|
|
Debate:Animal testing
From Debatepedia
[  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] Is it morally acceptable to experiment on animals for human purposes?
|
YOU CAN BECOME AN EDITOR OF THIS PAGE. DEBATEPEDIA IS A WIKI THAT ANYONE CAN EDIT! 'WHAT'S A WIKI? GETTING STARTED.
Editing tasks you can help with
- Many of the arguments found here cross-apply to Debate:Animal rights and should be cut-and-pasted over.
- Argument "claims" that are black and that have no argument page should be researched, supporting quotations found, argument pages created, and supporting quotations pasted into these respective argument pages.
- The background section is also pretty weak. It should be made to look more like the abortion background section, which involves summarizing the main yes/no questions that frame the debate.
[ ] Background and Context of Debate:
Animal testing or animal research is the use of non-human animals in scientific experimentation. It is estimated that 50 to 100 million vertebrate animals worldwide — from zebrafish to non-human primates — are used annually. Although much larger numbers of invertebrates are used and the use of flies and worms as model organisms is very important, experiments on invertebrates are largely unregulated and not included in statistics. Most animals are euthanized after being used in an experiment. Sources of laboratory animals vary between countries and species; while most animals are purpose-bred, others may be caught in the wild or supplied by dealers who obtain them from auctions and pounds.
The research is conducted inside universities, medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, farms, defense establishments, and commercial facilities that provide animal-testing services to industry. It includes pure research such as genetics, developmental biology, behavioural studies, as well as applied research such as biomedical research, xenotransplantation, drug testing and toxicology tests, including cosmetics testing. Animals are also used for education, breeding, and defense research.
The topic is highly controversial. Supporters of the practice, such as the British Royal Society, argue that virtually every medical achievement in the 20th century relied on the use of animals in some way, with the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences arguing that even sophisticated computers are unable to model interactions between molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, and the environment, making animal research necessary in some areas. The U.S. and British governments both support the advancement of medical and scientific goals using animal testing, provided that the testing minimizes animal use and suffering. Others, such as the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, question the necessity of it, these opponents make a range of arguments: that it is cruel, poor scientific practice, cannot reliably predict effects in humans, poorly regulated, that the costs outweigh the benefits, or that animals have an intrinsic right not to be used for experimentation.
|
[ ] [  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] "Dominion": Do humans have "dominion" over animals, justifying testing?
|
[  ] [ ] Yes
- Humans have dominion over animals with a right to exploit them Genesis 1:28 - "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." This means that humans have the sovereign right to subdue and control animals for man's own purposes.
- Humans have always eaten/exploited animals; it has evolved into our DNA. Michael Pollan. "An Animal's Place". The New York Times Magazine. November 10, 2002 - "There is, too, the fact that we humans have been eating animals as long as we have lived on this earth. Humans may not need to eat meat in order to survive, yet doing so is part of our evolutionary heritage, reflected in the design of our teeth and the structure of our digestion. Eating meat helped make us what we are, in a social and biological sense. Under the pressure of the hunt, the human brain grew in size and complexity, and around the fire where the meat was cooked, human culture first flourished. Granting rights to animals may lift us up from the brutal world of predation, but it will entail the sacrifice of part of our identity--our own animality."
- This fits into the notion of "dominion" in important ways. It relates "dominion" to how we have evolved in the animal kingdom: we have become dominant naturally. To deny our dominance is to deny our natural position in the animal kingdom and the nature of the animal kingdom itself. It is also to deny the vary instinct that led to civilization and our ability to reflect on these matters; the instinct to succeed (ie. dominate). We should embrace both our natural dominance and our instincts to remain dominant, and consider them God-given (or Nature-given). This means accepting the notion of our having "dominion" over other animals.
- Humans have "dominion" over evolutionarily "domesticated" animals There are certain animals that have evolved with humans, through mutual self-interests in survival, to become "domesticated" by humans. Cats, dogs, pigs, and chickens are examples. Our "dominion" over these animals is certainly biological and evolutionary. Animal testing is certainly justified on these "domesticated" animals.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- "Dominion" makes humans stewards; no right to harm/exploit animals Even if we apply the notion of "dominion", and if we deprive animals of rights, the principle of "dominion" should be applied in a way that requires humans to see themselves as "stewards" of animals. As outlined by Matthew Scully in Dominion, humans should apply the principle of mercy to animals, which requires that they inflict no pain or suffering on them. He writes, "We are called to treat them with kindness, not because they have rights or power or some claim to equality but...because they stand unequal and powerless before us."[1] Part of the significance of this argument is that even if we conclude animals should not have rights, we can still conclude (via the principle of mercy) that animals should not be subjected to pain, suffering, and testing.
