The Instigator
emilyskates72
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
4saken
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Animal Testing Should be Banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
4saken
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/5/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,370 times Debate No: 34522
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

emilyskates72

Pro

Welcome to this debate: "animal testing should be banned".

I as pro define animal testing as experimenting using the lives of animals or harming animals in any way. I define banned as completely abolishing taking lives or harming animals in tests or experiments.

Animal testing is certainly a disgrace, and should be banned.

It firstly is fairly unreliable. Animals don't have the same body systems as us, and what might be good for them may not have the same great effect on us. It has been proven that 92 percent of experimental drugs (that's 9 in 10!) that are safe and effective in animals fail in human clinical trials because they are too dangerous or don"t work. This means that the animals died for a cause that didn't even work out. Animal testing can even delay research because of its unreliability. Cosmetics, drugs, and other animal tested products can also cause health problems due to unreliability.

Secondly, it is a barbaric way of researching. It is just trial and error on animals. Animals' lives are treated like dirt, and while they can't talk, they still have rights. Approximately 19.5% are killed every year in research. This is absurd! Innocent animals are dying, and 9 in 10 animals die for a product that doesn't even work. Also, cures for many diseases and medical conditions like stroke and asthma, have made little progress over the past century, yet have used excessive animal testing in experiments. Testing is often painful, and includes many sickening ways of completing experiments, like pouring drain killer into the eyes of animals, or rubbing chemicals on shaved skin. Painful? You bet. Most of these experiments aren't used with any sort of painkiller. A lot of animals' lives are thrown away. This must stop.

Finally, there are kinder alternatives to experiment, and animal testing is hardly necessary.
It isn't necessary due to technological advances and more effective treatments. Doctors are now starting to use other methods which are far more effective and reliable than animal testing. We can now discover the root causes of diseases, so more action can be taken. Studies of human patients using sophisticated scanning technology (for example, MRI, FMRI, PET, and CT) have prevented mental disorders in the brains of people. Other scans and screening methods are also used to prevent big diseases. Even skin model testing has been proven to work. These alternatives to animal testing have are more effective and more reliable than animal testing.

Animal testing just isn't right and should definitely be banned because it:

Is unreliable

Is cruel

Isn't necessary due to technological advances and more effective treatments

We must ban animal testing right away.

http://www.statisticbrain.com...

http://www.dosomething.org...

http://www.aavs.org...

http://www.hsi.org...

http://www.peta.org...
4saken

Con

I would like to thank Pro for starting this debate.
In this debate, I will challenge Pro's resolution "Animal Testing Should be Banned".
Pro has presented three reasons why we should ban animal testing, I will refute them one by one.


1/ Animal testing is unreliable

Pro claimed that "92 percent of experimental drugs that are safe and effective in animals fail in human clinical trials because they are too dangerous or don't work". This is very misleading and it doesn't prove anything. We use animal testing to find the drugs potentially dangerous to human. Those that pass the test are not automatically safe but they are less likely to be dangerous than the ones that were discarded thanks to the test. Let's imagine something like this: 1000 drugs need to go through two tests. 900 fail the first test and only 100 are allowed to take the second test, then 92 fail and only 8 pass. So 92% of the drugs which pass the first test fail the second test. Does it mean the first test is useless? Obviously not.

The fact is animal testing has contributed greatly to the medical progress. It helps us in our fight against cancer, HIV/AIDS, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson"s disease, birth defects, ... [1]


2/ Animal testing is barbaric

This argument is very emotion-based. The fact is we should and we must put the our own benefit over other species. Animals are killed in order to make drugs for human. So what? Animals are also killed to be consumed by human. What is wrong with that? Human right is above animal right. Pro talks about the animals' pain. But how about the pain of the people tormented by diseases? If animal testing helps saving human lives then there is no reason to stop it.


