Instigator / Pro
0
1506
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Topic

Animal testing should be banned

Status
Voting

Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

The voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Science
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
0
1502
rating
3
debates
50.0%
won
Description
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Round 1
Pro
Good morning ,afternoon and evening ladies and gentlemen thank you for attending my point of view on this topic. The question? Should animal testing should be banned?   I think yes because:
We could experiment on humans: we’d learn more useful information if we did, and it would be better science. But most of us wouldn’t accept millions of humans being bred to be subjected to dangerous, invasive, and non-consensual tests every year. So why should we allow non-human animals to be deprived of food, water, or sleep or be poisoned, burned, gassed, or electrocuted and then killed?
1)Our Bodies Are Different
All sentient beings share the capacity to suffer, but different species often process drugs or react very differently to one another. Penicillin kills guinea pigs. Ibuprofen causes kidney failure and stomach ulcers in cats and dogs. And morphine, a depressant for humans, has the opposite effect on goats and horses. Taking healthy beings of a completely different species, artificially inducing a condition that they would never normally develop, keeping them in an unnatural and stressful environment, and trying to apply the results to naturally occurring diseases in human beings is dubious at best.


Con
The difference between testing on humans and animals
Greetings, There are quite a lot of distinctions that can be made between animals and humans. One of them is the fact that humans are consciously capable of conceptualising universals such as concepts of love, God, democracy, and other such things. This unique ability of humans allows us to form social contracts with one another. We're wholly incapable of forming said social contracts with animals, as communication is pretty much impossible. They can't speak English and we can't speak mouse (as they don't really have a conscious language beyond instincts). This gives rise to the concept that a mouse's reactions to, say, getting stroked or being loved are simply wired in responses but there's no conscious experience there, kind of like the saying "the lights are on but nobody is home." This means when an animal squirms from being hurt, there's nothing that is actually hurting. It's somewhat like electrocuting a frog's leg, and it instinctively jumps even when it's not even attached to the rest of the body.
 
Mirror test
Most animals fail the mirror test, which almost certainly means they have no self-awareness. To be a subjective experiencer of the world, you need self-awareness. Every kind of conscious knowledge or experience of something requires you to have a knowledge of yourself as the experiencer of that thing. If you have no "I" or no conscious self, how can you even come to the thought of "I think therefore I am"? Simply put, you can't. Most animals are simply likely to be flesh-and-bone droids with no awareness of the fact that they exist. like a leaf.
 
Diabetes, epilepsy, dialysis
Animal research was key to the discovery and development of a variety of treatments for diabetes, which affects 29 million Americans each year. Prior to the 1960s, kidney disease was almost uniformly fatal and resulted in the death of about 20,000 Americans annually, making it the fourth leading cause of death among young adults. Virtually all of the recent improvements in the care of patients with kidney disease have resulted from basic research involving the use of laboratory animals, including shunts, transplant rejection, blood pressure management, immunosuppression drugs, and kidney stone removal. After nearly 20 years without the introduction of any new medications to treat epilepsy, doctors now have several medicines and surgical techniques that help control seizures in approximately 80 percent of those diagnosed with epilepsy. None of these new treatments would be approved for human use unless their safety had first been tested in animals.
 
Smallpox
Edward Jenner created the first ever vaccine through noticing that people who were around and worked with cows didn't get smallpox. This later lead to his testing smallpox on the cows to discover that because they get cowpox they become immune to smallpox. This first ever vaccine (discovered through animal testing) has saved millions of people's lives. Many diseases that once killed millions of people every year are now either preventable, treatable or have been eradicated altogether. Saving countless lives, immunizations against polio, diphtheria, mumps, rubella and hepatitis, save countless lives and the survival rates for many major diseases are at an all-time high thanks to the discovery of new drugs and the design of sophisticated medical devices and surgical procedures. In the coming years, a universal influenza vaccine may be a reality, as well as a vaccine to end the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
 
Insulin
Insulin was discovered through animal testing on dogs, which in the modern day saves millions of people's lives who live with diabetes.
 
Conclusion
The list is essentially endless of what animal testing has given humans, from treatment of diseases to genetic disorders. In fact, if you’ve ever taken antibiotics, had a vaccine, a blood transfusion, dialysis, an organ transplant, chemotherapy, bypass surgery, or joint replacement, you have benefited from animal testing and research. In fact, practically every drug, treatment, medical device, diagnostic tool, or cure we have today was developed with the help of lab animals.

