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

Experimenting on animals for science purposes shouldn't be banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: Select Winner
Started: 6/22/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 830 times Debate No: 92992
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Experimenting on animals for scientific purposes should not be banned because of several things, such as :
1. There is no such things as rights for animals,that's why scientist have been experimenting on animals. If there is rights for animals that means every human being must be a vegetarian.
2.If scientist don't use animals for experiment on diseases and cures then there's no medicine for such diseases. Imagine one of your family suffer a disease with cure that can't be found because scientists aren't allowed to work on them, Who'd you blame?


I'd like to thank my opponent for presenting their case for animal testing. Here are my three contentions.

A. Animal testing is harmful to the subjects
B. Animals are very different from humans
C. Drugs tested on animals aren't safe

Let's get started!

A. Animal testing is harmful to the subjects

Regardless of whether or not animal testing is effective, there is no denying that the animals involved are mistreated. How so? Well, it's estimated that more than 100 million animals are killed for testing purposes. [1] Also, many are subjected to the following methods.
  • Forced chemical exposure in toxicity testing, which can include oral force-feeding, forced inhalation, skin or injection into the abdomen, muscle, etc.
  • Exposure to drugs, chemicals or infectious disease at levels that cause illness, pain and distress, or death
  • Genetic manipulation, e.g., addition or “knocking out” of one or more genes
  • Ear-notching and tail-clipping for identification
  • Short periods of physical restraint for observation or examination
  • Prolonged periods of physical restraint
  • Food and water deprivation
  • Surgical procedures followed by recovery
  • Infliction of wounds, burns and other injuries to study healing
  • Infliction of pain to study its physiology and treatment
  • Behavioural experiments designed to cause distress, e.g., electric shock or forced swimming
  • Other manipulations to create “animal models” of human diseases ranging from cancer to stroke to depression
  • Killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means [2]

On top of this, I'd the animals don't die of their injuries, most of the time they'll be euthanized. [3]

Many would claim that animals don't feel emotion or pain like people do, so it doesn't matter that the death toll due to animal testing is so high. That isn't exactly true either. But there is one difference between humans and animals: While most humans can communicate through words, animals are unable to do this.

“The nature of pain is perhaps even more complex in animals. How pain is sensed and the physical processes behind this are remarkably similar and well conserved across mammals and humans. There are also many similarities in pain behaviours across the species, for example they may stop socialising with people and/or other animals, they may eat less, they may vocalise more and their heart rate may rise. The capacity of animals to suffer as sentient creatures is well established and enshrined in law in many countries, however we don’t understand well how they actually experience pain.” [4]

They experience pain, we know that, but they can’t communicate the exact same way we can. In that way, animals can’t consent to the experiments while people can. We can’t be sure that the animals in question are willing to the experimentation.

B. Animals are very different from humans

Another common argument I see for animal testing is that animals are similar to people, so animals must be ideal test subjects. This is only somewhat true. Humans have some similarities to animals, yes, but it's the differences between humans and animals that can be problematic on both parties.

In fact, even the species that most consider to be the closest to humans have major differences, making animal testing even more dangerous.

"Even animals with greater similarity to humans, such as primates, have failed to predict what happens in humans. For example, monkeys treated with a therapeutic antibody (anti-CD28 monoclonal antibody TGN1412) did not predict the potentially fatal immune response that was triggered in humans. The scientific community has also recently concluded that research on chimpanzees, our closest genetic relative, is unnecessary and is being phased out." [5]

There are many factors for this. I'll use the chimpanzee for an example to compare to people. People and chimpanzees have different stance, strength, genes, etc. [6] On top of that, we have varying levels/different kinds of parasites and pathogens than chimps. [7]

In other words, differences between just a human and a chimpanzee can prove to be very troublesome to work with. Imagine what can happen when we take rats, mice, birds, fish, frogs, etc. into consideration. The differences between a mouse and a human can go on and on. Because of the major variations, can we really consider other species to be reliable subjects?

C. Drugs tested on animals aren't always safe

This contention picks up from my last. Because of how unreliable animal test subjects are, they can provide innacurate results.

For example, in the 1950s, there was a sleeping pill called thalidomide that was tested on animals prior to it’s official commercial release. Little did they know that it would cause 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities. [8] Later on, the sleeping pill was tested on pregnant animals (cats, mice, rats, etc.) and they didn’t experience any birth defects unless it was given in dangerously high doses. [9]

Here's another example to hammer in my point.

"Animal tests on the arthritis drug Vioxx showed that it had a protective effect on the hearts of mice, yet the drug went on to cause more than 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market." [10]

This can prove to be harmful to people, as unreliable results can seriously harm or kill people like in the examples above.

In conclusion, animal testing harms animals, is ineffective, and can kill or harm people because of unreliable results. Thank you. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals. So long and goodnight!

