Debate Rounds (5)
1) Accepting and presenting our arguments to the case
5) Concluding our arguments.
Animal testing is a cruel way of trying to find results that aren't always trustworthy. Whether the testing is drug tests, cosmetic tests, or toxicology tests they are all unnecessary and cruel to the animals. I think I knew way of testing should be considered maybe using humans who volunteer their bodies for the experiments. Mainly people who are very sick and volunteer their bodies so they can help so hopefully they can find a cure for future people who will get that disease or sickness.
Humans will also be a more reliable source to test on because animals very different than humans, so if a certain drug works on a mouse that doesn't mean it will work on a human because their bodies react differently to certain diseases and medications. If we test on a human and that drug works then we can be much more certain that it will work on other humans as well.
Animal testing has become one of the most controversial topics of the modern world; however, there are many aspects of animal testing that people overlook. Without the use of Animal testing we would not have cures to many of the different diseases that we are able to cure. Many current diseases are cured and treated through the use of animal testing. For instance, Cancer and HIV are common illnesses that have been made treatable through the use of animal testing.
Animal testing provides the safety for use of drugs on humans. We live in a society that values human life over the lives of animals. Through the use of animal testing, we are able to help reduce the risks of negative effects that the drugs we use can cause to humans. Before drugs go for human trials, they are tested on animals to ensure that they are ready to be tried on humans. This helps to reduce catastrophic effects that these drugs might have on the people who are trying them.
The alternatives to animal testing, are not reliable. Through the use of computer engineering and cell cultures, we are able to see the effects to some extent; however, these methods are not as reliable as animal testing. Cell cultures are not as detailed as animal testing. Cell cultures only show the effects to the few cells it is tested on. While if you test in an animal, it shows the effects to the body as a whole. Computer models are useful for a hypothetical sample, but the body consists of many variables and unknowns that computers cannot account for.
Finding the Cure
Animal testing is used in the process of finding a cure for diseases but I wouldn't say that the cure for a disease is found just from testing on animals. The diseases get cured when they start using human trails and improving the drugs at the last stage for the best results. You said that "The alternatives to animal testing are not reliable", but most of the time is animal testing isn't reliable either. Furthermore once scientist start human trails, that is when they learn that some drugs that were tested on animals whether they have any effect on humans or not. In today's day and age there is more non-human testing methods being developed.
Since scientists are able to create human tissue and have the actual human gene information I believe there is no point in going back to testing on animals. There are scientist who are working on human tissues and have created human ears and bladders through scientific experiments. If scientist enforced these techniques more than animal testing can become obsolete and not needed anymore.
The technology in this time is very advanced and can offer a great alternative to animal testing. Sure, using a computer might not be as good as using real organisms but it can help and reduce the amount of animals being tested on enormously. Computers can be an effective tool for conducting certain experiments and research. Technology is also advancing rapidly each year offering more and more reliable testing techniques. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is also a great piece of technology that can be used to help examine diseases through human scans.
You mentioned that animal testing reduces the risks of negative effects that a drug can have on human but even after animal testing scientist don't know how the drug will affect the human body. There are many warning signs and side effects on almost every drug out there, so testing on animals doesn't take all of the negative effects away. Animal testing may even be the reason why there are so many side effects on medication nowadays.
Even though animal test may reduce some negative effects and may reduce human suffering it still isn't right on many accounts. Animal testing is an unfair and excruciating process that innocent animals have to endure. You stated that, "We live in a society that values human life over the lives of animals". Which is very true but who are we to say that we are more important than other living animals? It's morally wrong to inflict pain on one species in order to help another. Just because animals cannot verbally express their emotions and feelings doesn't mean they don't have any or feel pain. The fact that these animals can feel everything that is being tested on to them through the experiments makes this whole issue unsettling.