Round 2
Pro
It’s Dangerous
Over 90 per cent of drug trials in humans fail, even though they’ve been successful in tests on animals. The main causes of failure are safety problems and a lack of effectiveness that weren’t predicted by the tests on animals. In just one appalling example, 11 human babies died after their mothers were given Viagra-like pills during a 2018 clinical trial aimed at promoting foetus growth in the womb. The drug had proved to decrease foetal mortality for rats. How can we rely on a system which can’t reliably predict and prevent these tragedies?
It’s Wasteful and Expensive
Experiments on non-human animals can prolong the suffering of humans waiting for effective cures. These misleading tests squander millions of pounds, time, and resources that could have been spent on human-relevant research. As Dr Richard Klausner, former director of the US National Cancer Institute, once said, “We have cured mice of cancer for decades – and it simply didn’t work in humans
The harmful use of animals in experiments is not only cruel but also often ineffective. Animals do not get many of the human diseases that people do, such as major types of heart disease, many types of cancer, HIV, Parkinson’s disease, or schizophrenia.  Instead, signs of these diseases are artificially induced in animals in laboratories to mimic the human disease. Yet, such experiments belittle the complexity of human conditions which are affected by wide-ranging variables such as genetics, socio-economic factors, deeply-rooted psychological issues and different subjective experiences. These words are from non-government organization Cruelty Free International.
The NGO goes further to state that it is not surprising to find that treatments showing ‘promise’ in animals rarely work in humans. Not only are time, money and animals’ lives being wasted (with a huge amount of suffering), but effective treatments are being mistakenly discarded and harmful treatments are getting through. The support for animal testing is based largely on anecdote and is not backed up, we believe, by the scientific evidence that is out there.
The use of nonpredictive animal experiments can cause human suffering in at least two ways: (1) by producing misleading safety and efficacy data and (2) by causing potential abandonment of useful medical treatments and misdirecting resources away from more effective testing methods.
Experimenting on animals is always unacceptable because: it causes suffering to animals. the benefits to human beings are not proven. any benefits to human beings that animal testing does provide could be produced in other ways.
I would also ask u to take a look at this short film that is only 3 minutes and 53 seconds long: Save Ralph - A short film with Taika Waititi (2022 Webby Award) - YouTube, thankyou
In conclusion, animal testing should be eliminated because it violates animals' rights, it causes pain and suffering to the experimental animals, and other means of testing product toxicity are available.

Con
I) Most animal experiments failing to work on humans 
Over 90 per cent of drug trials in humans fail, even though they’ve been successful in tests on animals. The main causes of failure are safety problems and a lack of effectiveness that weren’t predicted by the tests on animals. In just one appalling example, 11 human babies died after their mothers were given Viagra-like pills during a 2018 clinical trial aimed at promoting foetus growth in the womb. The drug had proved to decrease foetal mortality for rats. How can we rely on a system which can’t reliably predict and prevent these tragedies?
Even if this is the case, animal testing (outside of primates and other self-aware beings) is still worth it if you cannot defeat my consciousness argument. What is the point in giving moral agency and laws to animals which aren't even aware and, in actuality, are not much different from leaves in their level of awareness of the outside world? I see no problem with 90% of animal tests failing. As long as 5 percent do, it is worth it and can save millions of lives. Doing tests on these kinds of animals is no different than testing pesticides on plants. Can you prove this wrong?

Even if 90% of animal tests fail, it cannot be overstated that animal tests work, and virtually every medical breakthrough has been made with the help of animal testing. A 2004 paper concluded that much animal research is wasted because systemic reviews are not used and due to poor methodology. A lack of meta-reviews may be partially to blame. Poor methodology is an issue in many studies. A 2009 review noted that many animal experiments did not use blinded experiments, a key element of many scientific studies in which researchers are not told about the part of the study they are working on to reduce bias. These sources concluded that much of the fault for animal experiments failing to be replicated on humans is more the fault of the laziness of the research as opposed to animal testing being so useless.

