This house think that usage of animal testing is right choice

[ 2015년 7월 7일 - 디베이팅데이 ]

토론에 참여하시기 전, 주제에 관한 현재의 의견을 밝혀주세요 : 중립

현재 중립에 있는 네모를 드래그하셔서 매우찬성, 찬성, 중립, 반대. 매우반대로 옮겨주시면 의견이 반영됩니다.

매우찬성 찬성 중립 반대 매우반대

discussion

Animal Testing refers to experimentation or scientific profess of research using animals for the purpose of science study, production of biological substance or education, testing and research. Animal Testing is performed in various forms. In medical or biology field, people observe the body parts of animals through dissecting or study genetic characteristics, growth cycle, or school of behaviorism. Sometimes, people acquire ingredients for producing medical substance. However, Animal Testing, in general terms, refers to the process of confirming safety and effect of new product or new cure. Animal Testing is used also for predicting the effect of pesticide, cosmetics, food on human body not only medical product’s effect. Animal Testing’s range is being broadened day by day unto the field of applied science not only limited to the fields of pharmacy, life science or anatomy.
Apart from its effectiveness, there still exists a debate regarding the fact whether we, human beings, have right to use or exploit animals as the subject of experimentation. Should Animal Testing be continued?

data

a. Animal testing, Wikipedia

b. Various cases of Animal Testing

Sulfanilamide Case(1937): 107 people died from side-effect of newly developed antibiotics when there was no animal clinical testing being done. Also, recent accident from using humidifier disinfectants was confirmed to be problematic through animal testing on rats.
Morgan’s experiment on genetics (1926): Research was carried out on drosophila and earned great results. It could have taken almost 210 years if it were carried out on human beings. In the very short amount of time, new discovery on genetics regarding color blindness and hemophila was found out and applied.
Pasteur’s experiment (1862): Vaccination, the result of rabies study, was used for developing various vaccinations of measles and rubella which are fatal to children. Basically, all vaccination for human beings and numerous cures for various diseases are the result of animal clinical trial.

Side-effect of Thalidomide(1961) : Side-effect of Thalidomide, sleeping pill, is the most well-known among all tragic cases of misuse. After the use of this medical substance, after the year of 1956, the number of giving birth to deformed child increased so that scientists tried to reproduce the creation of deformation using various animals. However, such side-effect was not confirmed on the animals so that the product got approval for the use. Pharmacist who could find about the side effect after injecting the ten to hundred times of normal dose unto rabbits and chimpanzees decided to recall this medicine at the year of 1962. It was after the birth of more than a million of newly born babies.

c. Principles on Animal Testing (3R Principle)

Reduction: Use the least number of animals, if possible, for the testing. .
Replacement: Every alternative ways that can replace the animal testing should be researched prior to the Animal Testing.
Refinement: While the testing being carried out, the experimentation should be carried out in ways that can protect animals from any pain and also improve the well-being of animals.
3R, offering ethical guidelines regarding Animal Testing, is being applied in every country in the world, including Korea. Researchers in Korea show respect to the valuable death of animals through comforting rituals accordingly to the international ethics guideline.

news

Care2, US. Could Be Next to Stop Animal Testing for Cosmetics, 26 jun 2015

Digital journal, Europe rejects animal testing ban, 12 jun 2015

Wall Street Journal , Animal Testing and Its Gifts To Humans, 23 apr 2015

BBC News. Drugs Volunteer’s “Living Hell”.16 mar 2006

pros opinion

a. Many number of lives can be saved through development of cures and prevention of diseases by carrying out Animal Testing.
We could find out numerous facts on various diseases through past animal experimentation results and, furthermore, we could save numerous lives from discovering new cure.

b. Animal Testing is an unavoidable choice.
There is no feasible alternative which can replace animal testing, at least for now.
Some suggest that computer simulation, enabled through development of science technology in the modern days, or artificially produced cells may be able to replace animal testing. However, in the case of computer simulation, still some incomplete and uncertain sides still exist since it is only a result of recording previously existing data. It still cannot perfectly reproduce the effect and side-effect of a certain scientific substance when applied to the living organism.

cons opinion

a. Animal Testing is an unnecessary experimentation which lacks effectiveness.
Disease which human beings and animals share commonly is only 1.16% of the whole number. Also, there can be rejection-response or side-effect even though it is approved by Animal Testing.

b. Animal Testing leads people to undervalue lives.
Animal Right refers to the rights guaranteed for animals. It means that, simply, animals have right to avoid pain and also it claims that not only human beings but also animals should be recognized as individual identities living on this earth. Regardless of any reasoning, Animal Testing, in animals’ perspective, is unethical and it severely destroys the dignity of animals. Especially, when research itself is not directly related to human life, it is unreasonable to give pain to the animals for such experimentation.

reference

animal charity evaluators
about ANIMAL testing

translate

인간을 위한 동물실험은 계속되어야 하는가

Opinions

hans 님의 반대 의견 - 7년 전

Animal experiments was derived by human selfishness. After all this choice depends on whether we can give up much of human interests..

