Planet Debate 2011 September/October l-d release Animal Rights
AT: “Animal Rights Trade Off With Necessary Biomedical Research”
Download 1.43 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- AT: “Animal Rights Trade Off With Necessary Biomedical Research”
- AT: “Animal Testing Necessary”
AT: “Animal Rights Trade Off With Necessary Biomedical Research”IN-VITRO CELL AND TISSUE CULTURES EFFECTIVE BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH ALTERNATIVE Christopher Anderegg et al, Medical Research Modernization Committee, Europeans for Medical Progress, 2002, A Critical Look at Animal Experimentation, http://www.mrmcmed.org/critcv.html, In vitro cell and tissue cultures are powerful investigative tools. Between the mid-1950s and mid-1980s, the NCI screened 400,000 chemicals as possible anti-cancer agents, mostly on mice who had been given mouse leukemia.165 The few compounds that were effective against mouse leukemia had little effect on the major human cancer killers.166 More recently, researchers have favored grafting human cancers onto animals with impaired immune systems that do not reject grafts. However, few drugs found promising in these models have been clinically effective, and drugs with known effectiveness often fail to show efficacy with these models.167 More promising and less costly is a screen of about 60 in vitro human cancer cell lines, a much less costly and more reliable alternative. Similarly, in vitro tests using cells with human DNA can detect DNA damage much more readily than animal tests.169 TURNS - USE OF ANIMALS IN BIOMEDICAL RESOURCES COUNTERPRODUCTIVE—WASTES HEALTH CARE RESOURCES Kim Stallwood, PETA, 1996, Animal Rights: the changing debate, ed. Robert Garner, p. 205 We waste money on animal-based biomedical research to the detriment of the nation’s healthcare. In order to demonstrate the link between animal and human suffering we must build alliances with healthcare reformers to oppose biomedical research and to support increased public-health and disease-prevention measures. MORAL REQUIREMENT TO USE ANIMALS IN RESEARCH GROUNDED IN UTILITARIANISM Tom Regan, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, North Carolina State University, 2001, Defending Animal Rights, p. 70-1 Along with acknowledging these benefits to humans, of course, utilitarians must also consider the harms done to nonhuman animals. “Let us do the weighing asked, by all means,” Cohen insists concluding: “The pain that is caused to humans (and to nonhuman animals) by diseases and disorders now curable, or one day very probably curable, through the use of laboratory animals, is so great as to be beyond calculation. What has already been accomplished is enough to establish that. What is now being accomplished, its benefits not yet in hand, would establish that truth with equal sureness even if only partially successful. And a fair weighing will put on the scales also those great medical achievements not yet even dreamed of but likely to be realized one day.” (1996:9, 93-40) “To refrain from using animals in biomedical research is, on utilitarian grounds, morally wrong” (Cohen 1986:868).
Murry J. Cohen, M.D. and Stephen R. Kaufman, M.D. and Brandon P. Reines, M.D. 1995 “Aping Science Summary: A Critical Analysis of Research at the Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center”. Medical Research Modernization Committee http://www.mrmcmed.org/ape.html Because many people see monkeys and apes as "almost human" but lacking human social conventions, researchers often assert that nonhuman primates can model "human nature." Repeatedly, distorted notions and caricatures of nonhuman primate "behavior" have been perniciously used to defend racism and sexism as "natural." For example, a top government research official recently drew parallels between violent behavior of captive monkeys and violent inner city youths. Of course, such flippant application of laboratory data to humans is unwarranted. Furthermore, the data do not even reveal anything about innate monkey behavior. Their violence is unnatural--caused by the researchers themselves--and reflects the pain and suffering provoked by laboratory confinement.
Christopher Anderegg et al, Medical Research Modernization Committee, Europeans for Medical Progress, 2002, A Critical Look at Animal Experimentation, http://www.mrmcmed.org/critcv.html, The tens of millions of animals used and killed each year in American laboratories generally suffer enormously, often from fear and physical pain, nearly always from the deprivation inflicted by their confinement, which denies their most basic psychological and physical needs. AT: “Animal Testing Necessary”NO LINK – HUMANS ARE ON BALANCE BETTER FOR TESTING THAN APES – THIS AVOIDS THE ETHICAL QUESTIONS Lindsey Linfoot, Committee of Management and Members of the Humane Society of Western Australia 2002. “Submission on the Draft Policy on the Use of Non-Human Primates in Medical Research”. Committee of Management and Members of the Humane Society of Western Australia. http://www.avwa.com.au/subprimates.pdf Given there is so much evidence available that non-human primates have feelings that are comparative to our own it is immoral and certainly unethical that they are used in medical research. It is apparent that it is the threat of “legal” action that causes most researchers to cite as a defence the use of animal experiments in their research. Clinical trials, “A scientific test of the effectiveness and safety of a therapeutic agent(as a drug or vaccine) using consenting human subjects”16use just that ‘consenting human subjects’. All drugs or therapies at some stage will be clinically trialled for success (or otherwise), side effects and long term outcomes, certainly something that animals cannot communicate. NO LINK - APES DON’T WORK FOR BIOMEDICAL TESTING Murry J. Cohen, M.D. and Stephen R. Kaufman, M.D. and Brandon P. Reines, M.D. 1995 “Aping Science Summary: A Critical Analysis of Research at the Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center”. Medical Research Modernization Committee http://www.mrmcmed.org/ape.html As depicted by animal research advocates, medical history is replete with major contributions from experimentation on monkeys and apes. A review of two "discoveries" often attributed to experimentation on nonhuman primates--the discovery of the polio vaccine and the importance of maternal affection in an infant's psychological and social development--reveals how medical history has been distorted.
Maternal deprivation experiments have involved separating infant monkeys from their mothers and rearing them with "surrogate" mothers made of wire and cloth or with "monster mothers" who abuse them. Other protocols have included partial isolation in wire cages or total isolation in "pits" or "wells of despair." While researchers repeatedly claim that these nonhuman primate experiments "prove" that maternal love and affection are necessary for healthy psychosocial development, this was well known from preceding studies of human infants who experienced maternal deprivation. Although researchers continue to manipulate nearly every conceivable variable, such as length of separation or caging parameters, Stephen Suomi, one of the major practitioners of this method, has acknowledged, "Most monkey data that readily generalize to humans have not uncovered new facts about human behavior; rather, they have only verified principles that have already been formulated from previous human data. . . To date the monkey data have added little to knowledge of human mother-infant interactions." Those who experiment on nonhuman primates have grossly exaggerated the role of nonhuman-primate studies in medical progress and significantly minimized the misleading data that results. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 1.43 Mb. Share with your friends:
|