There are company's out there that don't need to be using animal testing but are anyway. The FDA doesn't require animal testing for cosmetics but companies are still killing millions of animals each year while they test there cosmetic products on animals. Researchers should be using more reliable test subjects instead. However, there are a few companies that do use non-animal testing to make sure there products are safe like Avon and Mary Kay. More companies need to realize what they are actually administering to the animals and need to try alternative techniques because they do exist and they are available.
Discovering new medications is like everything with life, it is developed in stages. For medicine, one of the stages is testing the drugs on animals to see their effectiveness. While this sometimes could be fatal, it proves to be a necessary step towards finding the cure. You quoted my statement about other methods of testing being unreliable, and you stated, "but most of the time is animal testing isn't reliable either." So, you admit that other forms of testing are not reliable. Animal testing may not always be reliable, but of the methods that we have today, it is the most reliable of the bunch.
I will in no way attempt to discredit the advances we have made in science. Over the course of history, and especially in recent years, we have made great strides in the field of science and medicine. However, there is one variable with computer engineering that it impossible to create, the unknown variable. A computer simulation of the effects of medicine, lack the ability to produce the unknown. Computer simulations have come a long way since their first use, however they still are unable to account for every variable of our bodies. They are produced using the model of a perfect specimen, and we all know that all of our bodies are different in many different ways, that the computer cannot account for. While the MRI, is a great tool. You state it "can be used to help examine diseases through human scans", that's exactly what it does, examine diseases, and this information is used to help find a cure, it is not an alternative to animal testing. I will acknowledge that computer simulations have some use towards finding the cures to different diseases, but I will not say they are the replacement for animal testing.
You stated, "using a computer might not be as good as using real organisms but it can help and reduce the amount of animals being tested on enormously." To my knowledge, this debate was about whether or not we should have animal testing, not whether or not we should reduce it.
Testing a drug on an animal, tells the scientist a great deal how the drug will react in the human body. Many animals replicate the human body pretty well, and through this they are able to see how the drug will react if it is placed into a human host. If we were to skip animal testing, and put medications straight to human trials, the human fatality rate, would be extremely high. Through animal testing, they are able to work out the kinks of the drugs, that way there is not a high human fatality rate when they enter the human trials. You made a comment that there many drugs that have warning signs and side effects, and that testing on animals doesn't rid the medication of the negative side effects. This is true, animal testing does not get rid of all the negative side effects, however, (and if you quote me on this, don't forget the however part) animal testing is able to eliminate most negative side effects, and alert us of what the side effects are. You also stated, "animal testing may even be the reason why there are so many side effects on medication nowadays." I think that you misunderstand the point of animal testing. Animal testing tells us of these side effects, that way we are able to fix the ones we can and alert the public of the ones we are unable to. You have to remember that before a drug hits the market with these side effects, they also undergo human trials to further get rid of these effects. Based on that logic, human trials also is not successful. It is not that animal testing created these side effects, they are the side effects they are unable to prevent.
The FDA is very strict on their policies regarding unfair treatment of animals, along with many other laws and regulations. In a lab, there are many different process that take effect with the animals. For one, animals are bred in the lab for the soul purpose of being apart of the animal testing process. A close friend of mine worked in lab where testing on animals was utilized. When animals are being tested on, it is required that all policies and procedures of animal testing are followed. Part of this policy is ensuring that animals are given pain relief if they are experiencing any type of pain. If an animal is deemed unable to survive, it is euthanized to put the animal out of its pain and misery.
Animal testing has been a crucial part of science since the beginning. Many diseases have been cured through some form of animal testing, whether it be past of present.
I wouldn't say animal testing is the most reliable form of testing because new methods are starting to show good results. Like I mentioned previously human tissue is a great alternative to animal testing. Human tissue is provided by The National Disease Research's Interchange to scientists who are researching the cure for diabetes, cancer, glaucoma and many other diseases. 80 vaccines for HIV and AIDS have been reported by The National Institutes of Health that those vaccines have pasted the animal trials but failed the human trials. With those types of diseases only human trial will find the most sufficient cure.