3/ There are alternatives

The alternatives to animal testing are even more unreliable. I would like Pro to elaborate about "other methods which are far more effective and reliable than animal testing". The scanning technology only helps us to find the cure, but after we make the cure we still need to test it. So it is not an alternative. Regarding the skin model, the original quote from Pro's source is "Human skin model tests are now in use, including the validated EpiDerm" test, which has been accepted almost universally as a total replacement for skin corrosion studies in rabbits." [2] It is the replacement for specific studies, how can it replace testing drugs in animals?



[1] http://www.amprogress.org...
[2] http://www.peta.org...
Debate Round No. 1
emilyskates72

Pro

Thank you con for an interesting argument. However, some of your points are unworthy.

I would like Pro to elaborate about "other methods which are far more effective and reliable than animal testing".

Ok then, you asked for it. Here it is directly from the source:
"Scientists at private companies, universities, and government agencies are developing new cell and tissue tests, computer models and other sophisticated methods to replace existing animal tests. These alternatives are not only humane; they also tend to be more cost-effective, rapid, and reliable than traditional animal tests." (1) Now, do you want me to "elaborate" some more, or can you see the point?

Regarding the skin model, the original quote from Pro's source is "Human skin model tests are now in use, including the validated EpiDerm" test, which has been accepted almost universally as a total replacement for skin corrosion studies in rabbits." [2] It is the replacement for specific studies, how can it replace testing drugs in animals?

The skin test is just one specific example I used. There are many more alternatives which are safer than animal testing, like examining blood donations (saves hundreds of thousands of rabbits and humans yearly), the Reduced Local Lymph Node Assay (a skin sensitization test), The 3T3 NRU Phototoxicity Test (A complete replacement for Phototoxicity animal tests) (3), The Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability Test and Isolated Chicken Eye Test (uses the eyes of animals already killed for meat, so no new animals are killed, and no part of the already-slaughtered animals are put to waste), the Embryonic Stem Cell Test (a differentiation of mouse embryonic stem cells) (4), the use of leftover human skin from surgery is be used to measure the rate at which a chemical is able to burn the skin (5), and more alternatives to testing.

So what? Animals are also killed to be consumed by human.

So that's your point, is it? That torturing animals is ok, because people eat meat already? That's a very unthoughtful argument. What con is pretty much saying here, is that when animals die for meat and food, it's suddenly alright for 19.5 MILLION more animals to die unnaturally and in pain. We kill enough animals for the food industry, without more dying through experiments. However, The Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability Test and Isolated Chicken Eye Test uses the eyes of animals already killed for meat, so no new animals are killed, and no part of the already-slaughtered animals are put to waste. So the meat truly isn't wasted.

"92 percent of experimental drugs that are safe and effective in animals fail in human clinical trials because they are too dangerous or don't work". This is very misleading and it doesn't prove anything.

What this statistic is really saying, is that what worked in animal trials actually failed later on. It's sort of like pulling a lever on a slot machine. Every now and again, the winning combination will appear. What the statistic is also saying, is that it's unreliable. If if there were 100 products that WORKED in testing, then 92 will fail later on, and a mere 8 will pass. Alternatives to animal testing are far more reliable, and aren't nearly as cruel.

We use animal testing to find the drugs potentially dangerous to human.

Drugs? Animal testing is not all jolly and saving human lives with medicine. Animal testing is used countlessly for cosmetics and toiletries. It's not worth it, for there to be a blind monkey for a new line of mascara. While you may be thinking animal testing is all about saving lives, it isn't. Millions of animals die each year in pain because of the make-up industry.

Human right is above animal right.

Who says? What makes us so important that innocent animals must be tortured, then murdered, so people can enjoy the benenfits? What's ok about humans killing bunnies, but so horrible about rabbits killing babies? I'll leave that question with you, con.

But how about the pain of the people tormented by diseases?

