The Instigator
PinkSheep123
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Skepticalone
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Animal Testing Is Unethical

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 1 vote the winner is...
Skepticalone
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2018 Category: Health
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 394 times Debate No: 107002
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

PinkSheep123

Pro

1st round acceptance
2nd round claims
3rd round rebuttals
4th round conclusion
Skepticalone

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
PinkSheep123

Pro

Animal testing is not animals sitting down and filling in the bubbles with a pencil. Animal testing is experimentation and testing on animals that results in agony and death. Animal testing thrives on the agony of the animals. Who are we to stand idly by while sentient beings are killed?

Frame: I would like to frame this debate as animal testing referring to the testing of products on animals, lessons, training or any other physical experimentation that causes pain. This also includes the artificial induction of diseases. Therefore, any psychological testing does not stand in this debate.

Define:
Ethical: The golden rule. Treating things the way you want to be treated (Peta.org)

BOP: My burden of proof is to prove that treating animals the way they are treated in testing is not the way people should be treated. The opposition must do the opposite.

1-Animals die inhumanely and needlessly
All countries that use animal testing use about the same amount of it. In the US, 215 million animal die every year due to testing in the US. There are currently 140 countries that use animal testing. Therefore, that means that 30 billion animal die each year due to testing! Only 1 billion human lives have been saved due to advancements in animal testing. should 30 dead, sentient or sapient beings be killed to save 1 human?. Lethal dose 50 kills 50% of the test population immediately, then kills the other 50% gradually. 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. Department of Homeland Security continue to conduct highly secretive trauma training exercises (often referred to as "live tissue training") in which thousands of other live animals"mainly pigs and goats"are maimed and killed each year. One service member described what happened to a pig during a trauma training exercise: "[Instructors] shot him twice in the face with a 9-millimeter pistol, and then six times with an AK-47 and then twice with a 12-gauge shotgun. And then he was set on fire.

2-Experimentation on animals is breaking their rights and the law
AWA (Animal Welfare Act)The AWA is a law that attempts to ensure the health and well-being of animals in research, exhibition, and transport. However, labs can get around this law. 95% of labs threaten the inspectors who come to inspect the labs and make sure the animals are not hurt. That means that even the people doing the experimentation know it is wrong
PHS (Public Health Service) The PHS has passed multiple laws against artificially inducing diseases in animals
As with the AWA, there are minimal inspectors and those inspectors are threatened

3-Animal testing is pointless
Diseases that are artificially induced in animals in a laboratory, whether they be mice or monkeys, are never identical to those that occur naturally in human beings. Animal species differ from one another biologically in many significant ways, it becomes even more unlikely that animal experiments will yield results that will be correctly interpreted and applied to the human condition in a meaningful way. Former National Cancer Institute Director Dr. Richard Klausner, "We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn"t work in humans." At least 85 HIV/AIDS vaccines have been successful in nonhuman primate studies, as of 2015, every one has failed to protect 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 98% of doctors believe that it made them more susceptible to the disease. 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." If all the suffering animals are going through is for nothing, then why should we continue it?

Alternatives: Testing human cell cultures
Using computer models
Microdose testing on volunteers
Artificial Skin testing
Microfluidic chips

Sources: Peta, NY Times, USDA.gov, USPHS.gov

I await opposing arguments in the next round. Best of luck!

Animals were here before us. If we are not careful, they won"t be here after.
Skepticalone

Con

I thank my opponent for creating this debate and look forward to an interesting discussion on this topic!


Definitions:


First off, it is necessary to properly define animal testing and ethical in order to avoid potentially having my well poisoned with inaccurate or unfair definitions.


Animal testing - the use of non-human animals in research and development projects, esp. for purposes of determining the safety of substances such as foods or drugs. [1]

Ethical - pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct. [2]

I believe these definitions to be fair to both Pro and Con.


Burden of proof:

As the burden has been worded Pro is equating non-human animals with humans and assigning himself with proving people shouldn't be subjected to such testing. I agree people (humans) shouldn't be subjected to (non-human) animal testing, but that is not the subject of this debate. Pro will need to establish it is unethical for non-human animals to be subjected to testing and I accept my burden to establish non-human animal testing is indeed ethical. I hope Pro will forgive this minor clarification.