- Evolutionary science debunks the idea of human dominion over animals. Humans have evolved from animals and from a common single cell organism. Humans did not have dominion then over other animals; in-fact, we didn't even exist. Therefore, how is it possible to claim that we now can have dominion? At a minimum, evolution forces us to recognize that humans do not have an innate-historical claim to "dominion".
- Animals are independent creatures that don't exist to serve humans Tom Regan. "The Philosophy of Animal Rights". Retrieved May 6th, 2008 - "THE PHILOSOPHY OF ANIMAL RIGHTS The other animals humans eat, use in science, hunt, trap, and exploit in a variety of ways, have a life of their own that is of importance to them apart from their utility to us. They are not only in the world, they are aware of it. What happens to them matters to them. Each has a life that fares better or worse for the one whose life it is[...] By insisting upon and justifying the independent value and rights of other animals, it gives scientifically informed and morally impartial reasons for denying that these animals exist to serve us."
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [  ] Differences: Are humans superior to animals or equals? Does this matter?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- This applies to animal testing in important ways. Humans have long-crafted animalistic instinct to pursue their own ends through the exploitation of animals in various ways. We have, for instance, killed animals for their furs to survive in cold weather. Those humans exploited animals in this way survived. Those that did not, perished. Evolution has favored humans that have exploited animals. We, therefore, have in us now a natural instinct to exploit animals. This is reflected in our instinct to test animals for our own ends. It is wrong to deny this God-given or Nature-given instinct.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Human and animal differences do not justify speciism/discrimination Randy Fairchild. "The Case Against Animal Testing". Helium - "But even assuming that animals are so very different from us, where does this concept of difference justifying mistreatment come from? Is it supported in the modern ethics of developed countries? It certainly was not the principle justifying our war against Nazism, the better part of a century ago, let alone its more subtle ethical variant of the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. A central concept of Civil Rights is to treat different persons as well or better (e.g. affirmative action) than oneself - In short, to ascend to selflessness, cherishing diversity."
- Animals are equal to humans in science as lifeforms on Earth Tom Regan. "The Philosophy of Animal Rights". Retrieved May 6th, 2008 - "Explanation: The philosophy of animal rights is respectful of our best science in general and evolutionary biology in particular. The latter teaches that, in Darwin's words, humans differ from many other animals "in degree," not in kind." Questions of line drawing to one side, it is obvious that the animals used in laboratories, raised for food, and hunted for pleasure or trapped for profit, for example, are our psychological kin. This is no fantasy, this is fact, proven by our best science."
- Animals have emotions, personalities, and souls just like humans Henry David Thoreau - "I saw deep in the eyes of the animals the human soul look out upon me. I saw where it was born deep down under feathers and fur, or condemned for a while to roam four-footed among the brambles,I caught the clinging mute glance of the prisoner and swore that I would be faithful."[3]
- Humans can do wrong so can be morally inferior to animals Humans are uniquely capable of acting immorally. In this sense, the superiority of humans is dependent on whether they act morally or immorally. Animal testing lends may be an example of human immorality, and fittingly strengthen the case that we may be even worse than other animals, and that testing is, therefore, not justified.
- Animals are superior to humans in many of their abilities
- Whether an animal is superior or a human is superior is unimportant to this debate. The fact is, no man or animal is superior than any other. Humans that test animals for human benefit also work toward animal benefit. Vetanarians would not be able to help animals if not given the chance to experiment and test using other animals. The benefits gained from using animals benefit all: both man and animal alike. Thus, the question about dominance and superiority does not pertain to this issue because it does not determine any ground.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Rights: Is it wrong to believe that animals have rights?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- Animals cannot make moral claims so cannot claim rights Carl Cohen. "Why animals have no rights. The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research" The New England Journal of Medicine 315, no. 14 (October 2,1986): 865-69 - "The differing targets, contents, and sources of rights, and their inevitable conflict, together weave a tangled web. Notwithstanding all such complications, this much is clear about rights in general: they are in every case claims, or potential claims, within a community of moral agents. Rights arise, and can be intelligibly defended, only among beings who actually do, or can, make moral claims against one another. Whatever else rights may be, therefore, they are necessarily human; their possessors are persons, human beings."
