THBT Animal testing should be banned

Affirmative arguments

Unethical

It’s unethical to sentence 100 million thinking, feeling animals to life in a laboratory cage and
intentionally cause them pain, loneliness, and fear. They languish in pain, suffer from extreme
frustration, ache with loneliness, and long to be free. The complete lack of environmental enrichment
and the stress of their living situation cause some animals to develop neurotic types of behavior such
as incessantly spinning in circles, rocking back and forth, pulling out their own fur, and even biting
themselves. After enduring a life of pain, loneliness, and terror, almost all of them will be killed.

Unreliable
Even if a product harms animals, it can still be marketed to consumers. Conversely, just because a
product was shown to be safe in animals does not guarantee that it will be safe to use in humans.
scientific test results can never truly be accurate or reliable when gathered from an animal that has
been abused, neglected, or mistreated. Certainly, the stress of laboratory care and handling can
greatly impair the health of said animals and ultimately skew or negatively affect the outcome of
scientific testing.
results of animal testing cannot be properly applied to human physiology and consequently, animal
responses to testing will significantly differ from human responses.
Test results from numerous toxicology tests and commercial products testing change drastically from
one species of animal to another, and in no way is an indicator of how people would react to a
chemical or product
majority of tests performed on animals “do not provide protection for consumers from unsafe
products, but rather they are used to protect corporations from legal liability. for any injury or death
associated with said commercial products.
Food and Drug Administration reports that 92 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal tests fail in
humans ,whether on safety grounds or because they do not work

Cruelty Free International, recent reports indicate that Cancer drugs have the lowest success rate
(only 5% are approved after entering clinical trials) followed by psychiatry drugs (6% success rate),
heart drugs (7% success rate) and neurology drugs (8% success rate); Out of 93 dangerous drug
side effects, only 19% could have been predicted by animal tests, a recent study found

There are alternatives

There are many non-animal test methods that can be used in place of animal testing. Not only are
these non-animal tests more humane, they also have the potential to be cheaper, faster, and more
relevant to humans. Using alternative methods must be such a critical current issue, otherwise we
would not see more than 37 countries and major markets, pass laws to end or limit animal testing for
cosmetics, for example; even China, the global powerhouse in cosmetics, is making significant
advances to move away from animal testing. In vitro testing, replacements methods and other
developed scientific alternatives have all been validated and/or accepted alternative methods
Negative arguments
some of the experimentation conducted on animals today is required by law
Rebuttal => most testing isn’t. In fact, a number of countries have implemented bans on the testing of
certain types of consumer goods on animals, such as the cosmetics-testing bans in the European
Union, India, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, and elsewhere.

Not unethical/cruel because there are laws/regulations to protect animals for animal testing and
there are not that many animals being used for animal testing
Rebuttal => Exact numbers aren’t available because mice, rats, birds, fish and reptiles—who make
up more than 95 percent of animals used in experiments—are not covered by even the minimal
protections of the Animal Welfare Act and therefore go uncounted. Labs are not required to report
non-animal welfare act protected animals.
More than 100 million of animals are used every year for animal testing according to
Cambridge Healthcare report.

many argue that advancing human interests outweighs any right or interest of an animal / Study
interactions from a living body

=> animals are not exactly the same as humans. Often times, studying animals can be very
misleading. For example, heart diseases can’t be easily replicated by animals. A heart disease
treatment NXY059 proven effective in living animal bodies failed totally in human trail. This is
just one of too many cases, over 90%, that animal testing simply can’t work and waste effort.

no adequate alternatives exist and the long-standing tradition of testing upon animals has worked
thus far. 32 McGeorge L. Rev. 461, 461. Several scientists, researchers, and policy-makers tend to
“justify extrapolation from animal studies simply on the basis that it is often the only information
available; there are limitations to any alternatives that do exist.

But without the sacrifice of some animals, we would be unable to develop important new
technologies like gene therapy, or find new vaccines to fight new diseases.
=> but animal testing is inaccurate & unreliable; Food and Drug Administration reports that over 90%
drugs that pass animal tests fail in humans;

Benefits animals and humans greatly

=> how so? When the results are inaccurate & unreliable; also there are alternative methods to
achieve these benefits; cosmetic industry is good e.g. since UK banned animal testing in 1998
then EU in 2013 – benefits so great that even China, global cosmetic giant, is commiting to
move away from animal testing

Animals themselves can be cured

=> animal testing at its core is inhumane and cruel; why torture & kills millions of animals to
find a cure for animals when there are proven alternative methods to do so

Best approach to cover all diseases

=> animal testing at its core is inhumane and cruel; why torture & kills millions of animals to
find a cure for animals when there are proven alternative methods to do so e.g. cell culture
testing on toxic materials are much accurate, faster and cheaper to do than animal testing.

Safer with animal testing (e.g., Romans on cosmetics)

=> cases where animal testing provides false information that can be harmful to human e.g. the
sleeping pill (Thalidomide) caused mother to deliver deformed babies.

Not cruel to animals

=> Clearly opposition is not facing the reality. Many cases are reported that animals are treated
inhumanely. They are deliberately harmed with burning, blinding and cutting open live bodies. How
can we tolerate such inhume actions made to these innocent animals? Clearly animal cruelty must be
stopped now.

Animals are not test tubes with tails They feel pain and their overwhelming natural instincts are to
stay alive and be free.

In 2015, 4.14 million procedures were conducted on animals in British laboratories.

Ensure better safety

=> It’s not clear each animal testing result can ensure the safety of humans. Many examples
proves the opposite. A drug Vioxx was dropped after over 100 thousands people suffer heart
attack from it. Another drug TGN1412, caused life threatening and disastrous side effects.
Further, decades of HIV testing in animals have yet to result in a successful vaccine and global
prevention programmes have proved far more effective.

Consider that dogs forced to inhale cigarettes do not get cancer. Penicillin is
toxic to guinea pigs. Sheep can swallow huge quantities of arsenic and remain
healthy. Medicines such as thalidomide and Phen Pen have passed lab tests but
debilitated humans.