The Instigator
Erina1
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
kate1
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Animal Research

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
kate1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,122 times Debate No: 22767
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Erina1

Con

I believe that animal research is immoral and should be illegal. People that do research on animals should be arrested for animal cruelty .
kate1

Pro

Animal research is a great phenomena that has happened in the science department. It has helped millions of people around the world. In fact, humans suffering from diabetes type 1 are treated with artificial or pig insulin to help them stay alive. Scientists figured out this method to lower blood concentrations in humans by researching diabetes in animals. But diabetes are not the only advancement made in medicine, chicken pox, small pox, genetic mutations, and much more. Animal research is going to allow millions of humans to no longer suffer from diseases.
In fact a new type of cell, termed stem cells, which could be found in placenta and umbilical cord are thought to have the potential to cure multiple life threatening diseases, such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and multiple types of cancers. With so many great potential advances, should animal research even be considered?! I mean if you were diagnosed with cancer and there was a potential to cure your disease and get you life back, wouldn't you do everything and anything no matter the price? I am sure everyone would say yes.
Animal testing doesn't even have to be selfish act. Cures for diseases don't have to only effect humans, it can also help animals. Humans are not the only ones to suffer with diabetes or ADH deficiencies. Sacrificing one life can save millions. The end product outweighs the cost.
Debate Round No. 1
Erina1

Con

How is that not selfish?!?!!?!? Animals can suffer from natural causes just like the rest of us. Scientist are not trying to improve animal well being! they are being selfish and want to find a cure to cancer in order to make money and become famous. That also results with medical advances for humans but its just as selfish. Why don't scientists test humans for new medicines? Answer- "because they aren't animals." Its unfair how cruel humans are to animals for their own selfish needs. Thank goodness for organizations like PETA that help prevent animal cruelty. I am sure if it were up to you, you would probably want to ban all animal rights! they feel too! they hurt and feel just like humans do. It's like testing a baby, just because the baby doesn't know what is going on doesn't mean its not afraid and hurt.
And stem cells are illegal. In fact they are illegal because the potential to get a hold of these cells require some (small chance) of hurting the unborn baby but when it comes to using and killing animals its perfectly fine. Stem cells are illegal because they have yet to be proven they can help find cures. Its all bogus news trying to get people to donate money and make other scientists wealthy while keeping sick folks hopeful for a cure to their disease.
kate1

Pro

Everyone is going to be selfish, where the scientist trying to find the cure for a life threatening disease is selfish or not does not play a big deal. If he/she is able to find the cure, who cares what their intent was they are saving millions of lives. In fact, they deserve to get paid for spending years trying to find a cure to save humanity. Its like saying my parents only had a child or chose to adopt and spent years and a lot of money to raise this child in hopes that he/she will grow up to be rich and support them. I mean it could not be true maybe parents chose to have kids because they want to have a family and feel love. or maybe its to ensure their life when they reach their retirement ages. Either way, the parents spent years, time and love, they deserve to have the same in return.
As for why don't scientists test humans? We do! Once a drug is deemed suitable to help humans and safe to test, there is a human clinical trial. This trial of course is the last phase of accepting a new drug to the market. It makes sense though. Would you like to test a new drug on humans without knowing side effects of the drug. It just seems morally wrong to do that to a human. Rats or rabbits are overpopulated species and some specific species are breed for this specific reason. to help save humanity.
As for stem cells. they are only illegal in the US from human cells. Scientists can still use and culture stem cells from animals to study effects of these potential cells. Also, stem cells have proven to be useful in find cures. In 1997 scientists at Roslin Institute in Scotland were able to culture tissue form an adult sheep and clone them to give birth to an identically cloned sheep called Dolly. Dolly was able to be produced from an unfertilized egg and able to grow several limbs and organs all by itself. Unfortunetly it contracted a rare lung disease and was put to sleep- instead of making it suffer. Stems cells are illegal in the US for this very reason, the government is afraid that scientists will start to clone a specific set of humans and be a breeding machine no longer letting natural selection and generic chance take its account in nature.
Debate Round No. 2
Erina1

Con

Of course it doesn't matter to a evil person like you. you wouldn't care about killing animals! you only look at how to better yourself and your family. Do you have a pet? how would you feel if some scientist wanted to use your pet for research and then brutally kill it all in the name of helping humanity. What if they used your pet dog's pups for research? And the example of parents raising a child is not relevant parents don't kill their young. Actually most new medicines don't get a chance to reach human clinical trials because they are prove to be some weird side effect or long term potential life threatening disease. And obviously there is something wrong with stem cells if the sheep contracted a rare disease. Can you prove that the disease was not formed from the use of stem cells. I don't think so.
kate1

