THIS HOUSE WOULD BAN ANIMAL TESTING
- 格式：docx
- 大小：16.34 KB
- 文档页数：3
THIS HOUSE WOULD BAN
ANIMAL TESTING
In this debate testing should be defined as all testing including, medical research, cosmetics,
toxicology, and psychology research where animals are used in any part of an experiment. An
animal could sensibly be defined as vertebrates. With this exception of cephalopods, no
invertebrates have any legal standing in any country so far as I am aware, and it would be hard
to construct a case for any invertebrates having moral rights. The ban should be defined as
some sort of criminal sanction, most likely incarceration. Medical research is the hardest case
for proposition to prove, since it clearly yields substantial benefits to humanity. Focussing the
proposition case on toxicology, or cosmetics alone would allow the opposition to ask, why then
ban all research. Thus the best proposition strategy is to focus on the hard case of medical
research.
Context Animal
research
has
been
used
throughout
recorded
history
to
better
understand the world around us. Almost all states actively research on animals
at present. The total scale of all research on vertebrates is hard to measure, but
according to some estimates it could be as high as 115,000,000 animals per year,
with
the
vast
majority
of
these
being
euthanized
at
the
end
of
the
period
of
experimentation. Much research on animals is undertaken by the pharmaceutical
industry, and due to the relative paucity of drugs that make it on to the market
place after the initial testing phases, the global cost of each successful new drug
in
terms
of
animal
lives,
is
around
5.75
million
animals.
By
contrast
the
now
shrinking industry sector on chemical safety testing using animals, uses around
860
animals
per
chemical,
with
respect
to
cancer
screening
in
this
instance.
Whilst
much
of
this
research
is
categorised
as
causing
minimal
pain
and
suffering,
the
2005
figures
for
the
USA
alone
showed
84,662
animals
used
in
research
likely
to
involve
pain
and
suffering,
where
pain
killers
and
sedatives
would not be used.Animals have a right not to be harmed
Animal
research
necessitates
significant
harm
to
the
animals involved
Research can be done effectively without experimenting
on any living creature
Some
groups
of
people
have
less
capacity
for
suffering
than most animals
Would send a positive social message, increasing animal
welfare rights more generally in society
Animal rights are of less moral worth than human rights
People
would
die
and
suffer
needlessly
under
such
a
policy
Animal research is necessary for the development of truly
novel substances
Poor
countries
would
be
unable
to
afford
independent
research
Animals
involved
in
animal
research
are
mostly
well
treated.
