Is animal testing justified?
Debate Rounds (3)
Perhaps at one time animal testing was justified, however thanks to mankind's technological advances there is no longer a reason as to why we need this unnecessary suffering. In the past, we as humans have had to suffer empathizing with our test subjects the animals, this might as well be equivocated to the abuse of ones emotions. No normal person feels good about seeing a dog get lynched or a cat set on fire. These are absolutely cruel. To preform a test on an animal which may result in similar suffering can no longer be justified.
-Animals have rights-
All 50 of states of America have laws against animal cruelty . This is evidence that humans indeed oppose animal suffering of any kind. Animal testing has been permitted by the government because they believe that humans take precedence over animals, similarly to how animals generally take precedence of insects. Since doing these cruel experiments will end up saving humans lives it is often seen as "justified" to harm these animals.However, it is only justified by the fact that there are no other options, the only thing that could similarly simulate a humans anatomy was an animals.
Thanks to technology though, we are no longer required to use such cruel methods.
The alternative methods of testing today have not been perfected by any means. This could very well be said for animal testing though since they fail to replicate a human simulation. In fact, there can be no improvements to animal testing because they can't be human. The scientific community ought to strive for a system in which accurate results can be gathered.
"Currently, nine out of ten experimental drugs fail in clinical studies because we cannot accurately predict how they will behave in people based on laboratory and animal studies." 
The only hope to achieve accurate results is to actually test these drugs an a human simulated environment. If resources were dedicated to them, computer simulations would be the ideal method of drug testing.
The New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS) offers similar suggestions for alternative testing methods on their website.
"-In vitro (test tube) test methods and models based on human cell and tissue cultures
-Computerized patient-drug databases and virtual drug trials
-Computer models and simulations
-Stem cell and genetic testing methods
-Non-invasive imaging techniques such as MRIs and CT Scans
-Microdosing (in which humans are given very low quantities of a drug to test the effects on the body on the cellular level, without affecting the whole body system)".
Any money put forth towards animal testing, ought to be given to technological advancement instead. As I explained in my last contention, animals make for poor test subjects. Using our resources towards a cause that will achieve accurate results ought to be made the priority.
"Approximately 47 percent of NIH-funded research involves experimentation on nonhuman animals, and in 2012, NIH budgeted nearly $30 billion for research and development."
Technology advances at a rapid rate , if we would dedicate the necessary resources towards computer simulation or stem cell research and achieve what we set out to do. Animal testing would serve no purpose.
Good luck to Pro!
Romy forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Dookieman 1 year 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||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture by Pro.
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.