While diseases are horrible, they're at least a natural way of dying- no MURDER involved. The animals taken in by testing have been killed way before their time has come. Con is saying in this sentence, that the pain of people "tormented" by diseases, a natural way of dying, needs to be stopped by torturing hundreds of innocent animals, an unnatural and cruel way of dying. Animal testing is also not all about saving lives.

The alternatives to animal testing are even more unreliable.

What sort of research went into that statement? When finding what chemicals irritate skin, comparing alternative tests to animal tests, the animal tests had a 40% error rate, whereas alternative testing correctly showed all the chemicals. A replacement for the LD50 Test had an accuracy rate of 84%, while the animal test had an accuracy rate of 52% (7). Other tests have been proven to be more reliable.


Now, I'll back up the points I made in R1:

1. Animal Testing is Unreliable

I'll start this argument off with a quote I found:
“There is no doubt that the best test species for humans are humans. It is not possible to extrapolate animal data directly to humans due to interspecies variation in anatomy, physiology and biochemistry.” -MacLennan & Amos. Clinical Science Research (7). This quote sums up my point in a nut shell. Animals have different bodies to ours, and are unreliable. In fact, 52% of the new drugs marketed in the US between 1976 and 1985 caused adverse reactions that were not predicted by animal studies (2). This just shows the unreliability.

2. Animal Testing is Cruel

Let me start by saying that this is not exactly opinionated like con said. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that exposing a shaved rabbit to 24 hours of burning is cruel. Animal testing is cruelty to animals. The animals used are even common pets like hamsters, rabbits, cats and dogs! Testing on animals mainly isn't about saving lives either; millions of animals yearly are put to death so humans can show off their new make-up. It's vile!

3. There are Alternatives

There are many alternatives which are safer than animal testing, like:
  • Examining blood donations
  • the Reduced Local Lymph Node Assay
  • The 3T3 NRU Phototoxicity Test
  • The Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability Test
  • the Chicken Eye Test (uses meat already killed from the meat industry)
  • the Embryonic Stem Cell Test
  • the use of leftover human skin from surgery
  • LD50 alternative test
  • And more

These alternatives are more cost efficient, more reliable, and reduces toxic waste. These alternatives are extremely important, and helps reduce animal testing drastically.



Now it's clear that animal testing must be banned. It's unreliable, cruel, and unnecessary.
Over to you, con.


Sources:

1. http://www.humanesociety.org...
2. http://www.dawnwatch.com...
3. http://www.peta.org...
4. http://www.esnats.eu...
5. http://www.peta.org...
6. http://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org...
7. http://www.neavs.org...




4saken

Con

1/ Animal testing is unreliable

Pro insisted that "If if there were 100 products that WORKED in testing, then 92 will fail later on, and a mere 8 will pass". He ignored my point that just because the products pass the first test and fail the second test, doesn't mean the first test is useless. My argument stands: This doesn't prove that animal testing is unnecessary and should be abolished. Pro said that the alternatives are far more reliable, I said: Prove it. Show me that less than 92% of the products passing those alternatives fail in human clinical trials.

Pro said that "Animals have different bodies to ours, and are unreliable". It is incorrect. Many animals have similar DNA to human, such as pigs share 98% of human genes [1] or mice share 99%. [2] Thanks to the genomic revolution, we have realized that there are much more similarities between humans and animals than there are differences. Genomic knowledge has made it so that animal research can be much more specifically targeted and accurate when representing a human, thus correctly predicting a how a human will react. [3] For example mice are actually considered the best model of inherited human diseases. [3]

Pro said that "There is no doubt that the best test species for humans are humans". While it is true, we can't use human experiment (that's why we need animal testing before human clinical trials). If Pro consider "human cell" of "human skin" as "human" then it's just ridiculous. Such models can not tell us what the likely effect of a drug will be on blood pressure - because neither of these things has a circulatory system, blood, heart, ... or they could predict how a drug might be metabolised without introducing it to an organism with a liver. We must trial drugs on whole living organisms at some stage. [4]

Pro said that "52% of the new drugs marketed in the US between 1976 and 1985 caused adverse reactions that were not predicted by animal studies". It's 30 years ago. It doesn't prove that animal testing is unreliable now.


