Should there be medical testing on animals?
Debate Rounds (5)
There is no adequate alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system. Living systems like human beings and animals are extremely complex. Studying cell cultures in a petri dish, while sometimes useful, does not provide the opportunity to study interrelated processes occurring in the central nervous system, endocrine system, and immune system.  Evaluating a drug for side effects requires a circulatory system to carry the medicine to different organs.  Also, conditions such as blindness and high blood pressure cannot be studied in tissue cultures.  Computer models can only be reliable if accurate information gleaned from animal research is used to build the models in the first place.  Furthermore, even the most powerful supercomputers are unable to accurately simulate the workings of complex organs such as the brain. 
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. 
Animals must be used in cases when ethical considerations prevent the use of human subjects. When testing medicines for potential toxicity, the lives of human volunteers should not be put in danger unnecessarily. It would be unethical to perform invasive experimental procedures on human beings before the methods have been tested on animals, and some experiments involve genetic manipulation that would be unacceptable to impose on human subjects before animal testing.  The World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki states that human trials should be preceded by tests on animals. 
Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing. If vaccines were not tested on animals, millions of animals would have died from rabies, distemper, feline leukemia, infectious hepatitis virus, tetanus, anthrax, and canine parvo virus. Treatments for animals developed using animal testing also include pacemakers for heart disease and remedies for glaucoma and hip dysplasia. [9, 21] Animal testing has also been instrumental in saving endangered species from extinction, including the black-footed ferret, the California condor and the tamarins of Brazil. [13, 9] Koalas, ravaged by an epidemic of sexually transmitted chlamydia and now classified as endangered in some regions of Australia, are being tested with new chlamydia vaccines that may stall the animal's disappearance. [22, 18] The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) endorses animal testing. 
Animal research is highly regulated, with laws in place to protect animals from mistreatment. In addition to local and state laws and guidelines, animal research has been regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) since 1966. As well as stipulating minimum housing standards for research animals (enclosure size, temperature, access to clean food and water, and others), the AWA also requires regular inspections by veterinarians.  All proposals to use animals for research must be approved by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) set up by each research facility. Humane treatment is enforced by each facility's IACUC, and most major research institutions' programs are voluntarily reviewed for humane practices by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC). [24, 25] All institutions receiving funding from the US Public Health Service (PHS) must comply with the PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. [3, 26, 27, 28]
Animals often make better research subjects than human beings because of their shorter life cycles. Laboratory mice, for example, live for only two to three years, so researchers can study the effects of treatments or genetic manipulation over a whole lifespan, or across several generations, which would be infeasible using human subjects. [29, 9] Mice and rats are particularly well-suited to long-term cancer research, partly because of their short lifespans. 
Animal researchers treat animals humanely, both for the animals' sake and to ensure reliable test results. Research animals are cared for by veterinarians, husbandry specialists, and animal health technicians to ensure their well-being and more accurate findings. According to the journal Nature Genetics, because "stressed or crowded animals produce unreliable research results, and many phenotypes are only accessible in contented animals in enriched environments, it is in the best interests of the researchers not to cut corners or to neglect welfare issues."  At Cedars-Sinai Medical Center's animal research facility, for example, dogs are given exercise breaks twice daily, when they can socialize with their caretakers and other dogs, and a "toy rotation program" provides opportunities for play. 
Animals do not have rights, therefore it is acceptable to experiment on them. Animals do not have the cognitive ability or moral judgment that humans do and because of this they have been treated differently than humans by nearly every culture throughout recorded history. If we granted animals rights, all humans would have to become vegetarians, and hunting would need to be outlawed. [33, 34]
The vast majority of biologists and several of the largest biomedical and health organizations in the United States endorse animal testing. A 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% "agreed that the use of animals in research is essential."  The American Cancer Society, American Physiological Society, National Association for Biomedical Research, American Heart Association, and the Society of Toxicology all advocate the use of animals in scientific research. [36, 37, 38, 39, 40]
Some cosmetics and health care products must be tested on animals to ensure their safety. American women use an average of 12 personal care products per day, so product safety is of great importance.  The US Food and Drug Administration endorses the use of animal tests on cosmetics to "assure the safety of a product or ingredient."  China requires that all cosmetics be tested on animals before they go on sale, so cosmetics companies must have their products tested on animals if they want distribution in China.  Mosquito repellent, which helps protect people from malaria and other dangerous illnesses, must undergo toxicological testing (which involves animal testing) in order to be sold in the United States and Europe. 
Religious traditions allow for human dominion over animals. The Bible states in Genesis 1:26: "And God said... let them [human beings] have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."  The BBC reports that Jewish, Christian, and Muslim teaching allows for animal experimentation as long as there is no unnecessary pain inflicted and there is a real possibility of benefit to human beings. 
