Animal Testing

Thank you Madam Speaker, and good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. Today we are debating the motion: Animal testing should be banned. We, the government, strongly agree with the motion and have two reasons for this: uncertainty and expense.

The first reason why we think that animal testing should be banned is uncertainty. Drugs that pass animal tests are not necessarily safe. For instance, in the 1950s, sleeping pill called thalidomide caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities even though it was tested on animals prior to its commercial release. This is still known as one of the most tragic medicine accidents, reminding us of unreliability of animal testing. Moreover, animal tests may mislead researchers into ignoring potential cures and treatments. According to the research by Dr. Aysha Akhtar, neurologist and public health specialist in Oxford Centre of Animal Ethics in 2011, aspirin is dangerous for several animal species unlike humans. This means certain chemicals that are harmful to animals prove valuable when used for humans.

Expense is the second reason why we agree to the motion. Animal tests are more expensive than alternative methods. Let me give an example of in vitro experiment, which is conducted not in living body but in test tube. Humane Society International, worldwide animal protection group, compared one of the animal DNA tests with its in vitro counterpart in 2011. The animal test cost $32,000, while in vitro one cost $11,000. Besides this, other alternative methods incurred less expenses. In addition, animal testing is a waste of government research dollars. According to the US National Institutes of Health, it spent $14 billion of its $31 billion annual budget on animal research in 2012. This indicates that the country should not spend that much money on unnecessary animal testing.

In conclusion, animal testing should be banned because its outcomes are unreliable and it is unnecessarily costly. For these reasons, we beg to propose. Thank you.

Thank you Madam Speaker, and good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. Today we are debating the motion: Animal testing should be banned. We, the opposition, strongly disagree with the motion and have two reasons for this: contribution and regulation.

The first reason why we think that animal testing should not be banned is contribution. Animal testing has contributed to many lifesaving cures and treatments. According to The California Biomedical Research Association, the polio vaccine tested on animals reduced the global occurrence of the disease from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 223 cases in 2012. This means that the infection rate of polio has become 1,500% lower owing to animal testing. Furthermore, Chris Abe, Director of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Centre's animal research facility, states that we would have no vaccine for Hepatitis B without chimpanzees and they are essential to find a vaccine for Hepatitis C, a disease that kills 15,000 people every year in the United States. In this way, animal testing plays an important role in medical breakthroughs.

Regulation is the second reason why we disagree to the motion. Animal testing is highly regulated with laws to protect animals from mistreatment. For instance, since 1966, animal research has been regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act around the world. Minimum housing standards for researching animals and regular inspections by veterinarians are strictly observed. In addition, humane treatment is enforced by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Major research institutions’ programmes are reviewed for humane practices by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International. Thus, animals are treated as respectfully as possible while experimented.

In conclusion, animal testing should not be banned because it directly leads to medical science development and its procedure is supervised not to mistreat animals. For these reasons, we beg to oppose. Thank you.