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

Should animals be used in medical 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  
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: 1/6/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 305 times Debate No: 84609
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Animals absolutely should be used to test new discoveries in medicine. At Duke university a new treatment for an aggressive brain tumors was currently developed. According to the Wall Street Journal the discovery would not have been possible without the research done with monkeys.


"The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."
R13; Arthur Schopenhauer, The Basis of Morality

Animals are not just some unthinking beings that can not feel or have emotions, rather they are another set of beings on earth they needed to be treated as such with respect to their safety and general warfare.

Contention 1:Scientific Limitations of using Animal Models Medical Research Modernization Committee

"A Critical look at Animal Experimentation" by Christopher Anderegg, M.D., Ph.D., Kathy Archilbald, B.Sc., Jarrod Bailey, Ph.D., Murry J. Cohen, M.D., Stephen R. Kaufman, M.D., John J. Pippin, M.D., F.A.C.C. 2006
"Animal studies can neither confirm nor refute hypotheses about human physiology or pathology; human clinical investigation is the only way such hypotheses can be tested. At best, animal experiments can suggest new hypotheses that might be relevant to humans." "In contrast to human clinical investigation, animal experimentation involves manipulations of artificially induced conditions. Furthermore, the highly unnatural laboratory environment invariably stresses the animals, and stress affects the entire organism by altering pulse, blood pressure, hormone levels, immunological activities and a myriad of other functions." "According to the FDA, a staggering 92% of all drugs found safe and therapeutically effective in animal tests fail during human clinical trials due to their toxicity and/or inefficacy, and are therefore not approved. Furthermore, over half of the mere 8% of drugs which do gain FDA approval must later be withdrawn or relabeled due to severe, unexpected side effects.

Contention 2:Animal Testing Too Expensive, Alternatives Are Better

Humane Society International "Costs of Animal and Non-Animal Testing" By: Charles River Laboratories. CRL, Price List. Wilmington, MA: CRL (2006), Derelanko MJ & Hollinger MA (Eds.). Handbook of Toxicology, Second Ed. Washington, DC: CRC Press (2002). Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee. EDSTAC Final Report. Washington, DC: US EPA (1998). Institute for In Vitro Sciences. IIVS Price List. Gaithersburg, MD: IIVS (2007).

"Some animal tests take months or years to conduct and analyze (e.g., 4-5 years, in the case of rodent cancer studies), at a cost of hundreds of thousands"and sometimes millions"of dollars per substance examined (e.g., $2 to $4 million per two-species lifetime cancer study). The inefficiency and exorbitant costs associated with animal testing makes it impossible for regulators to adequately evaluate the potential effects of the more than 100,000 chemicals currently in commerce worldwide, let alone study the effects of myriad combinations of chemicals to which humans and wildlife are exposed, at low doses, every day throughout our lives.
Type of Teoxicity
Chromosome aberration animal test $30,000 in vitro test $20,000

Sister chromatid exchange animal test $22,000 in vitro test $8,000

Eye irritation/corrosion
Draize rabbit eye test animal test $1,800
Bovine corneal opacity and permeability (BCOP) test in vitro test $1,400

Skin corrosion
Draize rabbit skin test animal test $1,800
EpiDerm" human skin model in vitro test $850
CORROSITEX" membrane barrier in vitro test $500

Skin sensitization
Guinea pig maximisation test animal test $6,000
Local lymph node assay (LLNA) reduction alt. $3,000

Rat phototoxicity test animal test $11,500
3T3 neutral red uptake test in vitro test $1,300

Rat developmental toxicity test animal test $50,000
Rat limb bud test in vitro test $15,000

Non-genotoxic cancer risk
Rat 24-month cancer bioassay animal test $700,000
Syrian hamster embryo (SHE) cell transformation test in vitro test $22,000

Rabbit pyrogen test animal test $475-$990
Limulus amoebocyte lysate (LAL) 1st gen in vitro $85-$160
Human blood method (Endosafe-IPT) 2nd gen in vitro $83-$100

Estrogen hormone interactions
Rat uterotrophic assay (OVX) animal test $29,600
Subcellular receptor-binding assay in vitro test $7,200

Androgen hormone interactions
Rat Hershberger assay animal test $37,000
Subcellular receptor-binding assay in vitro test $7,300

So as you can see we cripple burn and destroy poor animals for the name of science when 1. They have almost no direct correlation to helping people except for the random breakthrough and 2. Its extremely cost inefficent when in vitro testing is such a better economic option.
Debate Round No. 1


Mjk123 forfeited this round.


Since my opponent forfeited the round I will not present any new argumentation. Just extend my arguments through to the next rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 2


Mjk123 forfeited this round.


Once again please just extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 9 months ago
Thank you, but when laws are concerned we sometimes have to be literal. If you make something illegal then it must have consequences, or else it is not a true law and pointless in practice.

The point about genocide was not unnecessary: the Nazi's where only concerned for their own wellbeing, so mass cruelty or anything else was considered a neccesary evil requied to meet their own needs. This is the same philosophy applied by supporters of animal testing, arguably in a more extreme form (though not necessarily), but sometimes we must strip down attitudes and look at other examples of such attitudes in order to truly understand them. My view is, that humans are very similar and such attitudes in pro-animal testing people reflect those of less civilized nations e.t.c.

Testing on animals, and animal cruelty in general, compares to genocides and such. Rational though is not necessary for suffering, indeed, suffering is emotional and comes from a more ancient part of our brain than animals also have. What I mean is, there is no reason to assume that our increased capacity to think makes suffering any worse for us than other animals in testing.
Posted by Mjk123 9 months ago
Thank you for your input. But I believe you have taken the motion too literally. The use of the word should, was just away of presenting the questions.

On a separate note I believe your reference to genocide was unnecessary.
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 9 months ago
The definition of 'Should' is the issue here. There is actually a correct answer to this question I believe that is not subjective.

Testing on animals makes scientific research more efficient, and therefore it 'should' be done to ensure this efficiency. More human lives would be saved and a better quality of life may be brought about quicker. I don't think anybody disputes that.

From a moral perspective, it obviously 'shouldn't' be done. Because those suffering animals don't benefit and did not consent, therefore by definition it's cruel, callous and barbaric.

It therefore depends on your virtue. If you are virtuous then it shouldn't be done. However , if your moral compass is skewed towards a 'survival of the fittest' mentality, such as that of the Nazies, then animal testing 'should' be done. Just like the Jews 'should' be exterminated for the betterment of mankind.

By the way, I don't support animal testing, and the Jew comment is not my belief.
No votes have been placed for this debate.