0 0 답글
YKK 님의 찬성 의견 - 7년 전

English:
We have to do animal testing to make medicines we eat, or cosmetics for humans.
But if we stop animal testing, how we are going to use these things?
If we are sick, we cannot eat medicines.
Also, we cannot use shampoo or toothpaste. (Well, there are also shampoo or toothpaste that don’t do animal testing, but almost shampoo or other things try animal testing.)
How we are going to make medicines for new virus?
And, people do their best not to harm many animals.
Animal testing is only way that people can do.

Thank you.

Korean:
우리는 우리가 먹는 약이나 화장품을 만들기 위하여 동물실험을 하여야 합니다.
하지만 우리가 동물실험을 멈춘다면, 우리는 이것들을 어떻게 사용하겠습니까?
우리가 아플때, 약을 먹을 수 없습니다.
또한, 우리는 치약이나 샴푸를 사용할 수도 없습니다.(동물실험을 하지 않는 제품도 있지만, 아직까지는 동물실험을 한 제품이 대부분입니다.)
동물실험을 하지 않는다면, 새로운 바이러스 (질병)에 대한 약을 어떻게 만들까요?
그리고 사람들은 많은 동물을 해치지 않기 위해 노력하고 있습니다.
동물실험이 사람이 할 수 있는 최선의 방법입니다.

이상입니다.

1 0 답글
석류 님의 찬성 의견 - 7년 전

I believe that animal testing is an unavoidable choice, at least for now.
Although it might seem cruel to use the animals as a test experiment,
it is far more accurate than an incomplete simulator.
I hope that the computer simulation process turns out successfully. :)
이상입니다.

1 0 답글
정 님의 반대 의견 - 7년 전

Humans have been on the top of living organisims since very long time ago.
We believe it is okay to sacrifice other organisms in order to make our own benefit.
However, we have to acknowledge that we do not have authority to torture other living organism.
They are able to feel pain, sadness, and danger just like us. They are no different from us, except that they do not speak or look like the way we are. That does not mean that we can ignore their opinion, but it means that we have to respect them differently.

As majority of basic tests and knowledges have been made, we should stop animal testing. Or at least figure out other testing objects other than real living things. Have you heard the process of animal testing? Go and find how cruel human can be to those little innocent creatures. Those creatures are captured and forced to let their eyes to be injected by sharp needle and thrown out to the garbage shoot after they got sick body because of painful tests.

All I want to say is, human are not the best. They do not have to step on other creatures in order to live abundant in these days. Also, I believe developed technology can solve the problem of testing objects. Please, we need to save our animals from painful, severe tests.

0 1 답글

햇빛구슬 님의 찬성 의견 - 7년 전

Well, I have a few rebuttals against your statement.

First and foremost, you stated that it’s okay to sacrifice animals for our sake, but we don’t have authority to torture them. However, animal testing is NOT TORTURING ANIMALS.

According to Article 1 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
“… ‘torture’ means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”

The definition shows that animal testing cannot be ‘torture’ twice.
First of all, ‘torture’ doesn’t count animals. ONLY humans can be an object of torture.
Also, ‘torture’ has three essential purposes. For obtaining information(interrogation), punishment and intimidation.

Do scientists try to get some information from animals? Are they punish their subjects? Or intimidating? Not at all.

Instead, we take advantage of animals for our benefits. It is all what animal testing is.
We make new medicine to cure people. We research and try to find out new things.
Since the opposition acknowledged that it is okay to sacrifice other organisms to make our own benefits, animal testing is a right choice.

Next Rebuttal.
You mentioned that animals feel pain, sadness and danger just like humans. So, we have to respect them like what we do to humans.
However, I want to argue that humans and animals are essentially different.
The fact that animals feel pain, sadness and danger doesn’t mean they have right not to be harmed by animal testing.
Animals are not moral worth.
Yes, humans are protected because they are moral worth. But animals are different.
They don’t have moral consideration. They hunt each other, not empathizing their prey’s pain.
This is the biggest difference between humans and animals, and at the same time, the reason why animal doens’t have right not to be harmed.