2/ Animal Testing is Cruel

There is no difference between killing animals for food and killing animals for drugs. In both cases animals die unnaturally and in pain. It's hypocrisy to say one case is OK while the other is not. Pro questioned my point that "Human right is above animal right". Isn't that obvious? Right is a concept created by human. Why should we give other species more rights than us? Therefore it's totally OK for us to "murder" animals for our own benefit (by the way I also want to remind Pro that "killing animals" doesn't count as "murder" [5]). On the other hand, what Pro suggested is we should save animals' lives and leave sick people to die in pain because it's natural. This kind of reasoning is absurd.

Pro said that animal testing is not only for making drugs and saving human lives, but also for cosmetics and toiletries. This is irrelevant. While animal testing is not always about saving lives, it does save lives in many cases. Just because it doesn't save lives in other cases, doesn't mean we should ban it as a whole. Pro could have just suggested the ban of animal testing for cosmetics and toiletries, however, his resolution is to abolish all kinds of animal testing. Proving that animal testing for drugs shouldn't be banned is enough for me to win this debate.


3/ There are Alternatives

Pro mentioned cell/tissue tests and human skin model tests. I said above that such models can not replace the whole body and "we must trial drugs on whole living organisms at some stage".

Pro presented various examples of the alternatives. However, he only showed that some specific non animal tests can replace some specific animal tests. In order to abolish animal testing, he must show that all kinds of animal testing (or at least most of them) can be replaced. In Round 1, I have said that animal testing "helps us in our fight against cancer, HIV/AIDS, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, birth defects, ...". I would like Pro to present the alternatives for the experiments for such diseases.


[1] http://www.abc.net.au...
[2] http://www.sanger.ac.uk...
[3] http://www.pro-test.org.uk...
[4] http://www.pro-test.org.uk...
[5] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 2
emilyskates72

Pro

He ignored my point that just because the products pass the first test and fail the second test, doesn't mean the first test is useless.

This is just a statistic to back up my argument of unreliability. Out of 100, only 8 pass. This is small. There are more useful alternatives.


Many animals have similar DNA to human, such as pigs share 98% of human genes [1] or mice share 99%.

When it comes to DNA, every little percent counts. Mice are furry, small, etc. There are many differences between us and mice, yet they still share 99% of our genes. It is the same with pigs. The website even says that mice genomes are shorter than that of humans, bringing more differences.

Pro questioned my point that "Human right is above animal right". Isn't that obvious? Right is a concept created by human.

So animals can be killed whenever because there are no rights to protect them? That's a horrible and unfair statement.

On the other hand, what Pro suggested is we should save animals' lives and leave sick people to die in pain because it's natural. This kind of reasoning is absurd.

I don't see how it's absurd. If the human is dying of a disease, killing an animal who has a whole life ahead of it is cruel. The human is dying of natural causes, while the animal is dying unnaturally.

helps us in our fight against cancer, HIV/AIDS, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, birth defects, ...". I would like Pro to present the alternatives for the experiments for such diseases.

Sure.

CELL CULTURE

Using leftover cells from surgery, scientists can now research them and grow them.
In 1996 a team based at Uppsala, Sweden, compared animal test data, human experience and the results of cell culture tests for a range of chemicals. Their aim was to discover whether animals or cell culture were better predictors of what happens in humans. The cell culture results were found to be significantly more accurate.
Cell culture can help birth defects and the National Cancer Institute favours cell culture over animal testing.

COMPUTERS

Computers can detect the safety of drugs more accurately than animals. They can create 3D models to help scientists with testing and research.