Debate Round No. 1


Assalamualaikum (May Peace Be Upon You)
first of all i'm very grateful to finally find someone (since this is my first debate).All i want is just a debate not a conflict.Missbailey8 delivered some powerful arguments i can't deny. She seems to understand the topic perfectly, but i disagree with some of her arguments.

Rebuttal 1: A. Animal Testing is harmful to the subjects
. In the United States, animal testing on vertebrates is primarily regulated by the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 (AWA), and the Animal Welfare Regulations which is enforced by the Animal Care division of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The AWA contains provisions to ensure that individuals of covered species used in research receive a certain standard of care and treatment, provided that the standard of care and treatment does not interfere with "the design, outlines, or guidelines of actual research or experimentation."[1]. Every scientist has a license to experiment on these animals, and every licensed scientist must obey the rules/regulations on experimenting with animals.The animals used for research in the United Kingdom must be specially bred by registered license holders. Research is not performed on stray animals or unwanted pets. This is strictly illegal. The use of chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas is also banned. The majority of research is conducted on rodents, with a smaller percentage using fish, reptiles, and birds. A very small percentage is conducted in larger mammals.[2]

Rebuttal 2: B. Animals are very different from humans
B. If it's not with animals then with what?, Homo sapiens is one of the member of animal kingdom and according to evolution, animals are appropriate research subjects because they are similar to human beings in many ways.
Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans. All mammals, including humans, are descended from common ancestors, and all have the same set of organs (heart, kidneys, lungs, etc.) that function in essentially the same way with the help of a bloodstream and central nervous system. Because animals and humans are so biologically similar, they are susceptible to many of the same conditions and illnesses, including heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. [3]

Rebuttal 3: C. Drugs tested on animals aren't always safe
. First thing that thought was animals experiment not just benefits human but also benefits the species of that animals them self. I remembered Kin selection which is astrategy that favours the reproductive success of an organism's relatives, even at a cost to the organism's own survival and reproduction. [4]
How do animals benefit from animal research? The same methods that have been developed to prevent and treat diseases in humans have improved the lives of countless animals.Vaccines, antibiotics, anesthetics, surgical procedures, and other approaches developed in animals for human use are now commonly employed throughout veterinary medicine. Pets, livestock, and animals in zoos live longer, more comfortable, and healthier lives as a result of animal research.[5]

"A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, - a mere heart of stone" that was Charles Darwin's word. I don't mean to be cruel or inhumane but "Animals other than human beings do not have basic rights. It is a matter of ethics and not of the laws of human societies that animals ought to be treated compassionately and kindly by people because people can empathize with their pain but not because they have rights as human beings do. If they had such rights, they would, among other things, have to be held accountable for killing or maiming fellow animals in the wilds."[6]

Examples of Benefits:
1.Smallpox (cow) has now been eradicated from earth,
2.Polio has been eradicated from North America and people in countries all over the world are being successfully treated (mouse and monkey).
3.Insulin is now able to help control diabetes (dog, fish).
There are vaccines for tetanus (horse), rubella (monkey),anthrax (sheep), and rabies (dog, rabbit).
4.An understanding of the Malaria life cycle (pigeon),
5.tuberculosis (cow, sheep),
6.Typhus (guinea pig, rat, mouse),
7.and the function of neurons (cat, dog).The discovery of anticoagulants (cat), penicillin (mouse), open heart surgeryand cardiac pacemakers (dog), lithium (rat, guinea pig), treatment for leprosy (armadillo), organ transplantations (dog, sheep, cow, pig),laproscopic surgical techniques (pig), and a drug for AIDS treatment(monkey),e.t.c [2]

Scientist purpose is to make this world a better place by many ways,this is one of the major way. Diseases had already haunted human being since the beginning, but if you banned scientist to research on animals then they will be no cure for those disease written. And also if you want to say that researches can be done just with particular organs you're wrong the human organ system is linked to each other an action of one organ can cause a reaction in other organ.

I think I'm done thank you once again Missbailey8 for your contribution


[7]all other little information i obtained from books with title "BIOLOGY Ch 1,2,and3" written by Neil A Campbell and his team


missbailey8 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: ForGrowthOfMind// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Con had good arguments, but forfeited the last round. They also did not convince me that the our treatment of animals was so immoral, and unhelpful that we should stop animal testing. As Pro pointed out many life saving things have come from our experimentation.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain S&G or sources. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter has to examine specific arguments made by both debaters, and in this case, the voter only states what Con wasn't convincing on and states what one of Pro's arguments was. Assessment requires further evaluation.
Posted by Ubermensch-Tsoa 2 years ago
What a great topic for debate.

What is most valuable and ethical?

The pain and suffering of people suffering through diseases that could be cured through animal testing.

Does animal life hold more or equal value to a human life?
How so?
No votes have been placed for this debate.