1 0

디스커선 님의 찬성 의견 - 7년 전

Of coure, I can understand people who have pros opinion but I think that Aniaml testing is necessary in our society,
Let me give you a example. Japan has a very good technology in life biology because they did some
expetiment through human of korea while we were in world war 2 against japan. I know that is so terrible experien to us.
but that’s why they could develop life biology. If we cant even do experience through animal, we cant develop our science.

0 0 답글
ㄴㄴ12 님의 찬성 의견 - 7년 전

If animal test was restrict , we cannot live like nowdays.

I think is enough explain for why we should do animal testing

0 0 답글
익명 님의 찬성 의견 - 7년 전

I think these are like animal abuse. There need to be a proper law for them.

0 0 답글
창의빅 님의 찬성 의견 - 7년 전

People are already taken advantage of animal experiment results.
Some people think it originated from people own selfish.
They say that animals have felling like human,
we don’t have any right to kill animals, we abuse our authority!
But, Who can say animal testing should be banned from all of the experiments?
Fruits of animal experiment deeply grow in human life.
Why you eat meat? Do you know enormous amount of life is suffer from AIDS?
Which life are more significant? Aniamls or haman being?
There is no alternaive way can replace animal testing.
Of course, we should effort to find a alternative way.
But, Not now.

0 0 답글
헤쉬 님의 반대 의견 - 7년 전

I just read an article about alternatives for animal testings. There is, in fact, a series of alternatives that can be used for experimentation. Advanced technology has finally enabled us to remove ourselves from these tedious debate and look for alternative and effective methods for scientific progress.

In Vitro method in which human cells or tissue are used or computer-modeling methods are the examples.

As such, there is no need for cruel and inhumane animal tests which are often inapplicable to human due to differences in species.

0 0 답글
햇빛구슬 님의 찬성 의견 - 7년 전

‘정’님의 반대의견에 대한 찬성측 반론입니다.

Well, I have a few rebuttals against your statement.

First and foremost, you stated that it’s okay to sacrifice animals for our sake, but we don’t have authority to torture them. However, animal testing is NOT TORTURING ANIMALS.

According to Article 1 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
“… ‘torture’ means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”

The definition shows that animal testing cannot be ‘torture’ twice.
First of all, ‘torture’ doesn’t count animals. ONLY humans can be an object of torture.
Also, ‘torture’ has three essential purposes. For obtaining information(interrogation), punishment and intimidation.

Do scientists try to get some information from animals? Are they punish their subjects? Or intimidating? Not at all.

Instead, we take advantage of animals for our benefits. It is all what animal testing is.
We make new medicine to cure people. We research and try to find out new things.
Since the opposition acknowledged that it is okay to sacrifice other organisms to make our own benefits, animal testing is a right choice.

Next Rebuttal.
You mentioned that animals feel pain, sadness and danger just like humans. So, we have to respect them like what we do to humans.
However, I want to argue that humans and animals are essentially different.
The fact that animals feel pain, sadness and danger doesn’t mean they have right not to be harmed by animal testing.
Animals are not moral worth.
Yes, humans are protected because they are moral worth. But animals are different.
They don’t have moral consideration. They hunt each other, not empathizing their prey’s pain.
This is the biggest difference between humans and animals, and at the same time, the reason why animal doens’t have right not to be harmed.

1 0 답글
토로니 님의 반대 의견 - 7년 전

In my thinking animal testing is not a right thing
When you see it from the view point of animals, it undermines the dignity of animals.
In fact,diseases that we share with animals are only about 1.16% and as a result the side effect of Thalidomide happened.
The main purpose of the animal testing was to prevent diseases and to develop the remedy for it but if it causes damage to people, there’s no more reason to go along with the test anymore

0 0 답글
dayoung.su2005 님의 찬성 의견 - 1년 전

I agree that animal testing brought so many things to man, and it will be, too. But scientists are making artificial organs, and we can use them instead of animals. We don’t have to use animals anymore. Now, we have to stop this cruel thing.

0 0 답글

찬반토론에 참여하기 전에 읽어주세요

찬반토론은 서로간의 다름을 확인하기 위한 자리가 아니며, 서로를 인정하고 더 나은 지향점 을 찾아가기 위한 과정입니다.
확인되지 않은 내용을 게재하실시 통보없이 삭제될 수 있습니다.
상대방에 대한 기본적인 예의가 부족하거나, 비방을 목적으로 게재하실시 통보없이 삭제될 수 있습니다.