- That the retarded have rights does not justify animal rights This is frequent argument of animal rights activists; that animals deserve rights because they have at least as much capacity to reason as do some retarded humans, who retain rights. The problem with this argument is that it fails to see rights as a thing that must be shared among a group of creatures, not something that is extended on an individual basis. Therefore, the question is not whether some humans are incapable of having rights, but rather whether human kind, as a species, is capable of having rights. They are. Non-human animals, conversely, as a class of organisms, are not capable of holding rights.
- Animal rights reduce humans to mere animals, not made in God's image David R. Carlin, professor of philosophy and sociology at the Community College of Rhode Island - "By arguing that animals are equal to humans and thus deserve the same legal protection, animal rights proponents reduce human beings to nothing more than biological entities, on par with animals. Animal rights advocates' view of humanity negates fundamental Christian, Platonic, and Stoic claims that man was created in the image and likeness of God. Humans are clearly superior to animals. Granting animals legal rights would be dangerous and degrading to humans."
- Protecting animals from suffering by humans is a matter of animal welfare not rights. Many supposed animal rights activists claim that they desire to see animals have a right against suffering at the hands of humans. This might be a good idea, but it is false to claim that it is a "right". Such an idea can only be classified within the realm of animal welfare. The main reason is that it is only something that is practiced by humans unto animals, and can never be claimed or defended by animals out of their own accord. In addition, the idea only restricts humans against inflicting suffering on animals, but does restrict animals from inflicting suffering on other animals (not even animals within their own species). Because it is a one-way relationship in this sense (from human-kind onto individual animals), it can only be seen as welfare, not a right that an animal might be able to carry in all their relationships with other creatures.
- Humans have an evolutionary right to uphold self-interests by testing animals. Humans are creatures of evolution. In evolution, the natural order is to uphold the self-interests of the individual and the species. Therefore, exploiting other animals to advance human self-interests is consistent with the natural order of evolution, and thus ethical. It is only unethical to damage the interests of one's own species.
- It is more humane to perform tests on animals than on humans. Testing substances on humans without being aware of the potential dangers would be more unethical than testing animals. And, yet, we must perform tests on animals or on humans to advance life-saving medicines. Given a choice between testing humans and animals, it is better to choose to test animals.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Animals deserve the same basic rights that humans enjoy Marymoose. "The case against animal testing". Helium - "Animal testing generally occurs as a result of developing a cost-benefit model. Basically, if the benefit of the research (to humans) looks high, then it is seen as being worth the costs (to animals). For instance it is seen that if animal research is likely to save the lives of many humans that it is worthwhile. However, it can be argued that all sentient beings have the same rights, and that costs to animals are as important as costs to humans. There is no moral basis for elevating the interests of one species over another this is specieism."
- Humans have a choice and thus responsibility to do no harm to animals Many opponents of animal rights and supporters of testing cite the fact that animals kill each other without public outcry, and ask, why humans should be held to a higher standard? The answer is that humans have the capacity to make the choice to inflict pain on animals. Animals, having no free will, so do not have this same ability to choose. Therefore, if we determine that it is morally ethical to do no harm to animals, since we have the choice, it is our unique responsibility to do no harm.
- Modern humans have lost touch with animals and our likeness A number of writers indicate that modern humans have become desensitized to animals, having lost daily contact with them in the wild. In particular, some writers indicate that there is infrequent eye-contact between wild animals and humans, and this has damaged our ability to sympathize with their likeness to us, making it easier (wrongly) for us to kill them and exploit them.
- Reply: There are many situations in which an individual who has rights is unable to respect the rights of others. This is true of infants, young children, and mentally enfeebled and deranged human beings. In their case we do not say that it is perfectly all right to treat them disrespectfully because they do not honor our rights. On the contrary, we recognize that we have a duty to treat them with respect, even though they have no duty to treat us in the same way.