Moral community




Humans, all being part of the same moral community, take certain responsibilities towards each other and assume rights to protect themselves. For instance, fire fighters, police officers, and soldiers put their lives on the line to save other humans. On the other hand, non-human animals do not accept any responsibilities towards humans nor do they recognize the rights of humans. If someone were to doubt this, a stroll across the plain of the Serengeti or even through an animal enclosure at the local zoo would brutally demonstrate the mistaken thinking. It would be absurd to expect our aforementioned civil servants to put their lives on the line for beings which have never nor can they ever be beholden to human lives in the same way. To drag and drop animals into the human moral community is to give animals undeserved moral status and to devalue the notion of rights altogether. We may bestow rights upon certain animals, these rights should not outweigh those we claim for ourselves.


A world without animal testing






Without animal research - treatments, medicines, and procedures developed to save and measurably improve innumerable lives would not exist. This would include treatments for multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's, strokes, schizophrenia, depression, anxiety disorders, PTSD, medicines such as penicillin, the polio vaccine, or procedures including transplants and blood transfusions. Without animal testing countless humans would die. This becomes especially evident when considering the constant threat from incurable infectious diseases and the ease by which curable diseases can mutate to once again become incurable.

While Pro and I may disagree about the necessity and benefits of a rodent in pre-clinical trialswe both probably agree a rodent in our kitchen is something to be concerned about. So, let us not forget this known vector of disease makes up some 95% of all animals used. [3] Without utilization of these creatures, humanity in its current population would not be sustainable. Additionally, misery and suffering would be more common due to higher mortality rates. On the other hand, rodents would still be thriving. According to a utilitarian view, a world where a few mice are sacrificed to allow for 200 million ‘non-deaths’ (a consequence of penicillin alone) is morally prefereable. [4]

What's more, humans aren't the only beings to benefit from animal research. - animals benefit as well. Vaccines for rabies, distemper, parvo virus (infectious diarrhea), infectious hepatitis, anthrax, tetanus and feline leukemia have given longer, healthier (and happier) lives to pets, farm animals, and wildlife. There are even treatments for glaucoma, heart disease, cancer, hip dysplasia and traumatic injuries benefiting animals. [6]


"[...]animal-based research has been a part of virtually every medical discovery for the past 100 years, and that even in this time of rapid technological advances, animal studies remain a necessary component of scientific advancement today and for the foreseeable future." [5



Alternatives to Animal Testing






Why animal testing? Long story short - there is no complete alternative to animal research. Human cell cultures, computer models, artificial skin testing, microfluidic chips, microdosing, etc. - none of these alternatives, with exception of micro-dosing (which requires animal testing to determine what a micro dose is) are systemic tests. Non systemic tests are simply not adequate to replace techniques which reveal the delicate interactions between systems in a living body. They can be used to supplement and reduce the number of animals used, but they cannot replace the results that can only be yielded through animal testing. Some of these methods are simply not a viable alternatives (artificial skin testing) even overlooking their non-systemic nature. Some rely on technology that is not completely developed (microfluidic chips, computer models) or is simply not adequate in every situation (human cell cultures). Animal testing is here to stay unless we are prepared to let people die or suffer needlessly.


Animal testing here is the US, are committed to the "Three R's":

  1. Reduce the number of higher species used.
  2. Replace animals with other models wherever possible.
  3. Refine tests to ensure the most humane conditions.

Given that there is no complete alternative for animal testing, testing facilities have adopted the three R's in order to avoid needless suffering or death.


With that, I conclude this round. I look forward to seeing Pro's rebuttal as well as addressing his arguments in the next round.



[1] http://www.dictionary.com...

[2] http://www.dictionary.com...
[3] https://fbresearch.org...
[4]
https://speakingofresearch.com...
[5] https://www.amprogress.org...
[6] http://www.ca-biomed.org...
Debate Round No. 2
PinkSheep123

Pro

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
Skepticalone

Con

Thanks you so much, Pro. Let us jump straight to it!

Rebuttal to Pro's arguments:


"1-Animals die inhumanely and needlessly"


It should be noted that Pro doesn't actually make an argument here, but rather lists actions against animals. That being said, animal testing is not needless. At the risk of being redundant, I'll point out a world without animal testing would also be a world devoid of many medical advances we enjoy today and those we will need for tomorrow would not be achievable. I cover this more in rebuttal to Pro argument #3. Additionally, even if we disregard evidence the research community seeks to treat animals as humanely as possible (the three R's), Pro has not explained why animals deserve to be treated as humans.