The thalidomide disaster shows a need for more animal testing, not less. If thalidomide had been properly tested on pregnant animals, its potential for causing severe birth defects would have been discovered before the drug became legal for human use.  Testing on animals showed that the drug induced birth defects in mice, rats, hamsters, marmosets, baboons, and the New Zealand white rabbit. [110, 111]
Relatively few animals are used in research, which is a small price to pay for advancing medical progress. People in the United States eat 9 billion chickens and 150 million cattle, pigs and sheep annually, yet we only use around 26 million animals for research, 95% of which are rodents, birds and fish. [1, 2, 115] We eat more than 1,800 times the number of pigs than the number used in research, and we consume more than 340 chickens for every research animal. 
Sure I understand how animals have a life and so do humans. However, would you value an animal's life over one of your loved ones? Furthermore, even though animals are being tested on, many cures have been found! Would you protect 1 animal life that could potentially save millions of human lives?
Second, you state, and I quote, "another point I would want to bring forward is that the drugs that pass animal test is not safe and can be dangerous which can lead to extinguish of species and I don't want a world without animals or birds. one thing everyone should know is that nature is life and if there are no animals left, the real nature beauty dies." How could a whole animal species be wiped out? We aren't testing our research on all of them. That would be stupid and time consuming.
Third, you then state, and I quote, "Religious tradition point out that we should be merciful, so why are we harming animals by medical testing them. the question u should think is" What kind of religion are you talking about here? And please understand that many humans don't have a religion or have a different one than what you stated.
Many of the arguments you stated were answered in my first round. Thus, I rest my case. GO PRO!
1. We are killing poor animals
2. It is not really worth blinding a monkey to have a new mascara because you are taking someone's ability of sight in exchange of beauty cosmetics. What about the monkey's beauty?
3. 95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately discarded as useless or dangerous to humans.
4. 88% of stillbirths are caused by drugs which are passed as being safe in animal tests, according to a study in Germany.
5. There are at least 450 methods that exist in which we can replace animal experiments.
6. At least 33 animals die in laboratories each second worldwide.
7. Animals don't suffer from human diseases and the longer we take trying to recreate these illnesses in animals, the less chance we will have of understanding and curing them.
8. Over 100 million animals are burned, crippled, poisoned, and abused in US laboratories every year.
9. Up to 90% of animals used in US labs are not counted in the official statistics of animals tested.
10. Europe, India, and Isreal have taken a step towards saving animals and have already banned animal testing on cosmetics, which is good news.
11. Several cosmetic tests commonly performed on mice, rats, rabbits, and guinea pigs include skin and eye irritation tests where chemicals are rubbed on shaved skin or dropped into eyes without any pain relief.
Your Reason 1: You state that we are killing poor animals, if that is true, I then wan't to ask you this. Even if we are killing poor animals for research, the animal could provide valuable info on new medical research and ,potentially, cures for deadly diseases.
Your Reason 2: You state that we are blinding monkeys to make new mascaras. As you can see in the debate title, it says MEDICAL testing. I don't think mascara has nearly anything to do with medical testing.
Your Reason 3: You have said that 95% of the drugs passed by animal tests are dangerous or useless, but what about the other 5%? In that 5% are cures that are crucial to the human race! Such as vaccines for hepatitis B and C.
Your Reason 4: You say that 88% of stillbirths died because of these drugs. Let me point out that first, the study was conducted in Germany. Second, that is only one test, and by some person that might not be professional. If you want to prove a point, you should provide more than 1 study.
Your Reason 5: You say that there are 450 other methods than animal testing. Are those other methods as effective? Can you name some? Have they even worked?
Your Reason 6: You state that 33 animals have died in laboratories. That doesn't tell us anything. Did they contribute to research? Did they die of natural causes (sickness)? Were they adults or babies?
Your Reason 7: This reason is highly flawed because if you say that animals are immune to human diseases, then explain my points in my first argument. Cures, vaccines, and advancements in diseases have been found because of medical testing on animals.
Your Reason 8: Again, not enough information. (Refer back to reason 6)
Your Reason 9: Why weren't they counted, you give us nothing.
Your Reason 10: Even though Europe, India, and Israel have stopped animal testing, the countries have a much higher disease rate and deaths by disease. Whereas places that still have animal testing have lower disease and death by disease rate.
Your Reason 11: Yes, there is pain, but they contributed valuable info on vaccines, research, and cures. They probably weren't given pain relief for a reason!
who cares about the valuables researches when the animals are slowly getting distinguished.
Secondly, the five percent doesn't have a big impact to the world when 95% of the tests are useless or dangerous to humans.
Some alternatives to animal testing are Vitro Testing, Computer Modeling, Research with Human Volunteers, and yes these methods have worked successfully.
For Reason 6: First, the topic that we are debating on is discussing about testing on animals, it doesn't specifically say that we are supposed to talk about adult or baby animals, so that question that you have brought out doesn't quite go on the topic.
For Reason 8: They were not counted because if the government finds out that doctors have done medical testing on too many animals, they would either ban medical testing on animals or just won't allow it.
For Reason 10: you have not addressed or provided any evidence that Europe, India, and Israel have a higher disease rate. You have no right to say that unless you have provided convincing or strong evidence.
That's all I would like to say for now.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 10 months 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||3|
Reasons for voting decision: pro forfeited in fil round, and the plagiarism did not help
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.