CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should we still have animal testing?
Think like a lawyer - dfend your clients' position regardless of your own opinion.
The Plaintiff (Negative position) is suing a group of scientists for animal cruelty. The Defendent (Affirmative postion) claims that animal testing is a necessary evil, and that not all testing is even cruel.
It is a tough call. I think different situations warrant different approaches. If there is any way to get the proper data without testing, we should. But it just doesn't really work out that way, and tough luck convincing the populace that humans should be subjected to some of these tests. But testing has to be done...
True. Unfortunately, its something that puts a cap on the amount of times you can do the experiment. When going into an experiment, you have no idea how many times you are going to need to modify it, and when you publish, it needs to be able to be replicated, potentially many times. If we run out of people to experiment on and go to animals, the previous results may be rendered completely useless. Granted that can work the other way around too. But the more room you have for fine-tuning the better.
It should only be used in circumstances where it is necessary.
I agree. If there are other options, they should be used.
Also, what about all those convicts who are in prison for life?
A life sentence is rarely for life. Last I heard, the average life sentence in America was around 20-30 years. Also, what if evidence later arises that proves the convict innocent? This also applies to death row inmates.
the proper data, meaning the data we would get from animal testing? no, we cant get that through other means since almost nothing else is as inaccurate as animal testing, but we could get better data.
and humans already are tested on...its called clinical trials
By using alternative methods such as computer models, epidemiological studies, voluntary human testing, use of human cadavers, use of blood donations, Episkin and other simulated body parts, phototoxicity testing, cell cultures, engineered tissues, microdosing, and use of biomembranes. This obviously isn't a complete list, but it's a start. These tests are generally 90% accurate, whereas animal testing is about 10% accurate. Want to see more numbers?
Which almost always happens AFTER animal testing has ruled some of the biggest concerns.
Clinical trials happen after animal testing is assumed to rule out the biggest concerns. As we learned after the first polio vaccine, thalidomide, and most current day clinical trials that fail, as well as any number of other drugs over the years, animals do not respond to drugs or substances the same way as humans. God, humans don't even all respond the same way! You really think a mouse is going to be a good indicator?
By using alternative methods such as computer models, epidemiological studies, voluntary human testing, use of human cadavers, use of blood donations, Episkin and other simulated body parts, phototoxicity testing, cell cultures, engineered tissues, microdosing, and use of biomembranes.
And these are each used when viable. But they each have limitations. Computer models are only as good as the data you plug in, and you have to get that data from somewhere. Epidemiology is subject to real world observations, the element of controlled variables, crucial to most experimentation, is missing.
Voluntary human testing is ideal, but extremely dangerous in early stages of hypothetical testing. It is better once base concepts are established. The rest have limited applications that would only be useful in certain types of studies. One of the primary benefits in using a living organism is that any unexpected side-effects to other systems can be recorded and give us a broader indication of potential problems.
You really think a mouse is going to be a good indicator?
Not ideal, no. But the reactions they experience can and often do give us more information about how a substance functions. Animal testing isn't generally the final or most specific stage of testing.
Don't forget! Humans evolved from animals. The title of the opposition is not saying that animals have rights equal to human rights, but it is saying that animals should have at least the right to live without any threat.
Don't forget! Humans evolved from animals. The title of the opposition is not saying that animals have rights equal to human rights, but it is saying that animals should have at least the right to live without any threat.
Actually, if we didn't rely on animals, we'd probably have more because it's believed that animal studies have led to the rejection of numerous medicines that probably didn't need to be rejected...
There is a fundamental flaw with the 'No, animals have rights too' side. Specifically, such concepts as 'rights' do not exist in nature. The idea of 'rights' is entirely a human construct. As such, whether or not animals have rights, what rights they have specifically, and the extent to which any given right is protected are all essentially dictated by humans. If we're to accept general consensus, then no- animals do not have rights; that's the overwhelming consensus across most of the planet, after all. If general consensus is to be overlooked in favor of ones own personal position, then those who support animal rights need to be accepting of the fact that others who disagree are no more wrong (or right) than they are.
Animal testing is a necessary evil for many things; if we are to eliminate that step, what is to replace it? Extensive animal testing is performed to verify that a given treatment is reasonably safe for clinical trials- are we to perform preliminary testing on humans instead of other animals? That's merely changing out the animal testing is performed on- and if animals have rights, humans have more, so that's just a ridiculous stance. Even more ridiculous is the idea that treatments shouldn't be tested at all before going to market.
I posit that there is no rational reason to ban animal testing, and the irrational reasons are fatally flawed by the fact that humans are animals as well, so any rights that apply to animals certainly apply to humans.
