The Instigator
fraustega
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
bmattes
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Animal Testing

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,523 times Debate No: 52251
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

fraustega

Pro

Point 1: Cures and Treatments

The California Biochemical Research Associates pronounced that almost every discovery in medicine within the last 100 years have been resulted from animal testing. For example the discovery of insulin was resulted from dogs getting their pancreases removed. Due to polio vaccines being tested on animals the world occurrence of polio reduced from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 223 cases by 2012. "We wouldn't have a vaccine for hepatitis c without chimpanzees," stated the Director of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center"s animal research facility. There are lots of other animal testing labs that help find cures and treatment such as; stroke from clot retrieving devices, childhood blindness by finding a certain enzyme that are in humans in mice, radiation therapy on mice help treat cancer, and much more situations. Therefore if it weren't for the exposition of animal testing many people today would have diseases and conditions that are yet untreated for. Also considering that not a whole lot of animals are being tested on, only very few compared to their population number, few animal tests can fail, but after a few it will result in treating millions of humans and animals.

http://animal-testing.procon.org...
http://newsroom.ucla.edu...
bmattes

Con

95% of animals used in experiments are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act, therefore there is no limitation on how the animals being tested can be treated. This leaves the animals extremely vulnerable to mistreatment and abuse. Certain testing requires the animal to be restrained all together or only certain parts of the body such as arms, legs, head, and pelvis.
Debate Round No. 1
fraustega

Pro

Point 2: NO adequate alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system.
Living human being and animal systems are very complex, therefore cells in a petri dish can not relate to the processes happening within the central nervous system, endocrine system, and immune system. Testing a drug for their side effects can only be done within a circulatory system carrying the drug to other organs. Including conditions like blindness and high blood pressure aren"t very testable on a piece of tissue cell in a petri dish. Considering someone might suggest using computer models, but how can you have computer models without research upon the idea from the beginning to even create the computer model. In retrospect even super computers cannot create experiment models without the accurate and complete information in the first place.

http://animal-testing.procon.org...
bmattes

Con

94% of all drugs that passed in animal testing failed in human clinical trials. Over 100 stroke drugs did not work in humans. Therefore the tests do not provide accurate research. Over 85 HIV vaccines that passed non-human primates testing failed in humans. Along with the low predictability in the animal testing and research areas has allowed a direct comparison between mice and human beings. The data causes doubt about the predictability on human saftey which causes more doubt on the effectiveness of animal data testing.

animal-testing.procon.org
Round 1 sources: animal-testing.procon.org
neavs.org/research/harm-suffering
Debate Round No. 2
fraustega

Pro

Point 3: Animals are most similar to human beings in any ways
Every mammal (including human beings) are descendants of common ancestors, therefore have all the same organs. Considering that, chimpanzees are 99% genetically similar to humans, while mice are actually 98% similar. Since they are so similar genetically they can catch the same diseases and conditions. This is due to the fact that the organs of chimpanzees have essentially the same functions. We are also very similar to bananas but technically they do not have working organs like humans to, therefore testing is only ethical on living animals themselves (those of which who are similar to us humans).

http://animal-testing.procon.org...
bmattes

Con

Over 100 million animals are killed each year after testing including: mice, rats, frogs,dogs, cats, rabbits, and monkeys. Before testing animals are often forced to inhale toxic fumes, be restrained for testing, have holes drilled into their skull, have skin burned, or have the spinal chord crushed.In the United States 1.23million non-human primates are used in testing, and if calculated over 28,457 of those animals are killed each year

http://www.peta.org...
Debate Round No. 3
fraustega

Pro

Point 4: Animals also benefit


Testing on animals most definitely benefited animals as well, for like rabies, distemper, feline leukemia, infectious hepatitis virus, tetanus, anthrax, and canine parvovirus would have killed millions of animals. Animals like the California condor, the Tamarins of Brazil, and the black-footed ferret were saved from extinction due to animal testing. The koala species of Australia are endangered and suffer from the spread of the sexual disease chlamydia, right now tests on animals are being done today to help slow down or even stop the extinction the koalas. Testing like this helps pets, livestock, zoo animals to live longer, healthier, and happier. If it weren’t for animal testing, your dog could have been diagnosed with heartworms (and infection painful and deadly for dogs). Since multiple animals, who are genetically similar, are being tested both that animal and humans will be able to live a longer, happier, and most of all a healthier life. Which can also prevent some species going to extinction.

http://animal-testing.procon.org...
http://www.nap.edu...
https://apbiostoga.wikispaces.com...

bmattes

Con

Testing on animals may lead researchers to ignore potential cures. There are some chemicals that are harmful to the animals being tested on but they are vulnerable to humans, such as Aspirin. Animal bodies are different than human bodies. even though chimpanzees share 98% of the same DNA as homo-sapiens they are unaffected by AIDS and Hepatitis B which are two diseases that kill humans yearly. The experiments on animals can mislead the researchers or even contribute to sickness or death by failing to predict the toxic effects of the drug.