- Animal rights can be assigned according to animal psychology Jeremy Bentham - While critics question where the line would be drawn, fearing that animal rights activists would grant rights to single cell organisms, the general consensus in the animal rights community is that rights should be conferred only to animals that can suffer. This is a psychological distinction that is possible to make in acceptable terms. And, the main right being granted is the right to avoid suffering at the hands of humans.
- A cow has approximately 90 percent of its genes in common with humans. Those genes code for the same proteins, the same nerve tissue, the same basic emotions and pain, that humans can feel. Monkeys have 97 percent of their genes in common with humans, and share even more striking physical, mental and emotional similarities."
- Animals denied rights for human-unlikeness are experimented on for human-likeness Charles R. Magel, Professor and Animal rights activist. - "Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are like us.' Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are not like us.' Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction."[8]
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Animals kill... Is animal testing justified on basis that animals harm one-another too?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- If animals have rights, do we criminalize animals that abuse each other's rights? This argument simply highlights the fact that animal rights are legally untenable.
- Animal rights unfairly alienate humans from the natural order. Why should animals be free from obligations and responsibilities toward one-another in the animal kingdom, while humans might be obligated by "animal rights" to certain responsibilities toward them? Why should humans be alienated from the natural order of the animal kingdom in this way? The answer is that we should not be, and animal rights should not exist.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- That animals harm/kill each other does not justify the same by humans Michael Pollan. "An Animal's Place". The New York Times Magazine. November 10, 2002 - "My first line of defense was obvious. Animals kill one another all the time. Why treat animals more ethically than they treat one another? (Ben Franklin tried this one long before me: during a fishing trip, he wondered, 'If you eat one another, I don't see why we may not eat you.' He admits, however, that the rationale didn't occur to him until the fish were in the frying pan, smelling 'admirably well.' The advantage of being a 'reasonable creature,' Franklin remarks, is that you can find a reason for whatever you want to do.) To the 'they do it, too' defense, the animal rightist has a devastating reply: do you really want to base your morality on the natural order? Murder and rape are natural, too. Besides, humans don't need to kill other creatures in order to survive; animals do. (Though if my cat, Otis, is any guide, animals sometimes kill for sheer pleasure.)"
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Pain: Do animals experience very little or no pain?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- It is a misconception that all animal testing involves pain. Many forms of animal testing do not inflict any pain on the animal. They may simply study the effects of a mild drug on an animal or simply test brain activity without cutting or harming an animal in any way. In consideration of this fact, it is inappropriate to call for abandoning all forms of animal testing. Certainly, there is no need to abandon the forms of animal testing that do no harm to animals.
|
[ ] [ ] No
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] We hunt and eat animals... Is testing justified by our already hunting and eating animals?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- Animals are exploited by humans without public outcry; why alienate animal experimentation? Animals are used as pets and for work in the agriculture and police industries. In all of these cases, they are being exploited for certain human ends, without too much concern for their "rights". It should not be of major concern, therefore, that animals are being exploited experiments for human ends. And, given that the exploitation is aimed at saving human lives, it is possible to argue that the degree of exploitation could be even more sever than in other cases of animal exploitation where the human-interests are less compelling.
- Animals are hunted and killed without public outcry; why alienate animal testing? Animals are hunted and fished and are culled by animal controllers (raccoons, rats mice for the purpose of pest control). 10 times the amount of animals that are used in animal testing are killed for other less honorable reasons. Cats and dogs are euthanized every year for not apparent reason than bored owners. Other millions of animals are killed by automobiles (Cats, dogs, raccoons, foxes, deer).
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Eating and hunting of animals does not justify testing; equally wrong It is not a justification for animal testing that some humans eat and hunt animals. A tenant of the animal rights community is that any form of harm to animals is wrong, usually if it can be easily avoided with reasonable substitutes. It is, therefore, also not appropriate to say that "the eating and hunting of animals goes without much public outcry, so why alienate animal testing?" The truth is that the eating and hunting of animals is met by substantial protest by animal rights activists. Again, hunting and meat consumption do not provide cover for animal testing.
- Murdering and testing humans is wrong; so is murdering and testing animals. In equivalent, killing of animals and animal testing is wrong!