Extensive animal testing is performed to verify that a given treatment is reasonably safe for clinical trials
Yes, animal testing gave us thalidomide, Vioxx, arsenic, and TGN1412.
It also tried to save us from the great dangers of penicillin, the polio vaccine, the AIDS cocktail, digitalis, and acetaminophen, to name a few.
What a wonderful method. I'm not saying things shouldn't be tested, but there are alternative methods.
I posit that there is no rational reason to ban animal testing, and the irrational reasons are fatally flawed by the fact that humans are animals as well, so any rights that apply to animals certainly apply to humans.
There are many rational reasons to ban it, and the irrational reasons are supported by the fact that humans are animals as well...
I never made an argument that all of the results of animal testing have been useful or valid, but you seem to be asserting that NONE of them are- please back that up, if you would care to make that claim. Also: http://www.amprogress.org/animal-research-benefits for some specific cases where we've had significant benefit from animal testing- among other things, the AIDS cocktail is one of them, so I'm not sure exactly how you're citing that for your side.
What alternative methods do you suggest aside from testing on humans directly initially? What method to screen out the worst of the problems? Really, I'm all ears.
I stand by my statement that there is no rational reason to ban animal testing; if you believe there are rational reasons to do so, please detail them.
The fact that humans are animals does not support the irrational reasons, but rather indicates their fatal flaw. Or are you proposing that testing should be eliminated altogether?
I have to downvote you as well, as you made a dispute argument that does not in fact dispute any of my claims. Your stance on animal testing is irrational, and you've offered nothing to suggest otherwise. If you're going to dispute, you need to actually dispute.
but you seem to be asserting that NONE of them are
I am not saying that, but I am saying that the results rarely are useful or valid without the results having been possible to achieve more efficiently through other means. I am also asserting that the majority of the time, it would be just as accurate to flip a coin...
we've had significant benefit from animal testing- among other things, the AIDS cocktail is one of them,
As Dr. Vernon Coleman said, "It is difficult, probably impossible, for patients to take drugs that haven't been tested on animals because just about all drugs are, at some time, tested on animals. But just because drugs have been tested on animals doesn't mean that the tests were relevant, useful or valid." Chimpanzees do not even develop AIDS when infected with HIV, so right there, it should seem unlikely that animal testing was actually responsible for the AIDS cocktail. It was tested on animals, and had virtually no effect - no negative effects, either, but instead appeared to be useless. Computer models are what indicated that it would be beneficial.
J.Marx, Science, 1990, February 16, 809; P.Lusso et al, Science, 1990, February 16, 848-852
What alternative methods do you suggest aside from testing on humans directly initially? What method to screen out the worst of the problems?
There are computer models, epidemiological studies, cell cultures, engineered tissues, use of cadavers, use of donated blood. Total, I believe there are 450 approved alternative methods.
I stand by my statement that there is no rational reason to ban animal testing; if you believe there are rational reasons to do so, please detail them.
The rational reasons are accuracy, cost, and time. It takes 5 years, 800 animals, and $4 million dollars to test a single chemical, which has about 10% accuracy. By using appropriate alternative methods, for the same prices, in one week, 350 chemicals could be tested without the use of any animals and have an accuracy rate of 90 - 95%. This is backed up by studies from the FDA, the AMA, the NEAVS, the NAVS, and the American National Cancer Institute.
I'm arguing that the results are frequently useful, although admittedly never enough to warrant going straight to market after animal testing. It's true that animals respond differently than humans to the same stimulus, but it's also true that we have far more in common with any given test animal than not. You're making it out to be significantly less beneficial than it is, and I'm not certain whether you are misinformed or just pushing your agenda.
You also overemphasize computer models without touching on how said models are constructed. We have data to build computer models as a direct result of animal and human testing. When more accurate, or simply new data is needed for the models, where do you think it comes from? Computer models are an excellent way to reduce the amount of test animals needed, but they are still fundamentally reliant on animal testing. The AIDS cocktail wasn't tested on chimpanzees to gauge how effective it is- it was tested on chimpanzees because they are so closely related to us genetically that adverse unintended effects, in this case, a VERY reliable predictor of what humans would/did experience.
I'm going to need to request sources for your claims regarding cost and accuracy- they don't match up with anything I can find, after all. And alternative methods may well be useful- but realize that they are dependent on data gleaned from animal and human testing. Use of these methods requires information gained from animal testing; they are not alternatives, but rather extensions that reduce the total number of animals needed.
And I can get behind that- reducing the number of animals needed for testing- but your alternatives do not remove or even reduce the necessity of animal testing; only the number of animals that need to be used.
Animal testing remains a necessary evil, even if we can reduce it somewhat there does not appear to be a viable alternative that removes the need entirely.