Sources: http://www.animal-testing.procon.org...
http://www.animalaid.org.uk...
http://www.indiana.edu...
Debate Round No. 4
fraustega

Pro


Point 5: Law protects this


Due to animal testing is so regulated, it is completely protected by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). Scientists aren’t taking random animals from the wild and go straight to their lab. They must first get their testing idea approved by an Institutional Animal Care and use Committee (IACUC). Also the AWA regulates that the experiments are to be inspected by a veterinarian regularly. In fact all institution funding comes from the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS), but must comply to the policy of the Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Also groups who regulate animals in research must get a license with the USDA and facilities with regulated animals must be inspected yearly by APHIS. There are at least 115 inspectors from theUSDA.


http://www.neavs.org...


http://animal-testing.procon.org...



bmattes

Con

Animal testing costs the government millions to billions of dollars. Twin-species life time cancer study can cost from 2 to 4 million dollars. An unscheduled DNA synthesis animal test can cost 32,000 dollars while a Vitro Alternative test only costs 11,000 dollars. The United States National Institution of Health (NIH) spends 14 billion of its 31 billion dollar budget on animal testing.
Sources: http://animal-testing.procon.org...
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NateS 2 years ago
NateS
I have always believed that animal testing was benefit. Con did brig up good point which helped disprove some points provided by the Pro side. However, the Pro side did provide more solid evidence by including different governmental groups.
Posted by SheepBruhScienceGuy123 2 years ago
SheepBruhScienceGuy123
I agreed with con. The reason being is that on one of the rounds, he explained the number of animals that died due to these testing. And also, he explained the deficiency in these trials compared to human beings. This allowed for a superior argument which in my opinion allowed for a better reason compared to pro.
Posted by mmariesanchez19 2 years ago
mmariesanchez19
I believe that both sides did a really good job on trying to prove their side to be better. I do not agree with testing on animals so I am sticking to the cons side. The fact that so many animals are killed because we test different things on them is not good in my eyes. I don't know what we could test something like medicine on but animals are innocent and do not deserve to be tortured so we can test on them.
Posted by BLAKEVALENZUELA 2 years ago
BLAKEVALENZUELA
I think if animals are going to be used they should be treated fairly. Animals should not be treated with disrespect just because they're animals. If over 100 million animals were killed than animals testing should not be allowed. I think that animals should be allowed to be used to find cures but not killing over 100 million animals.
Posted by aleah_nicole 2 years ago
aleah_nicole
I really enjoyed how the Pro came out with strong and factual evidence in the first round. That caught my attentin quickly. But since I have and always will be con I agreed with what con said with everything. That does not mean that the Pro side didnt do well though. I just stand strongly for no animal cloning.
Posted by HergenMergenNergenShergen 2 years ago
HergenMergenNergenShergen
As much as I hate to say it, I believe pro won this debate. While there are ethical concerns, pro presented enough statistics to make it all justified, that it would acutally be benecifial. One problem with both sides, however, is that your sources seemed very biased. Having PETA as a source, for example. It is understandable to find sources with a cause, but PETA, a notorious animal defender who may or may not go over the edge sometimes just didn't seem reliable.
Posted by volleyball3 2 years ago
volleyball3
I agree with the pros on the Medical Research using Live Animals because it helps us get further into the medical field helping us discover cures. Testing on animals have helped us discover many cures/treatments for diseases and cancers and sicknesses. Even if some of the treatments that helped animals didn't help us it got us closer to discovering an answer.

The testing helps both causes it helps us learn more about animals and helps us get closer to discovering new treatments. Some of the animals that we have tested on have been helped. they have not all gone extinct some endangered animals have been helped for living longer with our testing. It can be beneficial to animals too.
Posted by megancouillard56308 2 years ago
megancouillard56308
Con: If Animal Cloning should not be existent, then how will we test? If we use humans, then who will we pick? Who would we test on? Animals are like humans, but are different enough that we can test on them. If we can do all of the miraculous things, then we should! Scientists can find cures for many different diseases.

Pro: If animals are tested on, then what animals are to be tested? Do the benefits really outweigh the costs? Animals are neglected, abused, and tortured from some of these tests. Why should humans sit by, and allow the lives of many animals be ruined or ended? Is it only worth it because we are not tested on? Our bodies are intact, so what's the harm, right? No. Animals need to be though of also.
Posted by TheGreatestofAllTime 2 years ago
TheGreatestofAllTime
I had to give it a tie on both ends of the arguement. It was hard to se whether I had to go for what I believed in or to go with the best one. Hands down, the better arguements overall were the pro sides. The first point for the pro side was very informal about what it was based on(cures and treatments). The pro side showed stats, information, and had great points to persuade those that agreed with the con side in the first place. Another thing that the pro side needs to work on is maybe adding quotes to back up the statements he/her put in. It was well put together, but it also lacked a certain number of sources.

The con side was the moral part of my deciscion. I was to agree with this side in the whole first place. This side got to the point and did what I expected of it. It was short, but sweet ad was full of facts and stats. An improvement that this side can work on is the overall size of the arguement. The arguemnet compared to that of the pros was not as informal with the things that could have potentially won the debate.
Posted by Trevor.Kramer 2 years ago
Trevor.Kramer
I am following the con side of the debate because they had a lot more reliable facts to follow. The cons side had a percent of failiures for almost all of their points. It made you think about what is actually happening and how the animals are being killed for nothing.

The cons side may not be as long in the argument but it is full of details. He not only tells what is bad about what's happening, but he also is just straight to the point of whats going on. The percents of how much everything went wrong helped him out a lot as well.
No votes have been placed for this debate.