To use an example of thalidomide, thalidomide causes serious birth defects in humans but not in some animals such as mice (however, it does cause birth defects in rabbits). When we first did testing on thalidomide, we didn't test on rabbits, but only mice. If we had a larger sample size of animals, we would have been able to detect that thalidomide could have drastic consequences for humans. People believe that experimenting on animals is evil, which is part of why we didn't test on more than mice. Had this not been the case researchers would of been less stigmatised using a larger variety of animals, leading to the thalidomide epidemic to not happen.

II) Save ralph
Save Ralph was a very cute and sad video. Unfortunately, it is extremely humanising of rabbits (I say this as a person who has a pet rabbit!) A rabbit doesn't think thoughts like a human, nor does it even know it exists.

III) Sleep walker analogy
To use an analogy to branch from the previous point on rabbit's and mice: Sleep walkers can walk, they can talk. They can open fridges, detect threats, and walk up and down the stairs. They can even eat food. But is a sleepwalker aware that he/she is sleepwalking and is a living being? No, they're not. They're on autopilot just like a rabbit is, just like a mouse is and a bat is. These animals are as alive as a leaf is. If you can't prove an animal has conscious experience (which it almost certainly doesn't), there is no more moral responsibility to care for animal testing as there is for testing pesticides on plants.

Conclusion
Pro is yet to prove most animals are even aware of their own existence. Either he agrees with me that animals have about as much conscious awareness as plants but still wants animal testing to be banned anyways (if so, why?) If this is not the case, he disagrees that most animals don't have self-awareness, but he's yet to clap back at my argument to prove me wrong. 

I've reasonably debunked his claim that animal tests failing 90% of the time is a reason to get rid of them (even if they do, I've shown it is of no moral consequence in all cases outside of self-aware animals).
 

Round 3
Pro
(SEE COMMENTS SECTION)
1)Self-awareness is often thought of as a uniquely human trait, but new research suggests that it may be more common than previously thought across the animal kingdom. Conscious creatures may include our primate cousins, cetaceans and corvids – and potentially many invertebrates, including bees, spiders and cephalopods such as octopuses, cuttlefish and squid. The challenge, of course, is to understand how the inner lives of these creatures differ from our own. Animals have interesting thoughts, but the only way they can convey them is by grunts, shrieks, and other vocalizations, and by gestures,” Hauser points out. “When humans evolved speech, they liberated the kinds of thoughts nonhumans have.
(As well as, I hear u own a rabbit, what if a scientist asked for it to do tests on it, would u break you bond with something that stays with u or would u rather risk it dying)

