Should animals be used for scientific research or not?
The usage of animals for testing is a very popular issue today. In nearly all countries animals, such as rats, rabits are used for scientific research. Especially they are used for testing of various new drugs, medicines and stuff like that. There are a lot of proponents and opponents of this issue. I want to discuss in this debate whether to use animals for scientific research or not.
Bektemir
Side Score: 10
|
 |
Alex
Side Score: 8
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
Yes, I agree with bektemir. Of course, there are some alternative methods which can only predict the reaction, but cannot guarantee humn safety. In this case results got from animal researches are the most reliable. The proportion od successful results from niml testing is more than 70%. Due to testing drugs on nimals, now we have antibiotics and vaccines that have saved many people. Side: Bektemir
The essence of humankind life is in constant development, and improving the standard of living is one of the aspects of it. Developing medicine is one of the most important parts of improving standard of living. So, if there is any chance that an experiment will result in an important medical attainment that will reduce human suffering and will improve living standards then it is justifiable to allow animal testing. Sacrificing animal life for the better humankind life - I think it's the right thing to do. Side: Bektemir
Conducted experiments over the past several years has shown that animals are the most reliable subject for testing medicines and drugs. There a lot of countries where drugs and medicines should be tested on animals before they are allowed for sale. Banning animal testing would stop the development of medicine as a whole and would improve chances of toxic drugs to appear in the market, thus causing disastrous accident. Side: Bektemir
|
2
points
Animals should not be used for improving humans' life, they are also independent nature beings as we are. This means that we should never use animals for our purposes whatever the gains are. To infect monkeys with the AIDS virus or to expose rodents to toxic chemicals and radiation is not acceptable at all, whatever the supposed benefits. Side: Alex
2
points
The practice has shown that animal experimentation has made only few breakthroughs. There are a lot of cases when drugs after being approved by animal testing had harmful effects, and these drugs were withdrawn from the market. Science develops everyday and every hour, there are many alternatives to animal testing, for example - growing tissue or cell cultures from human cells in the laboratory. Side: Alex
2
points
But there is a moral side of the animal testing. Testing drugs on humans is allowed only if a person gives a consent, but animals can't give their consent. Therefore it isn't acceptable to test medicines on healthy animals, even if the treatments are for use on other animals. Side: Alex
Not all human testing is done by consent. Should useful products that were invented by non-consenting human experiements be allowed? If the product saves lives - shouldn't it be used so that those experiemented people didn't totally die in vain? Life-Jackets are that product devised by the Nazi in the death camps. Before - the life jackets did not have the neck pillow. The Germans would put the prisoners in ice-cold water and discovered that if the back of the neck is out of the water that the prisoners lasted longer before dying. Then there was the Amercian experiements on black prisoners that infected them with syphilis for 40 years - and yes even after the cure was discovered - the prisoners were never given the cure. So if humans don't respect human life, I think it is quite naive to think that there were be respect of life for non-humans. Side: yes
|