Technology now may be able to produce exactly what humans are made up of but think a few years in the future and where technology will be then. Every year we improve greatly with technology and even if we can't just use computer individually for testing we can use computer for assistance while we perform these test.
If we were to skip animal testing altogether we don't have to go straight to human trials because we can use other methods before we move on the actual human trail stage. Since, you mentioned that fatality rate would be higher if we used humans for the experiments but what if the fatality rated did not fluctuate or maybe it would stay that same. That could be because the humans that are to be used for the human trails are are most likely already sick don't have that long to live anyway.
The volunteers are at the point in there sickness where they have accepted that there is no cure and have a short period of time left to live. Unfortunately, if they did die during the experiments they knew what they died for by trying to save other lives that have the same type of illness they had. Not unlike animals that are being used against their will in a way. The volunteers are taking part in the testing's because they are doing it for the greater good and it's also a plus when researchers are testing on the subject that already has that disease inside them that they want to researchs. Unlike with animals that have to have the diseases medically put in them. Using human trails can be a faster way of researching and producing new drugs and the faster new medication gets released on the market the more lives that can be saved at a faster rate.
Other trails that can be done before researchers actually reach human trails can be using human cells. The National Research Council is actually for testing on human cells rather than animals and is encouraging companies to make the switch. A great recent achievement that has been recently developed is a 3-dimensional model of breast cancer so scientist can are able to study the cancer in its earliest stage and test possible treatment for it. Instead of using rats to study cancer on the model uses actual human tissue that will allow the research for cancer to develop a great amount in the years to come.
It is true that the animals that are being tested on are breed specify for the purpose of animal testing but it doesn't change anything. Those animals are just breed in a sterile environment so they are clean of any harmful diseases but those animals are exactly the same as the rats and rabbits that you have for a pet minus any sickness they could have. You said that "Animals are given pain relief if they are experiencing any type of pain. " However, scientists try to stay away from using pain medication on the animal when they are testing out a product because the pain medication can cause an interaction with the medication that they are testing on the animal. Therefore, that will be giving unreliable results to be passed on for further experimentation. That's why I believe scientist don't use pain medication that often with animals that are in pain during procedures.
Funny you should mention diabetes. My girlfriend was recently diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes. When she was diagnosed, I did a lot of research to help me understand the condition. According to the American Diabetes Association, 25.8 Million people are diagnosed with Type 1. That is approximately 8.3% of the population in the United States. So about one out of every ten people has been diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes. This is a perfect example of where animal testing has been extremely useful. Insulin was not discovered until 1922, people before this diagnosed with diabetes, would almost certainly pass away due to complications with the disease, others would starve to death keeping they sugar levels under control. Insulin, was developed and with the help of animal testing was developed. Through the use of animal testing, insulin was produced and we now have treatment for Type 1 diabetes. Insulin, is not the only medication that owes its production to animal testing. Many diseases today, are treatable and curable thanks to animal testing.
You mention that 80 vaccinations for HIV and AIDS have failed human trials after passing animal trials. Like I mentioned in my first post, Animal testing is a part of the process for discovering and creating medicine. It is a crucial part of the process in where they are able to make medications safe for human trials.
I don't have anything to rebut in this section because you failed to mention anything that pertains to this debate. Technology is advancing everyday, but computers are limited by their abilities. However this is irrelevant, whatever happens with computers is the future, this does not deal with the concept of animal testing now. For now, this technology does not exist, thus animal testing is crucial.
The reason we use animals, is for the safety of humans as we are developing and creating new drugs and medications to cure diseases. If we moved straight to human trials, the kinks and bugs that would gotten rid of during the animal testing process, would be exposed and have a harmful effect on the humans in the trial. It is naive to say that the death rate would be high only because they were sick before experiments and were likely to die anyways.