The Case For Animal Experimentation Defenders of animal experimentation usually argue that animals cannot be considered morally equal to humans. They generally use this claim as the cornerstone of an argument that the benefits to humans from animal experimentation outweigh or “make up for” the harm done to animals. The disadvantage of animal research is that it lessens the value of life, sure the metabolism of the animals are quite large but as we use it we dont see any future generations learning from seeing the actual thing.
Although humans often benefit from successful animal research, the pain, the suffering, and the deaths of animals are not worth the possible human benefits. Therefore, animals should not be used in research or to test the safety of products. First, animals' rights are violated when they are used in research.
During a government meeting about funding for research, former U.S. National Institutes of Health director Dr. Elias Zerhouni admitted to his colleagues that experimenting on animals to help humans has been a major failure: “We have moved away from studying human disease in humans. … We all drank the Kool-Aid on that one, me included. … The problem is that [animal testing] hasn’t worked, and it’s time we stopped dancing around the problem. … We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans.” —Dr. Elias Zerhouni
Today—because experiments on animals are cruel, time-consuming, and generally inapplicable to humans—the world’s most forward-thinking scientists are developing and using animal-free methods that are actually relevant to human health for studying diseases and testing products. These alternatives to animal testing include sophisticated tests using human cells and tissues (also known as in vitro methods), advanced computer-modeling techniques (often referred to as in silico models), and studies with human volunteers. These and other non-animal methods are not hindered by species differences that make applying animal test results to humans difficult or impossible, and they usually take less time to complete.
PETA and our affiliates fund the development of many of these alternatives to animal testing, vigorously promote their use to governments and companies around the world, and publish research on their superiority to traditional animal tests.
Here are just a few examples of the numerous state-of-the-art, non-animal methods available and their demonstrated benefits:
In Vitro Testing
  • Researchers have created “organs-on-chips” that contain human cells grown in a state-of-the-art system to mimic the structure and function of human organs and organ systems. The chips can be used instead of animals in disease research, drug testing, and toxicity testing and have been shown to replicate human physiology, diseases, and drug responses more accurately than crude animal experiments do. Some companies, such as AlveoliXMIMETAS, and Emulate, Inc., have already turned these chips into products that other researchers can use in place of animals.
  • A variety of cell-based tests and tissue models can be used to assess the safety of drugs, chemicals, cosmetics, and consumer products. For example, MatTek Life Sciences’ EpiDerm™ Tissue Model is a 3-dimensional, human cell–derived model that can be used to replace rabbits in painful, prolonged experiments that have traditionally been used to evaluate chemicals for their ability to corrode or irritate the skin.
  • The PETA International Science Consortium Ltd. helped fund the development of MatTek Life Sciences’ EpiAlveolar, a first-of-its-kind 3-dimensional model of the deepest part of the human lung. The model, composed of human cells, can be used to study the effects of inhaling different kinds of chemicals, pathogens, and (e-)cigarette smoke.
  • Devices made by German-based manufacturer VITROCELL are used to expose human lung cells in a dish to chemicals in order to test the health effects of inhaled substances. Every day, humans inhale numerous chemicals—some intentionally (such as cigarette smoke) and some inadvertently (such as pesticides). Using the VITROCELL machines, human cells are exposed to the airborne chemical on one side while receiving nutrients from a blood-like liquid on the other—mimicking what actually occurs when a chemical enters a human lung. These devices, as well as EpiAlveolar, can replace the current method of confining rats to tiny tubes and forcing them to inhale toxic substances for hours before they are eventually killed.
  • Researchers developed tests that use human blood cells to detect contaminants in drugs that cause a potentially dangerous fever response when they enter the body. The non-animal methods replace the crude methods of bleeding horseshoe crabs or restraining rabbits, injecting them with drugs or extracts from medical devices, and taking their temperature rectally to monitor if they develop a fever.
  • Through research funded by the PETA International Science Consortium Ltd. and carried out at the Institute for Biochemistry, Biotechnology and Bioinformatics at the Technische Universität Braunschweig in Germany, scientists created fully human-derived antibodies capable of blocking the poisonous toxin that causesdiphtheria. This method can end the practice of injecting horses repeatedly with the diphtheria toxin and draining huge amounts of their blood in order to collect the antibodies that their immune systems produce to fight the disease.
  • Computer (in Silico) Modeling Researchers have developed a wide range of sophisticated computer models that simulate human biology and the progression of developing diseasesStudies show that these models can accurately predict the ways that new drugs will react in the human body and replace the use of animals in exploratory research and many standard drug tests.
  • Quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs) are computer-based techniques that can replace animal tests by making sophisticated estimates of a substance’s likelihood of being hazardous, based on its similarity to existing substances and our knowledge of human biology. Companies and governments are increasingly using QSAR tools to avoid testing chemicals on animals.
Research With Human Volunteers
  • A method called “microdosing” can provide vital information on the safety of an experimental drug and how it is metabolized in humans prior to large-scale human trials. Volunteers are given an extremely small one-time drug dose, and sophisticated imaging techniques are used to monitor how the drug behaves inthe body. Microdosing can replace certain tests on animals and help screen out drug compounds that won’t work in humans so that they are never tested in animals.
  • Advanced brain imaging and recording techniques—such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)—with human volunteers can be used to replace archaic experiments in which rats, cats, and monkeys have their brains damaged. These modern techniques allow the human brain to be safely studied down to the level of a single neuron (as in the case of intracranial electroencephalography), and researchers can even temporarily and reversibly induce brain disorders using transcranial magnetic stimulation.
Human-Patient Simulators
  • Strikingly lifelike computerized human-patient simulators that breathe, bleed, convulse, talk, and even “die” have been shown to teach students physiology and pharmacology better than crude exercises that involve cutting up animals. The most high-tech simulators mimic illnesses and injuries and give the appropriate biological response to medical interventions and medication injections. All medical schools across the U.S., Canada, and India have completely replaced the use of animal laboratories in medical training with simulators as well as virtual reality systems, computer simulators, and supervised clinical experience.
Although scientists have state-of-the-art, effective, non-animal methods available, experimenters continue to torture countless animals anyway. “Without Consent,” PETA’s interactive timeline, features almost 200 stories of twisted experiments from the past century, including ones in which dogs were forced to inhale cigarette smoke for months, mice were cut up while still conscious, and cats were deafened, paralyzed, and drowned. Visit “Without Consent” to learn about more harrowing animal experiments throughout history and how you can help create a better future for living, feeling beings.

