, needle exchanges also facilitate drug use by gathering all the drug addicts in a single area. This allows drug dealers to operate more efficiently and as such gives them more time to explore new markets for their drugs. As well as this, people are encouraged to keep on taking drugs as they feel the risk to them from doing so has been significantly decreased by the exchange. Given the lower risk, those drug users that are still somewhat rational actors will be more likely to take drugs because of the lower potential harm.  Further, in the long run, needle exchanges through these mechanisms make it harder to eradicate drug use entirely in the future. By causing addicts and the public to accept drugs needle exchanges ingrain drugs in society as any removal of the facility in the future will be seen as the state coming down too harshly on drug addicts and can be opposed much more easily.1  1. Lawrence Aaron, “Why a Needle Exchange Programme is a Bad Idea.” RedOrbit. August 26, 2005.
animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal 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.
disease health general house would allow production generic drugs Generic drugs often prove to be less effective than their brand name counterparts, and can even be dangerous  Generic drugs are meant to retain a substantial degree of bioequivalence with their brand name predecessors. Yet, even under strict testing laws in this regard, generic drugs have on several cases been shown to manifest side effects not present in their parent products. For example, a generic version of Wellbutrin XL, an anti-depressant, that was ostensibly chemically equivalent to the brand name drug, caused suicidal episodes in several users1. This demonstrates that no amount of chemical testing can guarantee true bioequivalence, and thus generic drugs cannot be considered as identical to brand name drugs in terms of safety. While improving testing of generics would go some way toward fixing this problem, it would not do so entirely, as the market for new drugs will be so greatly widened with the approval of generic production that the cost of screening will be very high and the likelihood of poor knock-offs reaching consumers, particularly in the developing world where screening is less robust, is increased substantially2. Brand name drugs may be more expensive, but their safety is more thoroughly guaranteed. Flooding the market with cheap, potentially dangerous alternative drugs helps no one but the undertaker.  1 Childs, Dan. 2007. "Generic Drugs: Dangerous Differences?". ABC News. Available: 2 Mercurio, Bryan. 2007. "Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines". Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights. Available:
animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal 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. [1]  [1] Fox, M. A., “The Moral Community”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)
animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal 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 science science general ban animal testing junior Most animals can suffer more than some people  It’s possible to think of people that can’t suffer, like those in a persistent vegetative state, or with significant intellectual disabilities.  We could go for one of three options. Either we could experiment on animals, but not such people, which is morally not consistent. We could allow both, but do we want to do painful medical research on the disabled? Or, we could do neither.[9]
animals science science general ban animal testing junior The laws that restrict animal testing only allow it where it’s needed.  Animal testing isn’t cheap, meaning that if universities and the drug industry have a good reason to end it if they can. If we ban animal testing we won’t know what it would be able to do in the future. Animal research now has better results than other ways of doing research. [8]
ent animals science science general ban animal testing junior The laws that restrict animal testing only allow it where it’s needed.  Animal testing isn’t cheap, meaning that if universities and the drug industry have a good reason to end it if they can. If we ban animal testing we won’t know what it would be able to do in the future. Animal research now has better results than other ways of doing research. [8]
animals science science general ban animal testing junior 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]
disease health general house would allow production generic drugs Production of generic drugs reduce medical costs by allowing increased production and the development of superior production methods, increasing market efficiency  The sale of generic drugs invariably reduces costs to consumers. This is due to two reasons. It may be the case that an individual or firm with a patent, essentially a monopoly right to the production of something, may not have the ability to efficiently go about meeting demand for it. Patents slow, or even stop the dissemination of the production methods, especially when a patent-holder is unwilling to license production to others1. Such an outcome is deleterious to society, as with no restrictions on drug production an efficient producer, or producers, will emerge to meet the needs of the public, producing an amount of drugs commensurate with demand, and thus equilibrating market price with that demand2. This market equilibration is impossible under conventional patent laws, as it is in the interest of firms to withhold production and to engage in monopolist rent-seeking from consumers3. This leads firms to deliberately under-produce, which they have been shown to do in many cases, as for example the case of Miacalcic, a drug used to treat Paget's Disease, in which its producer deliberately kept production down in order to keep prices high4. When a firm is given monopoly power over a drug it has the ability to abuse it, and history shows that is what they are wont to do. By allowing the production of generic drugs, this monopoly power is broken and people can get the drugs they need at costs that are not marked far above their free market value.  1 Kinsella, Stephan. 2010. "Patents Kill: Compulsory Licenses and Genzyme's Life-Saving Drug". Mises Institute. Available: 2Stim, Rishand. 2006. Profit from Your Idea: How to Make Smart Licensing Decisions. Berkeley: Nolo. 3 Lee, Timothy. 2007. "Patent Rent-Seeking". Cato at Liberty. Available: 4 Flanders Today. 2010. "Big Pharma Denies Strategic Shortages". Flanders Today.
animals science science general ban animal testing junior Just because an animal is treated well as it is brought up doesn’t stop the very real suffering during testing. Stricter rules and painkillers don’t help as the lack of suffering cannot be guaranteed – if we knew what would happen, we wouldn’t do the experiment.
animals science science general ban animal testing junior When a drug is first tested on human volunteers, they are only given a tiny fraction of the amount shown safe to give to primates showing there is another way, to start with very low doses. Animal research isn’t a reliable indicator of how a drug will work in people – even with animal testing, some drugs trials go very wrong [15].
animals science science general ban animal testing junior There is a moral difference between harm for the sake of harming an animal and harm in order to save lives. Lifesaving drugs is a very different purpose to betting or enjoyment that animal welfare laws are aimed at.
ent animals science science general ban animal testing junior 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]
ent animals science science general ban animal testing junior There is a moral difference between harm for the sake of harming an animal and harm in order to save lives. Lifesaving drugs is a very different purpose to betting or enjoyment that animal welfare laws are aimed at.