You state, "human trails can be a faster way of researching and producing new drugs and the faster new medication gets released on the market the more lives that can be saved at a faster rate." Perhaps this would be true, but the amount of lives lost using the untested drugs on humans would cancel out the speed of how fast the drug is out. And when the drug is released, whether it was tested on humans or animals, that is not going to effect the rate at which it is able to cure people. I think it would very difficult for researchers to find enough people who would volunteer to take a drug that has not been tested. The people who take drugs now a days know that the drugs have been tested on animals and have a greater assurance that the drugs will protect them. I am not saying that no one would volunteer, but they would not be able to produce enough to test and perfect the drug.
Testing on human cells is a great new tool that we are able to do to test different treatment options. However, the human body works as one cohesive unit. It does not work as individual cells. The problem with working with human tissues or human cells, is that they lack the cohesiveness that the body represents. I am not discrediting these as methods of research; however, it goes back to my original statement that animal testing is the most effective method. You mention the example of rats with cancer, do you know that many current different treatments of cancer were produced with the assistance of animal testing?
Animal testing has been a controversial topic for many years. People have many different arguments both for and against it. The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee or IACUC was created to developed methods for animal testing that keep it as humane as possible. However, whether or not scientist follow these regulations is a completely different debate all together. Under the IACUC scientists are required to administer pain medication if the animal is experiencing pain. You state that you believe that scientist do not use pain medication, this is a debate that needs to be supported by facts, not beliefs. Whether or not scientists follow regulations weighs nothing in this debate.
You seem to be informing me on a lot of information on diabetes but fail to elaborating on how exactly animal testing was able to find the treatment for the disease and the side effects from it. You mentioned that animal testing had produced treatment for Type 1 diabetes and it did but there were complications. The insulin that was used to treat the patients used to cause a lot of allergic reactions to the people who took the insulin. That was because the body saw the insulin as being foreign and would cause allergic reactions. Animal testing alone wasn't able to make the drug officially safe to take. Recently with the new technology that has been developed scientist were able to make human insulin in lavatories using more advanced technology to make sure it is safe for people to take.
The technology does exist now but it just isn't has advanced as it will be in years to come. However, we do have some advance technology now, that is how scientist are able to experiment with cell culture and create human tissue. What's wrong with looking into the future? I don't see how it is irrelevant just because it doesn't deal with animal testing right now. It's not going to take that long for technology to get upgraded and completely take away animals testing for good.
I did not say that we should move straight to human trials without performing other test beforehand. I said we should use other methods before we use humans. Scientist should perform on human tissues and use other non-animal experiments, like with computers before we use humans to reduce any negative effects it can have.
When scientist's use other methods with technology before they use humans they won't need to do a millions test on humans like they do with animals. With using technology that will save more lives from being lost either its humans or animals. I think scientist will be able to find a good amount of people who are will to help with science researching because they want to help find cures for these diseases. Just because a drug was tested on animals doesn't mean more people will be okay with having that same drug tested on them. Many people might feel safer having a drug tested on them if it was experimented on with technology and human tissues instead of having it tested on animals. Since animals bodies can be very different than ours.
A great tool scientist should use is have one database that will be able to show what drug combinations work with others on humans. So scientist can see what drugs have been used and what works and what doesn't. The advantage with that is it will save many lives' either being humans or animals.
If The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee or IACUC have created methods for animal testing to keep it humane then why are animals still being tested unfairly? I don't think whether or not scientist follow those regulations would be another debate because them not treating the animals fairly is part of the reason why animal testing is cruel and not needed. Clearly the scientists who are performing these tests on the animals don't care much about the animal's well-being or they won't be in that field of this kind of research. So giving animal's pain medication that could interfere with the drug they are testing probably isn't something they are willing to do.
In 2012, approximately twenty-six million people have been diagnosed with type one diabetes, on top of this, another seven million are projected to have the disease but not have been diagnosed yet. In the early part of the twentieth century, they did not know much about diabetes. Many people who had the disease, quickly died due to complications. Frederick Banting, the person who created the first insulin solution, found the treatment through studying the pancreas of animals. Ironically, Banting was a known animal lover having grown up on a farm; however, he knew that it was necessary for his research. Through the use of animals, he was able to isolate the problems with the body that caused diabetes, and he formulated "insulin". You admitted that animal testing was a crucial part in creating insulin, "animal testing had produced treatment for Type 1 diabetes and it did". Treatment for diabetes was found through the successful use of animal testing. Argue what you want against the first human trials, but testing on animals discovered the medication that keeps twenty six million people alive today.