Sorry for the delay, but I needed to get home to have access to my sources.
I'm going to need to request sources for your claims regarding cost and accuracy
Pacelle, Wayne. The Bond. New York: Harper Collins, 2011. Print. The author's citations are right in the book and I don't have it handy at the moment.
they are dependent on data gleaned from animal and human testing
Data that we now have. Data that we can continue to gain after an animal has passed from other causes. I'm not saying animal experimentation wasn't necessary at some point.
your alternatives do not remove or even reduce the necessity of animal testing
Animal testing remains a necessary evil,
Why? Pharmagene Lab is one of various places that does not engage in animal testing. As I said in another post, I'm not willing to say there are NO circumstances in which animal testing is justified, because sweeping statements are dangerous, but the vast majority could be solved other ways. We could definitely ban it as far as consumer product testing, and could create massive legal hoops required to justify it in other cases.
The AIDS cocktail wasn't tested on chimpanzees to gauge how effective it is- it was tested on chimpanzees because they are so closely related to us genetically that adverse unintended effects, in this case, a VERY reliable predictor of what humans would/did experience.
I've never seen anything that indicated that it was tested on chimpanzees only for adverse side effects, although I'm sure that was also intended. It was my understanding that the primary goal was to test its effectiveness, and that the results were inaccurate for this as chimpanzees handle the virus differently than humans do.
Right now the NIH is moving towards alternatives, because they are so reliable, so effective, and can replace so much. Two countries have already outright banned animal testing and others (including the EU, which is a group of countries) are moving towards it - the US needs to follow the trend.
I'll have to follow up on your sources later, as I don't have a print copy handy. That said-
Much of the data we use to construct computer models can't appropriately be gleaned from a cadaver. Primarily, while we can measure chemical effects with a cadaver, we're lacking in the ability to model actual life processes.
The data that we now have is incomplete. We don't have exhaustive data by any stretch of the imagination. Certainly, much can be done with current models, but as soon as we need to work on something not previously attempted, more animal testing is needed to generate the data we use to create a computer model.
I can agree on one thing- nixing it from consumer product testing. But I don't think it should be impeded in the arena of medical research at any point.
Insofar as the chimpanzee example is concerned- yes, the original intent was to test both for efficacy and side affects, but the fact that HIV didn't 'take' in chimpanzees obviated the efficacy test before it was ever done; they still moved forward with the intent to test side effects.
I believe a categorical ban on animal testing is a horrid idea, but can concede that it's far from necessary for consumer products.
I imagine we can meet in the middle at this point. I would hope that science makes a concentrated effort both to develop new alternatives, and to decrease animal testing as much as possible, while keeping any required test subjects as comfortable as possible. Thank you for engaging with me - you brought up some amazing points that I'm going to be looking into more.
You're welcome, and you raised some interesting things for me to look into as well. I don't believe (or at least, don't want to believe) anyone is in favor of more animal testing, or worse conditions for the animals, so I think we're generally coming from the same place anyway :)
It is necessary for medical and scientific research that could possibly create cures and vaccines for deadly viruses and disease. Those who said no, DO YOU WANT EVERYONE TO DIE BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT ANIMALS TO DIE!!!??? I FOR ONE DON'T WANT TO DIE HORRIBLY FROM A HORRIBLE DISEASE!!!
Animal experimentation is inaccurate, expensive, and time consuming - those are the reasons I give people to reject it when I think an emotional argument won't work. On an emotional level, it's inhumane, wasteful, disrespectful, painful, and horrifying. Should there never be animal testing? I'm not willing to make that sweeping statement, because for instance, I'm becoming a vet and to be able to help animals, I need to learn on animals. To develop a medicine for dogs, you need to have a dog test it. But there are ways to eliminate the torture that is currently involved, and animal testing should most definitely NOT be the go-to method for every product produced.
This is completely irrelevent to the title of the side you chose because you argue animal welfare not their rights. However whoever made this argument needs to look up the difference between welfare and right.
Irrelevant? All of that is very important. Animals are sentient beings, which implies that they do have the basic rights, such as a right to life free from unnecessary pain and fear. The animals being tested on are having this right being taken away. However, most people are under the impression that animals do not have this right when they could be used to benefit people, so it tends to be more effective to argue the more logical points, such as cost, accuracy, and time.
People like you also cherry pick which rights animals have. They have right to free from unnecessary pain and fear, but not the right to live in free of farmed environment? No right to decline domestication? this right when they could be used to benefit people
But have you considered that rights isn't a natural thing but a HUMAN concept? ALSO, that argument wasn't mine, it was another user's argument. CREDIT TO HIM/HER
