Animal testing or animal research is the use of non-human animals in scientific experimentation.

It is
estimated that 50 to 100 million vertebrate animals worldwide — from zebrafish to non-human
primates — are used annually.

Although much larger numbers of invertebrates are used and the use of flies and worms as model
organisms is very important, experiments on invertebrates are largely unregulated and not included in
statistics. Most animals are euthanized after being used in an experiment. Sources of laboratory
animals vary between countries and species; while most animals are purpose-bred, others may be
caught in the wild or supplied by dealers who obtain them from auctions and pounds. The research is
conducted inside universities, medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, farms, defense
establishments, and commercial facilities that provide animal-testing services to industry. It includes
pure research such as genetics, developmental biology, behavioural studies, as well as applied
research such as biomedical research, xenotransplantation, drug testing and toxicology tests,
including cosmetics testing. Animals are also used for education, breeding, and defense research. The
topic is highly controversial. Supporters of the practice, such as the British Royal Society, argue that
virtually every medical achievement in the 20th century relied on the use of animals in some way,
with the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences arguing
that even sophisticated computers are unable to model interactions between molecules, cells, tissues,
organs, organisms, and the environment, making animal research necessary in some areas. The U.S.
and British governments both support the advancement of medical and scientific goals using animal
testing, provided that the testing minimizes animal use and suffering. Others, such as the British
Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, question the necessity of it, these opponents make a range of
arguments: that it is cruel, poor scientific practice, cannot reliably predict effects in humans, poorly
regulated, that the costs outweigh the benefits, or that animals have an intrinsic right not to be used
for experimentation.
"Dominion": Do humans have "dominion" over animals, justifying
testing?
No

 "Dominion" makes humans stewards; no right to harm/exploit animals Even if we

apply the notion of "dominion", and if we deprive animals of rights, the principle of "dominion"

should be applied in a way that requires humans to see themselves as "stewards" of animals. As

outlined by Matthew Scully in Dominion, humans should apply the principle of mercy to animals,

which requires that they inflict no pain or suffering on them. He writes, "We are called to treat

them with kindness, not because they have rights or power or some claim to equality

but...because they stand unequal and powerless before us."[1] Part of the significance of this

argument is that even if we conclude animals should not have rights, we can still conclude (via the

principle of mercy) that animals should not be subjected to pain, suffering, and testing.

 Evolutionary science debunks the idea of human dominion over animals. Humans have

evolved from animals and from a common single cell organism. Humans did not have dominion

then over other animals; in-fact, we didn't even exist. Therefore, how is it possible to claim that

we now can have dominion? At a minimum, evolution forces us to recognize that humans do not

have an innate-historical claim to "dominion".

 Humans evolved from other animals; our history is not innately superior.
 Animals are independent creatures that don't exist to serve humans Tom Regan. "The

Philosophy of Animal Rights". Retrieved May 6th, 2008 - "THE PHILOSOPHY OF ANIMAL RIGHTS

The other animals humans eat, use in science, hunt, trap, and exploit in a variety of ways, have a

life of their own that is of importance to them apart from their utility to us. They are not only in

the world, they are aware of it. What happens to them matters to them. Each has a life that fares

better or worse for the one whose life it is[...] By insisting upon and justifying the independent

value and rights of other animals, it gives scientifically informed and morally impartial reasons for

denying that these animals exist to serve us."


God-given right?

 The Philosophy of Animal Rights". Retrieved May 6th, 2008 - "THE PHILOSOPHY OF ANIMAL

RIGHTS The other animals humans eat, use in science, hunt, trap, and exploit in a variety of

ways, have a life of their own that is of importance to them apart from their utility to us. They are

not only in the world, they are aware of it. What happens to them matters to them. Each has a life

that fares better or worse for the one whose life it is[...] By insisting upon and justifying the

independent value and rights of other animals, it gives scientifically informed and morally impartial

reasons for denying that these animals exist to serve us."

 Rights: Is it wrong to believe that animals have rights?
 Differences: Are humans superior to animals or equals? Does
this matter?
 Animals kill... Is animal testing justified on basis that animals
harm one-another too?
 Pain: Do animals experience very little or no pain?
 Test results/benefits: Are the results of animal
experimentation useful?
 We hunt and eat animals... Is testing justified by our already
hunting and eating animals?
 Moral trade-offs: Is animal testing morally right if it reduces
human suffering?
 Animal benefits: Do animals generally benefit from advances
made in animal testing?
 Alternatives: Are alternatives to animal testing inadequate?
 Environment: Does animal testing have little to no impact on
the environment?
 Regulations/abuse: Can regulations be adequate or is a total
ban necessary?
 Genetic modifications: Is the genetic modification of animals
appropriate?
  Sources: Are the sources of animals used in laboratories
appropriate?
 Cosmetics: Is the use of animals in cosmetic testing
appropriate?
[ ]
[Edit]
No

 Polls show massive public support for banning animal testing for specific household

products

 Animal rights enjoy significant support even among conservatives "Exploring

'Dominion'. Matthew Scully on animals. A Q&A by Kathryn Jean Lopez". National Review Online.

December 3, 2002 - "Lopez: What, in your experience, do the 'greens' make of you — a

conservative, Republican-administration vet, sticking his neck out on animal rights?

Scully: Let me be the first on NRO to break the story that there are actually other Republicans

concerned about cruelty to animals. Outgoing Senator Bob Smith was a true champion of

compassion for animals, but others remain such as Senator Wayne Allard and Representative

Chris Smith. The same is true in the U.K., where many Tories have favored the abolition of

veal farming, battery cages, fur farming, fox hunting, and hare coursing among other cruel

practices and vicious recreations. As for environmentalists, I think they generally approve of

the book, and I am glad that I've come to know some of them, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

He is a brave foe of factory farmers, for both environmental and animal-welfare reasons. I

count myself his ally, as do the thousands of farmers still worthy of that name."

 Animal rights are gaining substantial ground in European laws

 The animal rights movement is showing great progress in America

 Pro/con organizations
No

 Go Cruelty Free

 Norwegian School of Veterinary Science

 National Anti-Vivisection Society

 Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Research

 European Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods

 Dr. Hadwen Trust

 International Foundation for Ethical Research

 John Hopkins University Center for Alternative to Animal Testing

 Alternatives Research and Development Foundation

 American Anti-Vivisection Society

 In Defense of Animals

 Uncaged

 British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection

 European Coalition to End Animal Experiments.

 Animal Liberation Front - A militant animal rights group.