"2-Experimentation on animals is breaking their rights and the law"

Pro says 95% of labs threaten inspectors and that there are laws against inducing diseases in animals - this is a bald assertion with no substantiation. I was unable to find any truth in these claims. As such, there is nothing for me to address here.


"3-Animal testing is pointless"

This was addressed by Con opening arguments. "Without animal research - treatments, medicines, and procedures developed to save and measurably improve innumerable lives would not exist. " Before I go any further I should bring in another statement from round 3 in which Pro stated," we could use the data already collected from animal testing to fuel these alternatives, which due to the irreversible effects of time we have", as it can be addressed at the same time.

Aside from the treatments, medications, and procedures mentioned in Con argument "A world without animal testing" (round 2), there is also the ongoing and necessary development of methods to fight off the ongoing mutations of bacteria and viruses. If we were to cease animal testing it would only be a matter of time before another 'black plague' pounced on humanity. If animal testing were pointless, then abolishing it would have no negative affect on humanity and this is demonstrably false.


Also, Pro suggests micro-dosing as an alternative to animal testing, but in actuality non-human and human animals are required for micro-dosing. Non-human animals are used to determine the potency of a proposed medication, and from this it is known what tiny dosages are safe for human testing. Basically, micro-dosing is animal testing twice over. Pro is actually advocating animal testing and arguing for a Con viewpoint.



Defense of Moral Community:

Pro agrees animals do not recognize human rights, yet advocates animal rights because "they are completely at our mercy". Trees are completely at our mercy as well, but that is not a good argument for 'tree rights'. The quotes he provides argue for something a little more nuanced - namely that being aware of the world equate to rights. It's not clear to me how 'being aware of the world' equates to rights though. To use the analogy again, it can be said trees are 'aware' of the world in which they exists, but, again, this is not a good argument for 'tree rights'.

Defense of A world without animal testing:

Pro claims two examples where medical knowledge is falsely attributed to animal testing. Assuming either claim were true, it would be irrelevant to my argument as the fruits of animal testing are undeniable. A few falsely attributed pieces of medical knowledge does not change this fact. What's more, at least one of Pro's claims appear to be false. Cawley suggested a relationship between the pancreas and diabetes which is not the same thing as discovering insulin. By that reasoning, suggesting a relationship between grain and maggots could be equated to discovery of spontaneous generation of life. It was Banting and Best experimenting with animals that brought about the realization of insulin.[7] Suffice to say, animal testing has without a doubt contributed to modern medical knowledge.

Defense of Alternatives to Animal Testing:

First, please note Pro has failed to address how so called alternatives to animal testing cannot actually take the place of systemic testing provided by research on animals.


In regards to the three R's, Pro asks, "does it matter what species is skilled if it is a sentient or sapient one?". To this, the answer is obvious - the degree to which an organism has self awareness and rationality (or the potential for it) determines moral consideration. If a dog and a human were in a burning house, no one would fault a rescuer for leaving the dog to die in order to save the human. The dog will never (and can never) reach the level of self awareness or rationality of the human. Pro suggests a contradiction in "there are no complete alternatives to animal testing" and "Replace animals with other models wherever possible.", but this is a comprehension issue. There is no complete alternative to animal testing since nothing but animal testing can provide comprehensive systemic testing. When systemic testing is not required, then animal testing is not necessarily the best choice and other methods might be used. Finally, Pro provides us (again) with a list of actions against animals which it is assumed he believes runs contrary to "Refine tests to ensure the most humane conditions" (R3). Unfortunately, Pro has provided no support for these actions actually happening, that these actions were not the most humane conditions at the time, or that it was known these actions were not the most humane. This would be required to show a complete disregard for R3.




[7] https://www.nobelprize.org...

Debate Round No. 3
PinkSheep123

Pro

Con attempts to refute my first point by saying that I just list bad actions. However, these actions are the current animal test and is what Con is arguing for.

Con says that my second assertion is bald. However, in respectance to the topics, if the lab workers thought what they were doing was ethical, then they would not threaten the inspectors. That proves that even the workers know it is unethical.