Conclusion
Con has yet to prove how they cant use an alternative for testing( if said: animal testing is more proven, I say that with a bit of help with the alternatives u could be more effective than ever  and conclude it tremendously better results, so I say continue with it to only find the needs(medicine) and not wants(makeup)
Thankyou 😊
Con
1) self-awareness

1)Self-awareness is often thought of as a uniquely human trait, but new research suggests that it may be more common than previously thought across the animal kingdom. Conscious creatures may include our primate cousins, cetaceans and corvids – and potentially many invertebrates, including bees, spiders and cephalopods such as octopuses, cuttlefish and squid. The challenge, of course, is to understand how the inner lives of these creatures differ from our own. Animals have interesting thoughts, but the only way they can convey them is by grunts, shrieks, and other vocalizations, and by gestures,” Hauser points out. “When humans evolved speech, they liberated the kinds of thoughts nonhumans have.
  • I've already conceded that animals with self-awareness should not be experimented on. This doesn't debunk the claim of animal experimentation itself being banned, which goes way beyond self aware animals. "animals have interesting thoughts" i consider this to be a very odd thing to say, as to have thoughts implies ideas, ideas or at least complex ideas must be expressed through some form of language. At least complex ideas beyond instinctual reasoning. Self aware beings (like octopus) could have a form of limited conscious thinking.
  • Most animals do not consciously suffer when we do these experiments on them (such as rabbits). You keep on humanising and projecting yourself into these animals, despite the fact they almost certainly don't consciously feel pain. I wouldn't give my rabbit up to animal testing as it gives me comfort. I do have a personal emotional attachment to it and do humanise it, but I am aware that objectively this is incorrect and shouldn't get in the way of my argument that I am making here.
Human cells in petri-dishes
Human beings and animals are extremely complex. Studying cell cultures in a petri dish, while sometimes useful, does not provide the opportunity to study interrelated processes occurring in the central nervous system, endocrine system, and immune system.  Evaluating a drug for side effects requires a circulatory system to carry the medicine to different organs. 
  • Conditions such as blindness and high blood pressure cannot be studied in tissue cultures. Even the most powerful supercomputers are unable to accurately simulate the workings of the human brain’s 100 billion interconnected nerve cells.  Although this is definitely promising, and should be used in all experiments doing it alongside non self-aware animals of different kinds would add more data and veracity to it (if you cannot prove experimentation on none sentient animals as wrong, there is really no point in banning it.)
  • the importance of animal testing is still too necessary in the current day for it to become illegal (even with organ on chips technology). https://www.nabr.org/biomedical-research/importance-biomedical-research


We have moved away from studying human disease in humans. … We all drank the Kool-Aid on that one, me included. … The problem is that [animal testing] hasn’t worked, and it’s time we stopped dancing around the problem. … We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans.” —Dr. Elias Zerhouni
I'm unsure why this person thinks animal testing "hasn't worked". It's given us some of the biggest breakthroughs in medical history. Cherry-picked quote.

Non-animal alternatives
  • Researchers have created “organs-on-chips” that contain human cells grown in a state-of-the-art system to mimic the structure and function of human organs and organ systems. The chips can be used instead of animals in disease research, drug testing, and toxicity testing and have been shown to replicate human physiology, diseases, and drug responses more accurately than crude animal experiments do. Some companies, such as AlveoliXMIMETAS, and Emulate, Inc., have already turned these chips into products that other researchers can use in place of animals.
  • A variety of cell-based tests and tissue models can be used to assess the safety of drugs, chemicals, cosmetics, and consumer products. For example, MatTek Life Sciences’ EpiDerm™ Tissue Model is a 3-dimensional, human cell–derived model that can be used to replace rabbits in painful, prolonged experiments that have traditionally been used to evaluate chemicals for their ability to corrode or irritate the skin.


