何恩羽

    We believe that animal clones for animals test is a great leap.

    Animal cloning for animal tests is another great progression and is crucially important to mankind. Because, in fact that for most of human history, life was very difficult for most people. People lacked basic medicines and died relatively young. They had no painkillers and people with ailments spent much of their lives in agonising pain. We have progressed in medicine massively since then due to the ability of scientists being bold and persistent on researches and development. By the combination of all these factors we reached a relatively sustained current of having cures and treatments to certain diseases, obtaining a longer live expectance rate and a higher life quality. Though these benefits that we now consider as a basis of survival were successful attempts on opportunities that might have been seen chancy at the point it was discovered. Using animal clones for animal testing fit in this statement of further human progression due to the facts of it is now being considered as risky and a immature piece of technology. Animal cloning could be used to create better animal models of diseases, which could in turn lead to further progress in understanding and treating those diseases that have made millions of people suffer, for instance AIDS caused by HIV either does not show same symptoms as a human infection or does not get infected at all therefore difficult to be tested upon for a vaccine, but by using animal clones for these tests the gene could be potentially modified to facilitate the process. Which in all contributes to the efficiency of animal testing, as the identical genetic information provides more utility towards testings. The high efficiency it provides allows less suffering to be payed by our peers. Using animal clones for animal testing is just another obligatory step towards progression. People progress because healthy individuals with a high life quality are far more able to contribute to the well-being and advancement of their societies. The present, for all of its imperfections, is a vast improvement on the past. Understanding and appreciating the progress that humanity has made does not mean that we stop trying to make the future even better than the present. Therefore shutting such a astonishing technology use out because of its immaturities could be a possible lethal mistake to mankind progression.

Respected adjudicators, dear audiences,  and fellow debaters, my name is Derek and I am the final and last speaker for the first-round debate competition from the negative team. To start with, I’m going to mention our motion again, as for the negative team, we strongly disagree to use clone animals for animal tests.

And I’m going to start my speech with some rebuttals. 

I will offer some resolution to problem that how we can substitute animal cloning and how we can use other more effective method into modern experiments. 

You guys keep mentioning vaccine all the time, is just useless, how are you guys going to prove you have the advantages and benefits for human, we can’t see any perspective of your opinions.    

New means immature. Only patience or progression is not enough, it needs valid proof. It needs security, being responsible to stick to natural animals means more security and greater good for humankind as well. 

as what we mentioned before, we already said that we can use micro-organisms and data from computers as the substitution of the animals and cloned animals. This way has been proved by scientific experiments and it is not only accurate but also not against the moral and ethical aspects.

Whereas there’s no prove that your idea is empirical in saving more lives. In our opinion, it needs more solid evidence.

Summary for speaker 1

Now I’m going to conclude what my teammates had said. For the first speaker, Emily stated three points and two solutions, which are representatively in the aspect of morality, biology, and law. These three points are strongly combined against cloning animals for animal tests. And the solutions, which are substitution offers from testing on cloned animals are micro-organs and data. These two methods can positively develop experimental techniques.

Summary for speaker 2

Now by Helios has said in the aspect of morality: clone animals have not been treated by society unequally, which violated the basic laws of morality. It is a serious offense of ethics, it’s a violation of the “unique genotype” of all living creatures.

Now speaking throughout the biological aspect, cloning technology is still a very risky technique to produce creatures. The rate of finishing the cloned animal is very low. 

Summary for speaker 3

Lastly, Penny has said about in the aspect of biology, we separate the opinions into three parts: policies of protecting animals, costing, and failure rate. We introduce these three points by some international organizations and some true events. These points are all renowned in our daily life and had been proved by scientific research to support the disadvantage of cloning animals and using cloning animals in animal tests. 

Conclusion 

Dear judges, imagine you are a scientist in a laboratory, I’m sure that you want your research and experiment results to be accurate and true. To make sure to do that, we can use microorganisms and the data as the substitutions of cloned animals, rather than use real animals. These ways can not only protect these two kinds of animals but also be scientifically proven and accurate. This is why we should win this rounds’ debate. This is the end of my speech, thank you all for listing.

Respectful adjudicators, dear audiences and fellow debaters, my name is Penny and I am the third speaker from the negative team. I will submit the supporting details in 2 dimensions. Now let’s get into our topic.

First of all, It is a fact that cloned animals have the same legal protection as any other animals, including under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Welfare of Farmed Animals Regulations 2007. These laws also apply to donor and surrogate animals. For your information. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) is the most comprehensive animal protection law in the U.S. and is meant to protect animals in research, in exhibition, in transportation, and in dealers’ care. Among the standards the AWA sets are expectations for licensing, handling, and care. Therefore, Therefore we think, cloned animals enjoyed the same benefit with natural animals. If using natural animals in laboratories is not allowed, then either does cloned creatures.

Second, speaking from the costing aspect, which is a very factual problem. According to Viagen Pets, the cost to produce a genetic twin to a cat is currently twenty-five thousand dollars. And the cost to clone a dog is listed at fifty-thousand dollars. The exact cost of cloning Dolly the Sheep has never been publicly released, but is estimated to have cost nearly 1 million dollars. Grace Links reports the cost to clone a cow at $20,000. A company in Texas sells cloned horses for up to $150,000 per animal.

Third, the failure rate is incredibly high. Despite the numerous success stories of reproductive animal cloning that began with Dolly the Sheep, 95% of cloning attempts end in failure. Many failed attempts require extensive veterinarian interventions to provide a measure of comfort to the affected animal. Cloning often results in a higher risk of birth defects, impairments, or susceptibility to illness. Even cloned animals that appear healthy have developed unexpected health issues.

Due to these 3 factors, here comes the question: why don’t we use natural animals in laboratories in order to save money and ask for more accurate results, rather than spending tons of money on producing unoriginal samples, getting unfaithful result?