Pro

How am I an evil person by saying its okay to do testing on animals rather than humans? I am not looking to better myself I am looking to better the world. Sacrifice one save a million human lives! I am not sure if you are aware how animal research is done. There is something called the Institutional Animal Care And Use Committee (IACUC). This is a protocol that the Animal Welfare Act &Public Health Service Policy requires for all institutions that do animal testing. The committee includes a veterinarian, scientists from within that institution, a non-scientist, an animal technician and a member not affiliated with the institution. There are several guidelines the committee requires all animal research labs to follow such as inspection of animal facilities, checking the well being of the animals and making modifications as needed to meet these requirements. In fact every scientists that is doing research right now has taken and passed a test that proves they will abide by such rules set by the IACUC. the committee also requires a certain space association to number of animals in a cage, change of cages frequently, new water bottles, food and nesting on a regular basis. There should be more than enough water and food cage. If an animal appears sick or in pain, the researchers will immediately take the animals well being into consideration and will euthanize animal. Therefore researchers are not brutally killing animals. they re not slicing them open or feeding them to other animals. After an animal has been injected, the animal is cared for per and post surgery or experiment. if it shows discomfort, scientists peacefully put the animal to sleep to alleviate it from its pain. Also, these animals have been specially and specifically bred in a laboratory for this exact reason. To do research! animals need to be genetically pure and control genetic drift to ensure there is no outside source that could influence results of the experiment. Therefore one cant say its evil to do research to animals. they are treated nice and safe.
As for stem cells, Dolly contracted a rare disease. One could have tried to cure her but instead of putting the animal through pain we peacefully put her to sleep. The animals well being comes first!!!
Debate Round No. 3
Erina1

Con

Sacrifice one?!?!?!? More like thousands!! It takes years to perfect a drug or find a cure and millions of animal lives are sacrificed! and how effective is the IACUC? does it check laboratories on a regular basis? What are the consequences? There are thousands of stories all over the world of indecencies to animals. And its evil to take a life. Socarets says so himself. it is not immoral to end the life it is immoral to end a potential of life. that life could hold tons of light.
kate1

Pro

Think of it this way, would you rather breed human babies to test or rats? Would you rather test on birds or humans? What researchers do in the lab is not brutal murder. The thing many New Yorker's do, such as hiring an exterminator to kill their rat infested homes is murder. And yet why don't animal rights activists like you stop that? Because you don't want dirty rats living in you home, a bit of a contradiction don't you think? And the IACUC is a government organization, they randomly check college laboratories to see if they are running to par. If they see anything sucisious, they will close the lab and fine the school thousands of dollars. the laboratory will not be allowed to open until the qualifications are met. Where are there thousands of stories about indecencies to animals? Please site a source with a specific example. Also, socartes says "the unexamined life is not worth living" therefore he is saying it is not worth living if he is unable to see it.
Debate Round No. 4
Erina1

Con

I would rather not breed humans or animals just to murder. And killing a rat that lives in the city is different. they are over populated and need to be reduced in number. not to mention they care numerous diseases and illness. Breeding a poor little rat just to kill is different. like you said they are bred to be genetically perfect so they don't carry diseases that are potentially deadly to us. so let them free. its like they don't have a will or rights. bound to cages when they should be out in the wild. animals should not be cut up or used for research. they need to have rights just like humans. It is wrong and immoral for poor animals to suffer while humans reap the benefits. its like celebrating death. its wrong immoral an inhumane.
kate1

Pro

Animal research is not wrong! The animals used for experiments are not treated bad! they are taken care of by multiple employees need by the IACUC including a vet, a scientists, and a animal tech. Other employees the institution wishes to hire also help to make sure the facility abides by the rules set by the IACUC committee. Also, cures and treatments such as cancer diabetes and HIV can now be developed to help save millions of lives. Also, not all testing hurt the animal. there are multiple behavior testing that don't involve hurting the animal at all. in fact, most behavior animals get a treat after the experiment. Multiple tests such as lymphoma and diabetes were tested through animals first before testing humans to ensure it is safe. All are successful cases. Behavioral studies in animals help scientists understand how human interact and help understand some evolutionary advantages. Genetic studies done on animals helped complete the genome sequence and show how animals are related to humans proving evolution of a common ancestor.
Allowing scientists to do research on animals will allow them to find more cures to help save humanity.
Who doesn't want that?
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by seraine 2 years ago
seraine
Erina1kate1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con started out with emotional appeals before degenerating into using ad hominems.
Vote Placed by Travniki 2 years ago
Travniki
Erina1kate1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I gave arguments to Pro because Con whole debate was a rant about animal rights, and it wasn't defended well enough "they are being selfish and want to find a cure to cancer in order to make money and become famous" I gave sources to Pro because he showed more knoweldge of the IACUC Conduct because Con called Pro evil....