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Test results/benefits: Are the results of animal experimentation useful?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- Animal testing has significantly improved human welfare Past experience has shown what invaluable advances can be made in medicine by experimenting on animals, and that live animals are the most reliable subjects for testing medicines and other products for toxicity. In many countries (e.g. the US and the UK) all prescription drugs must be tested on animals before they are allowed onto the market. To ban animal experiments would be to paralyse modern medicine, to perpetuate human suffering, and to endanger human health by allowing products such as insecticides onto the market before testing them for toxicity.
- Animals are good research subjects because they are similar to humans Human beings share over 99.4% of their genes with chimpanzees and about 99% with mice. It is instructive to consider that humans also share approximately 90% of their genes with cows. The physiologies of humans and these animals are very similar, with very similar organ and nerve systems. For this reason, it is useful and productive to study these animals as a means of advancing human sciences. The reactions of these creatures are a very good guide to possible reactions of human patients. "Why do scientists use animals in research?". The American Physiological Society. Retrieved May 3rd, 2008 - "Animals make good research subjects for a variety of reasons. Animals are biologically similar to humans. They are susceptible to many of the same health problems, and they have short life-cycles so they can easily be studied throughout their whole life-span or across several generations."
- Drug toxicity is rarely a result of any misleading animal testing There are many factors involved in a drug being reported as toxic that are often cited as a result of animal-testing, but which have to do with other factors, such as human error in use or typical blood-type responses to particular drugs. While there are some instances of misleading results from animal testing that indicated a drug was safe when it was not, this is extremely rare. It is rare enough that it is both insignificant or at least consistent with other risks involved in human drug consumption.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Responsibly ending animal testing will not impede medical advancements. Animal testing is not the core of medical advancements in the world. It has certainly been a factor in some cases, but the vast majority of medical research has nothing to do with animal testing. Therefore, the overall impact of ending animal testing will be negligible. Furthermore, alternatives are being developed to replace animals as sufficient mediums for testing and advancing medical practices.
- Animal tests too infrequently lead to scientific advancements While it is undeniable that scientific advancements have been made on account of animal experimentation, these advancements have been too rare to justify animal testing. The basic problem is that there is never any guarantee that any instance of animal testing will lead to any advancement in science. There is always a significant risk that an entire line of study that involves killing thousands of animals will lead to no substantive scientific benefits. This makes it highly inconsistent that the ethical trade-off is "worth it", if it ever is. This inconsistency means that a large portion of tested animals will not meet the ethical criteria of being "worth it", and could thus be called ethically wrong.
- Medicines tested successfully on animals can prove toxic to humans Uncaged - "to subject animals to painful, distressing and lethal experiments when the results are not applicable to humans." Some drugs like thalidomide and clioquinol proved safe in animal testing but were devastating in human consumption. The bigger point is that it is arguable that drugs have been used massively and inflicted massive harm on humans because they were falsely assumed to be safe for human consumption on the basis of animal tests.
- American Anti-Vivisection Society. "Animal Testing" - "We must remember, however, that animals are not 'little people,' and their bodies often respond differently than ours do. As a result, the animal-based research and testing methods continue to fail legitimate human needs, while new discoveries in the field of alternatives have led to new and improved techniques that do not involve live animals."
- Cosmetic testing on animals is pointless, given different skin types. A chimp's skin is very different than the skin of a human. Animals and humans have very different pores and skin sensitivity levels. Therefore, completing experiments on them to see how a product will work on people is a waste of innocent lives.
- In fact few breakthroughs have been made as a result of animal experimentation - its advocates have overstated its achievements. There has been a catalogue of errors and failures in animal testing, which its advocates gloss over; as many as half the drugs that have been approved in the US and the UK after animal testing have subsequently had to be withdrawn because of harmful side-effects. Furthermore, there are alternatives to many tests that are currently done on animals - e.g. growing tissue or cell cultures from human cells in the laboratory.
- Drugs for illnesses should tested on dying humans not animals There are millions of humans all over the world with the diseases that are of most concern to humans. If it is necessary to test a drug that might give you cancer ten years from now, and a person is dying now of AIDS, why not test it on the human?
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Moral trade-offs: Is animal testing morally right if it reduces human suffering?
|
[ ] | |