I feel as though your argument here is flawed. You keep referencing technology in the "years to come", but that doesn't help us with the situation we are in now. In fact in your last argument you even suggest that animal testing is necessary until future technology is developed, when you said "it's not going to take that long for technology to get upgraded and completely take away animals testing for good."
Your right, we need to use other methods of testing before human trials; animal testing is one of these methods. Cell cultures and human tissue sampling are great new resources that have come a long way, but they are still unable to simulate the body as a whole. They are great for looking at how certain substances will react with a specific part of the body; however, the body is a complicated array of organs, which is unable to be reproduced by a single tissue or cell sample. This also goes for the computer, the computer cannot account for the body as a whole. Animals on the other hand, are built similar to humans, therefore testing on them brings forth the most promising results.
I would like to see where you found this piece of information, "people might feel safer having a drug tested on them if it was experimented on with technology and human tissues instead of having it tested on animals." Your suggesting that people would rather try drugs that are tested on inanimate, non-living things rather than knowing how that drug effected a living organism? I would like to see where you got this piece of information, because it seems impossible to me that someone would value a computer simulation for instance over testing on a living thing.
A database of this type would be a great tool for scientist, sadly it does not pertain to this debate. I noticed you avoided my question, so I will rewrite it to give you a second chance to answer. You mentioned a 3D model for breast cancer, do you know that many current different treatments of cancer were produced with the assistance of animal testing? I think this question is essential because many people today are alive thanks to the testing on animals that help to find treatments for many types of cancer.
I really am at a loss of what to say here, I am not for animal cruelty and I really do not understand how this pertains to our debate. Our debate is about animal testing, not animal cruelty. Whether or not scientist should follow the IACUC guidelines is a completely different debate. The guidelines are set to make animal testing as humane as possible. I agree that doctors should follow these guidelines. You mention that the scientist who are performing the tests on animals do not care about the animals well being, but you are assuming there. Scientists are well educated people in society, and they understand that testing on animals is the most proficient method of testing, for this reason they test on animals, not because they do not care about animals. Banting, the person who created insulin for instance, was a known animal lover even though he tested on animals to help create insulin.
The biggest issue with animal testing is the fact we are testing on animals while trying to get human results, animals are not human and aren't made up the same way we are there for the drugs with affect us differently. Yes, maybe some drug might work on a mouse that might also work on a human but that drug never does the full job of completely curing the disease without there being painful or any side effects at all.
If we can stick to human genes for experiments we can have a better understanding of how the different drugs will affect us and fix the problem before we actually give it to human trial. That will lessen the fatal effects the drug could cause us. At least we will have some idea on how the drug will affect the human body unlike going from animal testing to human testing we don't know the effects it will have on us.
Since animal testing has become such a controversial topic in our society now that just shows that more and more people are taking into effect that animal testing is wrong for both humans and animals and want more non-animal testing methods. There are many people out there that will never change their minds about animal testing but most eventually will because they're going to want more reliable and faster testing results for humans that you can't get from animals.
In our society now we want fast results, so using non-animal methods have generally been reserving faster results. Other alternatives not involving animal testing are also cheaper to do aswell. Donated human bodies and skin leftovers from surgical procedures can be used to test how certain chemical effect our skin without actually causing pain to us.
While using human trails, Microdosing is an effective and safe way to achieve information on the safety of a drug and how it processed in our bodies by giving very small one time doses that is well below the brink necessary for any possible pharmacologic effect to take place because it is able to provide the information on how safe a drug is for us without actually harming us.
