Student

Mr. Maite

Honors English 9

9 January 2001

First Affirmative Constructive Speech

Should animals be used for the testing of substances and procedures meant to benefit or enhance human life? That is the question posed in today's debate.

Animal testing has occurred since the days of Aristotle when he used animal testing for medicinal purposes. It is a heated topic with debates and even violence being used in the effort to argue it. We the affirmative thought we must address it.

We believe that animal testing should be used to enhance human life, and we have several statements to back that. First, huge medical advances have been made using animals in research. Vaccines developed from animal testing have been used to protect humans from measles, mumps, diphtheria, smallpox, rubella, and polio. Other advances have also been made (Dr. Stuart M. Lane, 24).

Second, while the negative side will argue that there are effective alternatives to animal testing, there really aren't. Computer alternatives are not able to completely replicate the complex biochemicals and activities in an organism (Bill Breen, 43). Alternatives cannot show the effect of the experiment on the whole creature if only one small part, such as a cell or tissue is used. In addition, cells that have been in cultures tend to lose the characteristic of the cell or organ they were taken from( Myra Sklarew, 291). At this point it is unlikely that alternatives will ever be as effective as animal testing.

Third, animal testing is also used to help less fortunate countries than our own. A technique that is used is splicing, which is the process of taking a desired gene from one animal and placing it in another. The idea is that the desired gene would affect the way that its host organism grows. For example, through splicing, a cow could be made to be bigger, creating more milk and more meat. Processes like this have been used, and spliced animals have already been sent to third world countries. So far this has gone smoothly (Robertson).

The reason we are here today is to confront the issue of animal testing To begin with, while animal rights activists argue that animals are equal to humans, we know they are not. Animals have not made the advances in this world that humans have. True, I will agree that they feel pain, but that does that make them equal to humans; it makes them alive, and that is a huge difference.

Another reason we choose to confront the issue is that it has gotten way out of hand. Animal rights radicals have gone so far as to bomb and set fire to research facilities that use animals, which slows down advances in medical research. And let's not forget it's also illegal. We need to stop debating this issue and let animal testing continue. Violence will not solve it, and animal testing is actually very humane.

Animal researchers are not cruel. In addition to researchers own standards, committees are also required to survey over labs. In fact, in 1985 Congress passed the Health Research Extension Act in which animal research institutions must have an overseeing committee consisting of a vet, a public member, and a scientist (Bill Breen, 44)

We the affirmative side do have a plan. First, we would ensure that all overseeing of animal testing facilities are properly funded and well run, so that the humane treatment of animals is insured. We will also work to pass a law specifically protecting us from animal rights radicals. We will make sure this law has severe consequences to anyone who tries to harm a valued researcher or research facility. To guarantee that this law will be carried out, we suggest a special committee to be placed in each state to watch over researchers and their facilities, and to prosecute those who break this law.

In conclusion we too value the rights and safety of animals, but animal testing must continue. I urge you to remember how many medical advances had been made through animal testing, and to continue to support it. Also remember that violence will never solves anything. These animal rights radicals are out of line, and must be stopped. I now open myself to cross-examining.

Works Cited

"Animal Testing-sidebar." September 24, 1998:2. Issues and Controversies. Hilliard Davidson Media Center. 11-28-01.

Audette, Rose Marie L. , et. al. "Suffer the Animals." Environmental Action. May/June 1990: 23-30. SIRS Researcher. Hilliard Davidson Media Center. Nov. 30, 2001.

Blayney Don P., et. al. "Controversy Over Livestock Growth Hormones Continues." Food Review Oct./Dec. 1991: 6-9. SIRS Researcher. Economic Research Service. Hilliard Davidson Media Center. 11-29-01.

Breen, Bill. "Why We Need Animal Testing." Garbage Magazine. April/May 1993: 38-45 Sirs Researcher. Hilliard Media Center. 11-30-01.

Burnett, James. "Monkeys in the Middle." GEORGE. Sept 2000:10. Sirs Researcher. Hilliard Davidson Media School. Nov 28, 2001.

"Cloned Lambs May Produce Hemophilia Drug." San Jose Mercury News: Dec.18, 1997. SIRS Researcher. Hilliard Davidson Media Center. 11-30-01.

Lane, Dr. Stuart M. "Banning Animal Testing May Be Hazardous To Your Health." American Council On Science And Health Inc. Spring 1989: Page 23-26. SIRS Researcher. Hilliard Davidson Media Center. 11-30-01.

Leone, Bruno ed. Science and Technology. Sr. Ed. Minnesota: Greenhaven Press,1987.

Levine, Carol. Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Bioethical Issues.

Guilford, Connecticut: The Duskin Publishing Group, Inc., 1995.

McCoy, J.J. Animals in Research: Issues and Conflicts. New York, New York: Franklin Watts Inc., 1993.

"Milestones in Animal Testing. -sidebar" September 12 1996:2. Issues and Controversies. Hilliard Davidson Media Center. 11-28-01.

Morrison, Adrian R. "What's Wrong With Animal Rights" American School Board Journal. Jan. 1992: 20-23. SIRS Researcher. Hilliard Davidson Media Center. Nov. 30, 2001.

Elizabeth Neos. "Genetically Modified Monkey Could Improve Disease Research." Gannett News Service. Jan 11, 2001"4. Hilliard Davidson Media Center. Nov 30, 2001.

"Public Opinion(sidebar)." Los Angeles Times. December 1993:2. Issues and Controversies. Hilliard Davidson Media Center. 11-28-01.

Sklarew, Myra. "Toxicity Tests: Alternative Models." Environmental Health Perspective. Sept. 1993: 288-291. SIRS Researcher. Hilliard Davidson Media Center. Nov 31, 2001.

Susan Wright. "Down on the Animal Pharm: Splicing Away Regulations." The

Nation. March 11, 1996: 16+. Sirs Researcher. Hilliard Davidson Media Center. 11-29-01.