From time immemorial, man has depended on animals for his survival, either as food (cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry,etc) or for competion and companionship (horse,god, cat, parrots, etc). as he knew more about his surroundings, he extended his dependence to acquisition of knowledge, dating back to the day of the great physician Galen (129-200AD), who used animals to demonstrate that arteries contained blood and not air. we have come a long way since then and specially bred laboratory animals consisting of rats, mice, hamsters, guinea pigs, rabbits, cats, dogs, monkeys, higher farm animals and a variety of birds and other lower forms are nor integral part of biomedical research.
Most laboratory animals have the same set of organs- heart, lungs, liver, and so on which work in the same way as they do in human, that is why results from animal experiments apply to people.
The topic is controversial, with supporters and opponents arguing about ethical issues and whether using animal models is good or bad science. According to the U.S. Foundation for Biomedical Research, "animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century — for both human and animal health." Many major developments that led to Nobel Prizes used animal research, including the development of penicillin (mice), organ transplant (dogs), and work on poliomyelitis that led to a vaccine (mice, monkeys). Whether animal research was necessary to achieve some of these breakthroughs has been questioned.
FOR the topic:
I think they actually make a very valid point. If we hold back on our testing, due to our values, we may be limiting our future. It is a very fine line. If we dont torture the subjects, and they dont feel anything, then is it hurting? Its like a game of chess, you have to sacrifice a few pawns to get the check mate. This discussion pertained the topic of ethics in animal research. There were many sides to the argument, which include pro Animal...