Should animals be used in medical testing?
Debate Rounds (3)
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 Furthermore, over half of the mere 8% of drugs which do gain FDA approval must later be withdrawn or relabeled due to severe, unexpected side effects.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
Draize rabbit eye test animal test $1,800
Bovine corneal opacity and permeability (BCOP) test in vitro test $1,400
Draize rabbit skin test animal test $1,800
EpiDerm" human skin model in vitro test $850
CORROSITEX" membrane barrier in vitro test $500
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.
Mjk123 forfeited this round.
Mjk123 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.