More researchers are using advanced brain imaging and are recording techniques like MRI and CT that allow the human brain to be actually being studied on safely without causing any harm to humans. That is a much better form of testing method rather than what researchers would do o animals by cutting and damaging the brain of countless animals like rats and monkeys that will result in death. Since more researchers are using advance technology they are saving millions of animal's lives while at the same time they are getting more trustworthy results.
Overall, there are better techniques that we can us rather than animal testing that will give us bigger and better results. If we are going to want to start advancing with the researcher with drugs and diseases we need to update our testing methods rather than keep using animal testing that will only get us so far. Since, diseases and cancers are developing and changing at a faster rate we need to keep up with it with faster and better techniques involving technology because technology is always developing, so we can keep up with the diseases. We have the reliable resources, technology and other dependable methods that will get us further in the discovery of how to cure a lot more diseases and cancers we just need more and more researchers to join in with these more cutting-edge experiments.
Animal testing has since its first use, been a controversial topic both pro and con. Both sides have excellent points that they attempt to bring across to prove they are right; however, the pro side has one fact that the con side cannot ignore. Animal testing has worked and been beneficial in the field of researching medicine. There are many drugs out today, that have been developed with the assistance of animal testing. For instance, insulin which is helping to keep alive close to thirty million people. Other illnesses have treatments thanks to the use of animal testing as well. Many treatments for cancer and HIV/AIDS also have there roots stemming from animal testing. The con side neglects to see that animal testing has been an important part of drug development and has assisted in saving the lives of millions of people.
As I stated in my opening statements, we live in a society today that values human life over the lives of animals. This is not our doing, it is just the type of society we were all born into. With that, comes testing on animals. By testing on animals, we ensure that the drug will not have adverse effects on the humans it is testing on. Testing on animals is a trail that drugs undergo before they are tested on humans; by testing drugs on animals we are able to see how the drug will effect a living organism before we go and test it on humans. Through this method we are able to find and fix all the errors with the drugs before they are tested on humans. This method helps to limit and reduce human fatalities while testing drugs.
Of all the methods of testing different drugs and medicines, animal testing has been found to be the most efficient and most useful. Most living animals bodies closely resemble the human body, therefore testing on them most accurately depicts what will happen when a drug is tested on the human body. The other methods of sampling such as cell cultures and human tissue sampling, are great new tools that have been created, but still do not yield the same results as animal testing. They are great for looking at how a drug will effect one aspect of the human body, but they neglect to show how it will effect the body as a whole. I discredited these methods in the first rebuttal and as you can see, no other solution was posted.
Technology has come a long way in recent years, we have developed a method for human sampling by means of generating simulations on the computer. These methods are new, and have not been perfected yet. As of now, they are just like cell cultures, where as they are great for examining a specific portion of the body; however, we all know that the human body functions as a whole. The computer cannot effectively account for the body as a whole, and when it does it looks at a perfect example. We all know that our bodies are not perfect. The computer can only run a simulation of the "perfect" human specimen. It ignores the unknown variables that our bodies have. Discussion of technology while talking animal testing is a mute point. As of now, no technological solution to animal testing has been found. Or at least no technological solution that produces the same results as animal testing. Quite simply put, the technology needed to take animal testing out of the equation does not yet exist.
We discussed the treatment of animals a lot through this debate. The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee or IACUC, have extremely strict guidelines regarding the safety and security of animals through animal testing. These guidelines are in place to protect the animals from being treated unfairly. Scientist should always follow these guidelines while testing on animals. These policies eliminate the unfair treatment section of the debate, because under them the animals will never be treated unfairly. Scientist are required to not let the animals suffer any pain, and if they do they are required to administer medication to stop the pain.
Animal testing has been a controversial topic for a while now, but the fact of the matter is that it produces the most accurate results. I want to thank my opponent for this debate. Vote PRO!!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Asp111 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Animal testing is very important, and also Mariani had very good arguements.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Very close debate, Pro proved that animal testing is accurate and that the FDA is strict on animal abuse laws. Pro wins by a hair. Very good debate :)
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.