The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

Animal testing

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Lehigh18 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/3/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 399 times Debate No: 104754
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Save Animals: Don't Test on Them
Animal testing is a huge controversy. Some argue that animal testing is a necessity to make medical breakthroughs. Opponents believe that animal testing is inhuman. Clearly, animal testing is a bad practice because it has caused suffering on a massive scale, it's a bad form of science, and is unethical.
Throughout the world animal testing has caused suffering on a massive scale. In 2016, US Government statistics put the number of laboratory animals used in research at 820,812, a 7% increase from 2015 (PETA). Studies show that 4.1 million experiments are conducted on animals in laboratories in the UK each year ( National Antivisection Society). This is proof that laboratories have been on a rise lately, showing that the use of animal testing is a problem in other parts of the world, not only in the United States.
Animal testing is a bad form of science. The food and drug administration reported that 92 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal testing would fail on testing on humans (PETA). After seven years of testing on animals the anti-Rheumatic drug, Orpen, was declared safe for use on humans. After initiation of use on humans, this so-called "safe" drug was responsible for killing 76 people and caused a very serious illness to 3,500 others in Britain (NewStatesman).
Some feel that animal testing is a unethical form of testing. More than 100 million animals are killed in the US each year. Laboratories are used for biology lessons, medical training, drugs, and cosmetic testing. Before animals die, most are forced to inhale toxic fumes or they are also immortalized and stuck to multiple devices for hours suffering. Scientist from PETA announced that companies/ testing laboratories could put stress and suffering on animals by have drilling holes into their skulls, have skin burned off, or their spinal cords crushed (PETA). Studies have also shown that because of the torment of the experiments animals are deprived of everything that is natural and important to them. Animals are taken out of their natural habitat and confined in barred cages and are socially isolated, which is not helping the animals in any way.
On the other hand, many scientists and companies believe that animal testing is the best form of testing drugs for humans cures. Those against animal testing feel this isn"t right, they feel that scientists should start testing on humans for their own cures because animals and humans function differently. Why make animals suffer for them to possibly die after the scientist are done trying to see if the drug worked on the animal? The animals are under unnatural testing environments and the scientists are doing this in a very unhealthy and unnatural way. There is really no thought out processes behind testing on animals. How do animals benefit from dying? Animals don't have any say in getting tested on in a laboratory. If companies and scientist started testing on humans it could lead to more cures found in viruses and diseases, because the testing would be done on the very being that the drug would be used on to cure the ailment.
Testing on animals doesn't benefit from much. Yes, scientist do find cures for viruses and disease, but scientist are killing creatures that can't fight for what they want. Animals have no say in what is happening to them. They get put into a situation that they can't protect themselves from. Animal testing shouldn't exist because of the pain and suffering they make them go through just to find a cure that they could test on a human instead of risking animals lives in the process.


Animal testing is rather important for medical breakthroughs, and is indeed, very necessary for creating new and better drugs. Human's have been testing on animals for thousands of years, this practice has helped us to make and test a multitude of averagely used items, ranging from everyday products such as lipstick, cleaning supplies, band-aids, etc to antibiotics, vaccines, and antiviral medicines. There a many reasons to use animals in testing, catergories of this include, availabilty, cost, logistics, and the overall benefits. In these catergories, there are also reasons why animal testing may be the only option.
For your first argument you state that there is "obviously" a recent increase in animal testing, this is hardly true. You state that there is a 7% increase between 2015 and 2016, which is an incredibly insignificant amount. Next you argue that some drugs declared safe (Orpen) are wrongly tested and killed or caused illness among over 3,500 people. While this was a tragedy, these few instances are but setbacks considering the the amount of lives saved from medicines tested by animals.
The epidemic of polio, killed thousands of people, with the help of animal testing, immunizations were made to save thousands more. Nearly 50 million Americans with high blood pressure have lower incidences of heart attack due to drugs developed with the aid of animal testing. also mention the problem of compatibility between the animals and humans, which connects to the cases of failed trials in drugs. But, 95% of all tested animals are rats and mice, which, next to monkeys, are the most compatible with the human body. (
One of the more prominent arguments for animal testing is availability of test subjects. Yes, if we were to test on humans, the results would obviously be much better, and research would be better guided. But you must factor in the supply, not many people are going to willingly undergo the experiments we put animals through. An estimated 26 million animals are used for testing in the united states( there are definitely not 26 million people, maybe even in the entire world that would willingly undergo these experiments.
Also considering that rats and mice have a life-span of 2-3 years, and can be reproduced much easier and faster than human's can for obvious reasons. Even if there were people who chose to undergo these experiments, there would still be problems. People are very different genetically, and as we know, in science, we need identical test subjects for validity. We don't want all of these different circumstances to impact our results. Which leads to the answer, we have much more control of rats than we ever could on humans. We have what are called "transgenic" rats, where we replicate the genes that cause illness among humans so that our results can be as valid as possible.( Lastly, other methods for testing drugs and products tend to be more expensive. For example, one common idea that comes to mind when thinking of alternatives is Vitro testing, which involves growing and testing from petri dishes. But it costs $2-$10 million according to the Food and Drug Administration. While alternative methods such as computer simulations, and cloning are obviously much more expensive.
For the reason of availability, Testing drugs on animals is a much better option considering there are no other reliable subjects of testing.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.