DEBATE: Animal testing for medical research should be banned

Home Forums Forum DEBATE: Animal testing for medical research should be banned

This topic contains 24 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by  Ágnes 4 years, 5 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 25 total)
  • Author
  • #516

    Eirini Mpakou


    Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this debate.
    Today’s subject which we are going to converse about, is the following: ‘’Animal testing for medical research should be banned’’. We, as the Affirmative team, are for this thesis and we believe that we first of all ought to give a definition to the term ‘’Animal testing for medical research’’. By referring to this denomination, we indicate the experiments conducted on animals, at this case by medical researchers, so as to estimate the safety and the effectiveness of medication. We are of the opinion that this vile procedure should be banned.
    Now, I am about to display the structure of our proposition. I, as the initial speaker, will discuss about the misguiding results granted by animal experiments. Following, our second speaker is going to present the part of the animals’s rights. Last but not least, our third speaker is bound to give a synopsis of our theory.
    Allow me to present our team’s first and foremost argument. As I have mentioned before, it is quite possible, if not certain, that animal experiments delay medical progress because of their often misleading outcomes. To be more precise many theories have proven to be successful to animals with almost identical DNA compared to humans (monkeys, mice). However, they have demonstrated different results to humans. For instance, during some researches, chimpanzees have been vaccinated against AIDS disease, nevertheless this injection could not battle the disease on human beings. The same case has happened with cancer and diabetes. Quite the opposite has happened before. In the course of 40s to late 60s, many medical institutes have claimed that antibiotics were not useful to humans, because they showed no effect on animals tested, a suggestion that, on re-examination, was rejected ever since.
    Thank you for your attention.
    words : 300


    María Salgado

    Good job and great beginning for this 1st debate!
    Thank you so much Eirini…and thanks also to your team.


    Vineta Udrena

    Hello! I’m the 3rd speaker of the negative team and my question is : If there was no testing on animals how would scientists know if medicine is
    safe for humans to use?


    Eirini Mpakou

    Thank you for your question. I can understand your concern, however some modern methods have been created by scientists and these include
    some innovatory tests based on human cells and tissue cultures. Additionally, developed computer-modeling
    techniques are being utilized so as to avoid animal testing. Lastly, a good alternative to animal testing is human volunteers.
    These alternatives not only replace
    tests against animals but they even are more economical and take less time to complete.

    -77 words-


    Edgars Liepa

    Negative team speaker 1

    Our team is strongly against banning animal testing, because removing animals from medical researches doesn’t create a safer world for
    animals nor humans. Medical treatment must be as safe and effective as it can be, and if animal testing can
    provide usable results then we shouldn’t ban it. In my argument I will tell you why animals can provide best data for researches, but before that
    I will give you a point of rebottle.

    If it wasn’t for animal testing then potentially working medical treatments wouldn’t have been given to humans, because no one
    would ever want to test new medicines on living people without knowing if it works. Testing medicine on animals can predict outcomes
    or can reveal possible threats. No other method, without involving humans, can predict how a treatment works on a fully
    functioning biological organism;
    this is the closest we can get. Using animals can delay medical researches, but banning animal testing will certainly stop medical researches.

    So in my argument, about animals providing important information, firstly we must understand why we use animals. No computer or scientist
    can predict how medical treatment will interact with a living organism, a couple of living cells can’t tell enough information about
    the effects of medicine, but human experiments are dangerous. We use animals because some animals share the same biological
    systems similar to humans. For example pigs have the same cardiovascular and skin system as we do; mice have similar DNA to humans.
    Experiments with animals like these can provide data for developing new medicine. You were asking how this works, even though you said
    most of the results are misleading? Just think about scientific achievements which have involved animal testing. From treating deadly
    illnesses (Tuberculosis, cancer) to transplanting organs, to understanding how brains work. Experimentation with animals played
    an important role in developing medical treatment .

    Banning animal testing doesn’t resolve anything, it’s only limiting our capabilities . There’s so much that we can learn from animal experiments.
    It wouldn’t be very wise banning animal testing for medical researches.

    342 words



    We find your point very interesting. However we have a question. Statistics show
    that 1.4 million animals die each year from animal testing. Do you think that this
    reality is consistent with the humanistic values of our civilized societies and with
    the great interest towards nature nowadays?


    Edgars Liepa

    Thank you for your question.
    Firstly, in response to your concern about our interests towards nature, I can say fact that while developing medicines
    that were intended for humans, eventually were useful for animals. Animal testing not only provide solutions
    for human problems, but also for nature, therefore we can solve threats in nature.

    Secondly, our civilized society still allow animal killing for food, for luxuries and even for fun/sport(hunting).
    Our team supports all animal rights, but at that moment when we see that there might be greater good,
    we are ready justify animal killing.

    90 words


    María Salgado

    Thank you Edgars, Christiana and all the crew.
    You have been really agile. Today’s agenda has been fulfilled very early.
    A really good job!