The amount and variety of non-animal alternatives has grown over the years and the use of these alternatives is integrated in biomedical research in g Next to simple 2D cell cultures, there are now also 3D cell cultures, organoids, and even organs-on-a-chip that are used in research. There are also more sophisticated forms of computer modelling. But these non-animal alternative methods mostly fill the gap between simple 2D cell cultures and the live animal and cannot be used to study biological phenomena for which the complex interactions between cells, tissues, blood, and the immune system are still important. They allow more complex phenomena to be studied that cannot be studied in a 2D cell culture, but cannot fully replace the live animal. The more basic the research is and the more complex the biological phenomenon that is studied, the more difficult it is to use a non-animal alternative method. The more applied the research is and the less complex the biological phenomenon, the easier it is to find and use a non-animal alterative method. This is for instance why in applied toxicological research non-animal alternative methods are more widely available and more widely used.

The human body has roughly 200 organs and they don’t yet all have a chip counterpart, Around two dozen of them have been micro-engineered to date—including the blood-brain barrier, gut, kidney, lung, parts of the female and male reproductive systems, the mammary gland, bone marrow, cardiac and skeletal muscle, and the bone-cartilage interface—as well as multiple liver-on-a-chip models.

It cant be stressed enough that the high failure rate of animal testing is in large due to the fact we use rodents (as opposed to something like dogs which gets much more of the same diseases as us). 95% of animal testing is done on rodents, which would in theory decrease by quite a lot if it was different.

Lack of long term viability of "organs on a chip"

  • The difficulty with organoids is their limited lifespan. They keep growing and once they become more than about three times the diameter of a human hair [300 microns] the inside becomes necrotic and dies from lack of food and lack of oxygen and no place to pee. The only countermeasure is to break them up into small pieces after a few days and let them reform. That makes organoids impractical for studying long-term effects over weeks or months.
  • another limitation of organoids is that many of them would be required to provide enough tissue to do sophisticated, untargeted, multi-omic screening, . Also, since the interior of each organoid is difficult to access, it’s hard to use organoids to study biological barriers—for example, the blood-brain barrier, the blood-testis barrier and the epithelial cells that protect the lungs and the gut from pathogens. The interesting substances might be inside, but you can’t yet get readily connected to it.
  • These chips also don't factor in the human bodies circadian rhythm currently. There's many things animals can do which these chips nor computers currently can.   Drugs have different pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties, depending on the time of day, which can differ by a factor of two to 10 over 24 hours.
  • The pump and valve technologies that Wikswo developed may simplify the move to coupled organs, or so-called “homunculi,” he points out. That might better recreate the complex physiological signals that regulate the endocrine, metabolic, and digestive systems.
    The liver, for example, has three zones with different oxygen levels that can affect drug metabolism, Wikswo says. No worries. D. Lansing Taylor, director of the University of Pittsburgh Drug Discovery Institute, has successfully built a microphysiological device with three liver chips in a row showing how
  • drugs are metabolized in the different compartments.
    Over the near term, drug toxicity testing is probably not where organ-on-a-chip technology will flourish, Wikswo adds. “Pharmaceutical companies have done a pretty good job of checking for toxicity, and you don’t want to come up with an assay you say is safe until you’ve proven that you haven’t missed something.”
  • The bar is “justifiably quite high,” says Wikswo. “What you don’t want is a false negative.” Companies need to know if a drug they’re making has the “desired efficacy and pharmacokinetics.”
    Wikswo admits that his pumps and valves may appear complicated to biologists. His advice? “If you can use gravity and a rocking plate, or a pressurized reservoir, that’s a good way to go today.” But Wikswo’s focus is on overcoming the shortcomings of these technologies in recreating important biological processes that involve recirculation, pharmacokinetics, circadian rhythms and coupled organs.
    “Our ultimate goal is to make our pumps and valves so simple, reliable and inexpensive that people love to use them,” Wikswo says. “We’re not there yet, but we are moving closer every day.”

Conclusion
Although there is a lot of potential in the alternatives to animal testing, they don't currently exist in a state where they make animal testing unnecessary. Therefore, animal testing ought to stay legal until this is the case. Instead, they should be used alongside one-another for the most rigorous and accurate results. My point is still valid even if I abandon my consciousness argument. Although Pro was wholly incapable of proving animal testing on non-self-aware beings was immoral to begin with.