Debate Rounds (5)
1. To advance scientific understanding
2. As models to study deisieses
3. To Develop and test potential for of treatment
4. To protect the safety of people, animals and the environment
You can see the descriptions of these reasons here:
Animal testing is very successfull and neccessary. No one wants animals to be treated badly, but would you rather have your loved one die? Insulin was tested on animals, and that saves lives every day. Scientists even fear that if animal testing becomes illegal, medical research will be stopped entirely. With the erosion of antibiotic effectiveness a real possibility, it is essential that we use every tool we have to a dress the medical threats facing our civilization. You can read about it here:
And here is another article that proves my point perfectly, if you'll take the time to read it:
The most reason animal testing should be abolished is, we should respect animal.
As you know, mankind and animal have one same thing, it is both are organism. The ultimate of reason that we are living is because, to enjoy our life, I mean to make fun with others. But how would you feel if you are trapped in a small room to used by others just because you're weaker than them? You'll said that it's unfair, because they don't even ask about your position. Some might said we shouldn't treat human and animal likewise. Anyway what I think like is this " If we are birthed in Earth, every organism no matter of their power, must treated same." Because, animals didn't choose to be animal, they didn't choose to be weaker than human, they didn't even choose to be laboratory animals. According to these reasons, I believe animal testing should be banned.
---Source: http://animal-testing.procon.org...--- If you have enough time, I recommend you to read about---
Animal testing is cruel and inhumane. According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and "killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means."  The Draize eye test, used by cosmetics companies to evaluate irritation caused by shampoos and other products, involves rabbits being incapacitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for multiple days, so they cannot blink away the products being tested. [48, 49] The commonly used LD50 (lethal dose 50) test involves finding out which dose of a chemical will kill 50% of the animals being used in the experiment. [65, 102] The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported in 2010 that 97,123 animals suffered pain during experiments while being given no anesthesia for relief, including 1,395 primates, 5,996 rabbits, 33,652 guinea pigs, and 48,015 hamsters. 
Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. In vitro (in glass) testing, such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used.  Microdosing, the administering of doses too small to cause adverse reactions, can be used in human volunteers, whose blood is then analyzed. Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and ThinCert, is made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and can produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin. [15, 50, 51] Microfluidic chips ("organs on a chip"), which are lined with human cells and recreate the functions of human organs, are in advanced stages of development. Computer models, such as virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures, can predict the toxicity of substances without invasive experiments on animals. 
Animals are very different from human beings and therefore make poor test subjects. The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models for human beings.  Paul Furlong, Professor of Clinical Neuroimaging at Aston University (UK), states that "it's very hard to create an animal model that even equates closely to what we're trying to achieve in the human."  Thomas Hartung, Professor of evidence-based toxicology at Johns Hopkins University, argues for alternatives to animal testing because "we are not 70 kg rats." 
Drugs that pass animal tests are not necessarily safe. The 1950s sleeping pill thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities, was tested on animals prior to its commercial release.  Later tests on pregnant mice, rats, guinea pigs, cats, and hamsters did not result in birth defects unless the drug was administered at extremely high doses. [109, 110] 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. [55, 56]
Animal tests may mislead researchers into ignoring potential cures and treatments. Some chemicals that are harmful to animals prove valuable when used by humans. Aspirin, for example, is dangerous for some animal species, and Fk-506 (tacrolimus), used to lower the risk of organ transplant rejection, was "almost shelved" because of animal test results, according to neurologist Aysha Akhtar, MD, MPH.  A June 1, 2006 report on Slate.com stated that a "source of human suffering may be the dozens of promising drugs that get shelved when they cause problems in animals that may not be relevant for humans." 
95% of animals used in experiments are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act. The AWA does not cover rats, mice, fish and birds, which comprise around 95% of the animals used in research. The AWA covered 1,134,693 animals used for testing in fiscal year 2010, which leaves around 25 million other animals that are not covered. These animals are especially vulnerable to mistreatment and abuse without the protection of the AWA. [1, 2, 26]
Animal tests do not reliably predict results in human beings. 94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials.  According to neurologist Aysha Akhtar, MD, MPH, over 100 stroke drugs that were effective when tested on animals have failed in humans, and over 85 HIV vaccines failed in humans after working well in non-human primates.  A 2013 study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) found that nearly 150 clinical trials (human tests) of treatments to reduce inflammation in critically ill patients have been undertaken, and all of them failed, despite being successful in animal tests. [59, 58] A 2013 study in Archives of Toxicology stated that "The low predictivity of animal experiments in research areas allowing direct comparisons of mouse versus human data puts strong doubt on the usefulness of animal data as key technology to predict human safety." 