    Christina Liaskoni


    We read really carefully your speech in favour of animal experimentation. However there are some points that aren’t clear enough.
    Of course someone could claim that if animal testing could provide usable results, we shouldn’t ban it. But, as it is already mentioned,
    they can’t. The significant biological differences between animals and people, as well as the unreliable results in humans, make these
    experiments risky. The idea that animal experiments are useful for humans is a traditional misconception, fostered mostly by the media.

    The truth is totally different. I am not going to repeat about the amazing opportunities scientific progress offers to researchers.
    This has already been clarified by my partner. I am going to focus on the cruelty of animal testing. As you mentioned, animals are
    killed for other human needs, food for example. But animal testing is absolutely different. It’s not just the act of killing. Animals
    in laboratories live locked inside cages, in pain and frustration. They are addicted to drugs, poisoned, starved, drowned, infected with
    human diseases. They suffer, they develop selfhurting behavior and after a life of pain they are killed.

    Throughout the years we have seen many examples of animals that showed their intelligence, loyalty or love to people.
    Civilized societies accept that animals have feelings and consciousness. And I wonder: should we separate animals into categories,
    based on their DNA, then select from these categories which species are going to be used in experiments? Is it ethical to choose
    which animals are going to die and which are going to live? Are we allowed to control lives and fate? Only because we cannot communicate
    with animals, like we do with humans, does not mean they have no feelings. Would we allow testing products and drugs on human babies or
    those who are mentally disabled because they have lower IQ than most of us? Obviously not because it is not ethical! Then how is that
    okay to do painful and violent tests on animals?
    Thank you!

    words :332


    Edgars Liepa

    Thank you Christina for your speech, but let me ask you this, why the most brilliant
    scientific minds still want to use animal testing? Wouldn’t it be irrational for
    them to spend money and time on testing animals for misleading results?
    But they anyway choose to involve animals in experiments.


    Christina Liaskoni

    Your question gives me the chance to mention that animal experiments are one of the traditional methods
    medical research uses.
    Some scientists are not familiar with the modern alternatives. Research on animals is easier
    – compared to the use of complex technological tools. Moreover, a lot of medical experiments
    on animals are mostly droven out of curiosity. Finally, it is not
    true that scientists still want to use animal testing.
    In U.S.A. Yale, Harvard and hundreds of medical schools
    do not use any animals to train medical students.
    Physicians are certified only with simulation training
    —not animal laboratories. So obviously the trend has changed!

    103 words


    María Salgado

    Great! The debate is enrichening day by day with your contributions.
    Thanks again for your efforts.


    Arnis Cimermanis

    NEGATIVE SPEAKER 2 – Arnis Cimermanis
    We have carefully read both of your speeches and have noticed that some things are unclear and I would like to address them.
    First of all, you mention that test on animals are indecisive and unreliable in humans, but I would like to point out that some of the most important
    drugs ever made are because of animal testing, for example penicillin was discovered through animal testing.
    Secondly you mention in your
    second speech that animals are intelligent and should be treated like humans and should not be separated in to categories. But if look at our
    current situation animals are sold like any other item that you could buy in a store. Dogs, one of the smartest animal species there are sold
    for money,
    you can buy almost every animal there is on our green planet. Continuing you say that animals shouldn’t be divided in to categories,
    but that has already happened,
    we have animals that are razed for food, those bred in laboratories for medical research, and those that we keep as pets,
    only to name a few categories.
    And we would all agree that we would not enjoy eating our pets like dogs and cats. This tells us that society has divided animals
    in to categories and
    decided what to do with each category.If we ban testing on animals we are left with three choices:
    1. Release untested medicine into the market
    2. Test the medicine on humans
    3. Don’t produce medicine at all. Animal testing is used to make sure that medicine is safe for human
    While animal testing can sometimes cause pain for the animal, the other options almost inevitably result in agony and suffering for humans,
    whose welfare trumps animals. Animal testing is a necessary evil. Why do we produce medicine?
    You may ask because every life form on the planet fights
    for its survival and so do humans we will do everything in our power to keep our species alive for as long as possible
    even if it means hurting others.
    Thank you!
    Words: 349


    Eirini Mpakou

    AFFIRMATIVE SPEAKER 1 – Eirini Mpakou

    Our modern civilized societies share a deep respect for animals in contrast with the past.
    Please make us clear:
    do you think the cruelty and the tortures that take place in laboratories on millions of animals
    should be ignored, only because 100 years ago they may have helped in some cases of
    medical research?
    Should we close the ears to all these scientific voices that shout : “there are other ways “?


    Arnis Cimermanis

    Most modern day medicine has been created
    thanks to animal testing, penicilin on its own
    has saved 82 million people. So we belive that
    82 million people are more important than some
    animals that died for a worthy cause.
    Yes there might be other ways to test medicine,
    but others take way loonger to produce acceptable
    ressults, and animal testing is the most understood
    way of medicine testing.
    Hope I answered your question !

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 25 total)

The topic ‘DEBATE: Animal testing for medical research should be banned’ is closed to new replies.