MICROORGANISMS

Microorganisms can be used as indicators of drugs being harmful.
The Trust's research into diabetes successfully used a microscopic organism called Hydra, as an alternative to diabetic animals. It is also helping the fatal sleeping sickness.

MOLECULAR METHODS

Scientists have provided analytical equipment to researchers selecting new anti-cancer and anti-malaria drugs, based on their molecular interaction with DNA, as an alternative to selecting drugs by animal tests. They are also helping the fibrosing lung disease.

PRACTICAL EXAMPLES

By looking at some of their current research projects we can see how alternatives can be developed and practically applied in real life research scenarios to the benefit of humans and animals.

CYSTIC FIBROSIS

This study will monitor changes in bacterial populations in CF patient sputum to improve our understanding of what happens during exacerbations and periods of stability. It will also helo with medication.

BRAIN RESEARCH

This project will use dual-site TMS to shed light on the interaction of two areas of the human brain known to be involved in visual attention. It can help with brain disorders and tumors.


ASTHMA

The research project will use cells collected from asthmatic patients to create a three-dimensional cell culture model of mucus production. It will find ways of turning off over-production.

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS

The Dr Hadwen Trust is funding a one-year pilot study to investigate the potential of applying a new molecular technique to MS research to replace animal studies.

SKIN CANCER

Queen Mary’s School of Medicine and Dentistry has created 3D models of skin cancer cells to understand and research skin cancer.

AIDS-RELATED PNEUMONIA

The University College London is devising the first-ever test-tube method for culturing the human pathogen, to replace experiments on infected rodents with purposely damaged immune systems.

BRAIN TUMOUR

Portsmouth University are creating a three-dimensional culture model of human brain tumour invasion. Human brain cells are ethically obtained from patients undergoing surgery. Normal brain cells are grown in the lab alongside balls of tumour cells to produce a model of brain tumour invasion.

COMPUTER MODELLING OF VIRTUAL ORGANS

There is the construction of computer models of the human heart, uterus and spinal cord at Leeds University.

LIVER

This project is using the very latest tissue engineering techniques to culture human liver cells on 3D micro-scaffolds, to create realistic cell culture models for the study of liver diseases, such as hepatitis, and for drug research and testing.

(1)

There is no difference between killing animals for food and killing animals for drugs. In both cases animals die unnaturally and in pain.

You ignored the point I made previously. Just because animals die for meat, this does not mean we can just kill 19.5m more animals.

we can't use human experiment

While it is unethical to kill a human, taking blood samples and organ donations is far more reliable than animal testing. (1)


Thank you con for a great debate. I rest my case.







Sources:


1. http://www.shac.net...
2. http://www.dawnwatch.com......
3. http://www.peta.org......
4. http://www.esnats.eu......
5. http://www.peta.org......
6. http://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org......
7. http://www.neavs.org......








4saken

Con

1/ Animal testing is unreliable

My point is the statistic Pro presented does not back up his argument of unreliability. I will repeat my counter example in Round 1 here: 1000 drugs need to go through two tests. 900 fail the first test and only 100 are allowed to take the second test, then 92 fail and only 8 pass. Just because 92% of the drugs that pass the first test fail the second test, doesn't mean the first test is unreliable. Pro said 8% is small. Small compared to what? I asked him to show that "less than 92% of the products passing those alternatives fail in human clinical trials". Pro had no answer.

Of course there are differences between human and animals. But I've already said in Round 2, "animal research can be much more specifically targeted and accurate when representing a human, thus correctly predicting a how a human will react" and "mice are actually considered the best model of inherited human diseases". Pro didn't have any rebuttal to my arguments.


2/ Animal Testing is Cruel

*) So animals can be killed whenever because there are no rights to protect them? That's a horrible and unfair statement.

Why is it horrible and unfair? This is no argument, simply Pro's opinion.

*) I don't see how it's absurd. If the human is dying of a disease, killing an animal who has a whole life ahead of it is cruel. The human is dying of natural causes, while the animal is dying unnaturally.