Animal tests are more expensive than alternative methods and are a waste of government research dollars. Humane Society International compared a variety of animal tests with their in vitro counterparts. An "unscheduled DNA synthesis" animal test costs $32,000, while the in vitro alternative costs $11,000. A "rat phototoxicity test" costs $11,500, whereas the non-animal equivalent costs $1,300. A "rat uterotrophic assay" costs $29,600, while the corresponding in vitro test costs $7,200. A two-species lifetime cancer study can cost from $2 million to $4 million, and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) spends $14 billion of its $31 billion annual budget on animal research. [61, 62, 63]
Most experiments involving animals are flawed, wasting the lives of the animal subjects. A 2009 peer-reviewed study found serious flaws in the majority of publicly funded US and UK animal studies using rodents and primates. 87% of the studies failed to randomize the selection of animals (a technique used to reduce "selection bias") and 86% did not use "blinding" (another technique to reduce researcher bias). Also, "only 59% of the studies stated the hypothesis or objective of the study and the number and characteristics of the animals used."  Since the majority of animals used in biomedical research are killed during or after the experiments, and since many suffer during the studies, the lives and wellbeing of animals are routinely sacrificed for poor research. 
Animals can suffer like humans do, so it is speciesism to experiment on them while we refrain from experimenting on humans. All suffering is undesirable, whether it be in humans or animals. Discriminating against animals because they do not have the cognitive ability, language, or moral judgment that humans do is no more justifiable than discriminating against human beings with severe mental impairments. [66, 67] As English philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote in the 1700s, "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" 
The Animal Welfare Act has not succeeded in preventing horrific cases of animal abuse in research laboratories. In Mar. 2009, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) found 338 possible violations of the Animal Welfare Act at the federally funded New Iberia Research Center (NIRC) in Louisiana. Some of the primates housed at NIRC were suffering such severe psychological stress that they engaged in self-mutilation, "tearing gaping wounds into their arms and legs." Video footage shows infant chimps screaming as they are forcibly removed from their mothers, infant primates awake and alert during painful experiments, and chimpanzees being intimidated and shot with a dart gun.  In a 2011 incident at the University of California at Davis Center for Neuroscience, "three baby mice were found sealed alive in a plastic baggie and left unattended" on a laboratory counter, according to the Sacramento Bee. 
Religious traditions tell us to be merciful to animals, so we should not cause them suffering by experimenting on them. In the Bible, Proverbs 12:10 states: "A righteous [man] regardeth the life of his beast..."  The Hindu doctrine of ahimsa teaches the principle of not doing harm to other living beings.  The Buddhist doctrine of right livelihood dissuades Buddhists from doing any harm to animals. 
Medical breakthroughs involving animal research may still have been made without the use of animals. There is no evidence that animal experiments were essential in making major medical advances, and if enough money and resources were devoted to animal-free alternatives, other solutions would be found.
The way animals in labs are treated is pretty unfourtanate. But we don't need to ban it, we just need to make stricter rules, such as to give the animals anesthesia when doing painful experiments, and they have to eat a decent amount.
In reality, animals and humans aren't equal. They are weaker, and a death of an animal that would be dead anyway can't be more important then the death of a human. More animals die due to slaughter houses (99% of animal tests are caused by farmers, 1% is scientists. Also, animals will survive longer throughout the experiment. Humans are more likely to die before it's even half over. My source: http://www.buowl.boun.edu.tr...
Animal testing also improves human health, ensures safety of drugs, and scientists test animals because they are the closest thing they can find to humans: http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk...
Testing humans would not be as successfull, humans would find a way to break out. Humans have thumbs, brains, and more, so they would find a method on getting out. (Ex: Bust the bars, savotage the security cameras, pick the locks.) and, no one would want to do it. Also, tell me who you'd rather risk:
B. Your family.
Skt1Faker forfeited this round.
Well, I've think I've tell you everything I can do. But there are two things I want to ask you " Do you really think it is okay to kill other organism for human's comfortable?, don't you ever think about animals mind? " Even though animals can't express their feeling to us, they have their own egoist we have to respect even though we can't understand their thinkings. Also, please answer one more thing. Let's put the case that you're raising a dog but one day, one scientist came to your house and said " Can I take your dog? Cause, I have to test my perfume whether It's harmful for me. " I know it's sort of self will. But what are you going to say? And if you're going to say 'No I won't let you to do animal testing with my dog,' please tell me the reason why you're not agreeing about letting your pet to use for animal testing.
In response to your next question, no I would not because:
1. That guy could be a spammer, he could just wanna steal the dog, how do I know he's a scientist? He could be some ordinary Joe.
2. It's my dog so he has no right to take it.
3. He isn't paying me. If I own him, no one can come to my house and be like,"oh I'm gonna take him to test cosmetics."
4. Another reason is that I am against animal testing on cosmetics. I'm only for drug testing and other medicine or vaccine testing, and scientific research.
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.