Con attempts to refute my "pointless" point by saying that we need animal testing to fight of mutations. However, Con has failed to provide examples for this claim and stated a hypothetical when he talked about a "black plague"

Con used a Slippery Slope Fallacy to close off that refutation, therefore, we cannot take it into account.

Con said that we need to test animals for micro-dosing, however Con does not address my other alternatives which include microfluidic chips, artificial skin, and cell culture testing.

In defense of Moral Community, Con has set up a strawman fallacy when he misrepresented my argument. My argument was not that animals should have equal rights, by argument was that animals should be treated with a decent expected towards another sentient/sapient being.

While animal testing has brought forward various medical treatments, differences in genetic structure render animal testing inefficient 99% of the time (Statista) Con attempts o refute that point by saying I did not say enough examples, but I would have run out of characters if I did.

Con talks about how Banting and Best experimenting on animals brought realization of Insulin, however, medical benefits should be credited to those who discovered it, not those who verify it.

Con again commits a strawman fallacy when he stated that a relationship between grain and maggots cause the creation of life. Again, this is misrepresenting my argument because Insulin was discovered in that autopsy.

Con sourcelessly claims that one of my arguments is false, therefore, that refutation cannot be taken into account.

In refutation to the systematic alternatives point, microfludic chips are more accurate then animal testing because they share 100% of the same genetic structure as humans. therefore, that is more accurate then animal testing.

Actually, when I addressed the wound labs used in the military, i cited a 2016 NYtimes article that showed the test actually happening. That therefore counter-refutes Con's refutation.

I would like to thank Con for an interesting debate and may the best debater win!
Skepticalone

Con

Thank you so much, Pro. This has been an enjoyable debate!

Let us evaluate this debate. Did Pro establish it is unethical for non-human animals to be tested? Did Con show otherwise?

Pro's arguments were built on an absolutist position in which animals are considered very nearly human, and his standards for inhumane, needless, pointless, animal rights were essentially equivalent to human standards. He gave no justification for this. Pro claimed criminal activities of labs, but did not produce evidence to substantiate. In his final argument he advanced animal testing as pointless, however, Con established many ways in which animal testing has proved beneficial and abolition of it harmful. Additionally, Pro briefly argued for Con while advocating micro-dosing. Furthermore, he cited no specific articles. A repository of articles covering many various topics - some of which might argue against Pro, does not substantiation make.

On the other hand, Con provided justification for human rights not being extended to animals. Pro's rebuttal (they are completely at our mercy) would essentially give rights to all forms of life (and maybe even inanimate objects!). Rights become meaningless and what is known to be special and rare (rationality) is valued equally with that which is much more common. Con argued animal testing is ethical from a utilitarian perspective. Pro tossed out a red herring by arguing insulin and ovarian function were falsely attributed to animal testing. Con's utilitarian view stands unchallenged. In round 1, Con explained inviability, lack of technology (microfluidic chips), limited use, and non systemic in general prevented other tests from truly being a replacement for animal testing. Pro suggests this has been addressed, but it has not.

I hope the readers will find this summary useful. That being said, I thank PinkSheep123 for instigating this debate, and I hope we might meet again. Until then, adieu.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Ragnar 3 weeks ago
Ragnar
A bit of advice for pro... Think about what assumptions must be true for your case to have strong merit. Take the military's alleged animal testing (you copy/pasted it multiple times) as an example, you could argue a case just on that and dig in to understand it; or do a debate against insulin; or our consumption of meat (a lot easier to prove than something with such clear benefits as con outlined).
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 weeks ago
Ragnar
PinkSheep123SkepticaloneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Plagiarism. When you don't even know what you're copy/pasting so you repeat the same bits, it's unforgivable. Ironically pro demands some of con's points be ignored for not having a source to prove his logic was unsound, and insists without any attempted justification that the Nobel Prize for insulin was wrong... Anyway with pro's plagiarized case dismissed, con's professional level paper is unchallenged. Sources are also to con, as not only was it con that made sense of the resolution (meaningful and fair definitions...), and finding where pro's own evidence was against pro's case (microdosing), ect. S&G do remain tied. They are in con's favor, but the point can only be awarded in penalty for one side significantly distracting from their own case with failings in this area (better organized and visualized case already contributes to the argument points).