Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 8 views

    Debate Animal Testing

    Uploaded by

    lync61.hrc

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Debate Animal Testing

    Uploaded by

    lync61.hrc
    8 views2 pages

    Original Title

    debate-animal-testing

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    8 views2 pages

    Debate Animal Testing

    Uploaded by

    lync61.hrc

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    1.

    Against animal testing

    Animal testing is unreliable.

    - Animal tests do not reliably predict results in human beings:

     94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials.
     Out of 93 dangerous drug side effects, only 19% could have been predicted by animal tests, a
    recent study found

    - 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.”

    - 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. 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.

    Alternative counter argument: Computer models, tissue and cell cultures, and a number of other non-
    animal related research methods are used today in biomedical research. However, animal testing
    remains a neccesity. For example, blindness cannot be studied in bacteria and it is not possible to study
    the affects of high blood pressure in tissue cultures.

    The living system is extremely complex. The nervous system, blood and brain chemistry, gland and
    organ secretions, and immunological responses are all interrelated, making it impossible to explore,
    explain, or predict the course of diseases or the effects of possible treatments without observing and
    testing the entire living system of an animal

    2. For animal testings

    Animal testing contributes to life-saving cures and treatments.

    The California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical breakthrough in the last
    100 years has resulted directly from research using animals. Animal research has contributed to major
    advances in treating conditions such as breast cancer, brain injury, childhood leukemia, cystic fibrosis,
    multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis, and more, and was instrumental in the development of pacemakers,
    cardiac valve substitutes, and anesthetics.

    Take measles vaccine which used animal testing for example. Before the vaccine was invented in 1963,
    nearly every kid on earth contracted it at some points and about 135 million people died a year bcz of
    measles Measles vaccination resulted in a 73% drop in measles deaths. So whithout animal testing then
    there would now still be millions of people die each year because of cancer.

    It is totally normal and legitimate goal of humans to live healthily. You may say this method of
    experimenting is killing animals but if we have to choose between humans’ life and animals’life, what
    would be a wiser choice. Is it more humane to put the wellbeing of other species first rather than that of
    your own fellow humans?

    You might also like