Putting animal lives above human lives is absurd. It is completely unreasonable to sacrifice the lives of your own species to save the lives of other species.

*) You ignored the point I made previously. Just because animals die for meat, this does not mean we can just kill 19.5m more animals.

I didn't ignore anything. Killing animals for drugs and killing animals for food is the same. If it saves human lives then yes, we can kill 19.5m more animals.



3/ There are Alternatives

Pro made a grave mistakes. He needs to show that the alternatives are better than animal testing. Just making a long list of other methods is meaningless.

CELL CULTURE

I've already said in Round 2 that "human cell" is not "human body" and "we must trial drugs on whole living organisms at some stage". Pro said that "the National Cancer Institute favours cell culture over animal testing". It is false. NCI uses animal testing a lot: "If the drug shows promise, extensive testing in animals will determine whether it is effective and safe enough for testing in humans" (http://www.cancer.gov...).

COMPUTERS

How can a model computer can replace a living organism?

MICROORGANISMS

None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing.

MOLECULAR METHODS

None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing.

PRACTICAL EXAMPLES

None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing.

CYSTIC FIBROSIS

None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing.

BRAIN RESEARCH

None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing.


ASTHMA

None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing.

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS

None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing.

SKIN CANCER

None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing.

AIDS-RELATED PNEUMONIA

None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing.

BRAIN TUMOUR

None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing.

COMPUTER MODELLING OF VIRTUAL ORGANS

Computer model again. See above.

LIVER

None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing.

*) While it is unethical to kill a human, taking blood samples and organ donations is far more reliable than animal testing.

There is no where in Pro's source states that "taking blood samples and organ donations is far more reliable than animal testing".



Conclusion

Pro is unable to prove that animal testing is unreliable and the other methods are better. While maybe the animals are suffering due to the tests, it can't be helped if we want to save human lives. So the BOP is not met, Pro has failed to show that "Animal Testing Should be Banned".

As the last word I would like to thank Pro for the great debate.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by emilyskates72 1 year ago
emilyskates72
I don't think it's useless... It's called debating; I don't have to believe in what I debate.
Posted by Brandedguts 1 year ago
Brandedguts
Currently our sun is fusing tritium with deuterium. It won't be long before it starts fusing helium, than oxygen, than nitrogen until it fuses iron the heaviest element capable of fusing based on Higs boson.

Here is the kicker, we don't need to wait for the sun to start fusing iron before we are all screwed! Once it starts fusing helium, we are screwed.
Emily, right now the only living beings on planet Earth capable of developing another planet and finding a way to transport as many living creatures to that safer planet is us humans.

Developing super conductors with solidified metallic forms of hydrogens through extreme pressures, developing grapheme or nanotubes for spacecrafts, developing fusion reactors, using jupiters immense magnetic field for 30% lightspeed travel, etc.

I am sorry, but all this requires very intelligent people. People on the intelligence scale as Einstein, Curie, Hawkings, Tesla, Galileo, etc. These intelligent people need to live longer lives. Animal testing has already resulted in many lives being extended.
Doctor Blalock and Thomas experimented on dogs in order to cure the world of Tetralogy of Fallot.
That alone saved countless millions. I am sorry you feel that animal testing is useless but it's not. What you feel and what truly is are two separate entities.
It is a fact!
Posted by emilyskates72 1 year ago
emilyskates72
Anytime now, con.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by HeartOfGod 1 year ago
HeartOfGod
emilyskates724sakenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with imabench essentially.
Vote Placed by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
emilyskates724sakenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: con successfully rebuted pro's claims that animal testing is unreliable, and cons point that animals are killed for food so why not also kill them for testing diseases wasnt properly countered by the pro. Other then that most other arguments were just opinions of what is or isnt morally acceptable, so I give arguments to the con. Solid debate performance though by both sides, it was a good read