In this speech, I have offered three contentions supporting why governments should ban the use of animal testing.
Affirmative Animal Testing Constructive Speech
Since we cannot legally conduct tests on ourselves as humans, we look at the creatures that are right below us: animals. However, some of us don’t seem to notice animals have feelings and can experience pain just as we would. As Jeremy Bentham would ask, “The question is not, Can they reason? Nor, Can they talk? But can they suffer?” We stand resolved that governments should ban the use of animals to test product and medical procedure safety for humans.
Now, in order to endorse my resolution, I will offer three contentions. To start with, animal testing results are inaccurate and also it is expensive to perform tests, secondly, animal testing is inhumane, and thirdly, there are alternatives to animal testing.
Let’s begin as I offer my first contention: animal testing results are inaccurate and also it is expensive to perform tests. According to former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, “animal tests and human results agree only ‘5%-25%’ of the time.” Then looking at Tony Page’s “Vivisection Unveiled” it states that less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. (p.6) In the tests of LD/50, the Humane Society of the United States states that LD/50 tests do not yield enough data on the following: the poisonous doses of a chemical or substance, the prediction of poisoning signs and symptoms, the prevention or correction of over doses, and the specific cause of death in laboratory animals. Finally, looking at PETA’s fact sheets, they argue that “In many cases, animal studies do not just hurt animals and waste money; they harm and kill people, too. The drugs thalidomide, Zomax and DES were all tested on animals and judged safe but had devastating consequences for the humans who used them.” I can also reckon that the cost of animal testing is about 136 billion dollars each year, which is essentially having each U.S. Household pay 300 dollars each year for these tests.
Now, continuing on to my next argument: animal testing is inhumane. To begin the inhumanity of animal test, I start with the topic of an acute toxicity test, the Draize test. One example of this test is that 100-ml of concentrated chemicals are put in a group of rabbits’ eyes to test any side affects. Results are later created after at least 72 hours of the solution in their eyes. Anesthesia is not used since it is seen to interfere with results. Following, I argue that in laboratories, animals are mistreated during the tests and that the small cages that animals live in don’t allow some animals to experience normal life. According to PETA, approximately 219 animals in the U.S. alone are killed every minute. In addition, BUAV has recently made a new campaign called “Chain of Suffering” talking about how animals are mistreated in many labs. An example from BUAV would be the shocking trade in monkeys that violates international animal welfare guidelines and breaches Indonesia’s own legislation.
Conclusively, I wrap my supports with one last argument: there are alternatives to animal testing. Some effective, humane, and affordable alternatives would include studies on human population, patients, and sophisticated in vitro, extensive studies of human genes and how drugs affect those genes or proteins, and computer-modeling techniques. As the co-founder of the Pharmagene Laboratories, who are the first to use only human tissues and sophisticated computer technology in the process of drug development and testing, Gordon Baxter states, “If you have information on human genes, what’s the point of going back to animals?” Some patients with a disease might volunteer to allow surgeons to get cells and do experiment with the cells taken from them. These cells or diseases are placed in test tubes or culture dishes, to let it grow and later be observed. While looking into education, As Jonathan Balcombe from the Humane Society of the United States, and author of many animal behavior and testing books, has seen that students using computer software on labs, learned significantly more than those learning from traditional labs.
In conclusion, from the logic I have given: animal testing it is not reliable and also is expensive to perform tests: animal testing is inhumane: and alternatives to animal tests have been made, we stand resolved that governments should ban the use of animals to test product and medical procedure safety for humans. Leonardo da Vinci, “an Italian polymath: painter, sculptor, architect, musician, scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, geologist, cartographer, botanist and writer”, well noticed this flaw in animal testing some centuries ago and will sum most of what I have said, “The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.” (PETA guide to animal liberation, unpaged)