Animal testing is a dilemma, which seems impossible to be resolve. A lot of scientists are sure that it is the only way to achieve success in creating new types of medicine, in finding the way to cure diseases like cancer or even AIDS. In the end, doctors and biologists cannot experiment with human live and offer solution, which are not properly investigated. On the other hand, there is an entire army of people, who are certain that animal testing is at least unethical. Interestingly, both sides manage to find reasonable explanations and counterarguments that may puzzle any expert. But what should we say about animal testing within research programs of commercial products? Is situation the same here?
As some biologists admit, emotionally evocative images are a usual and very effective stunt. Usually, there is nothing except assertion of opinion and facts. The simplest way to analyze any situation is to consider whether it is right or wrong, good or bad; whether it is going to result in certain benefits for a wide audience, considerable benefits to some individuals or will be harmful. In most cases, people are not able to see the situation completely, but they are fast enough with their own decisions. However, there is no way to start a discussion being aware only of common beliefs and continue it with low standards of exchange.
When it comes to animal testing, the majority of people want to know about cost benefits in the first place. And that’s when everything goes wrong. Price is not what matters. “The costs consist mainly of animal pain, distress and death, whereas the benefits include the acquisition of new knowledge and the development of new medical therapies for humans” (Rowan, 1997, 79).
Let’s figure out why animal testing became widely spread. Everything may seem quite logical. Animals are living organisms that are able to provide researchers with new significant data about different functions, elements and processes, their reactions and interactions etc. In other words, animals help to find out what is appropriate for human organisms and what is not most precisely. As a result, there is a point of view, stating that it “difficult to envision how progress [] can be achieved in the future without animal experiments” (Rowan, 1997, 79).
Meanwhile, there are a lot of people ready to explain the opposite. Let’s look at animal testing from strictly rational point of view. “Animal experiments can be costly in economic terms, and from an ethical point of view, it will sometimes be appropriate to ask whether the resources a study consumes could have been used more effectively or for some other purpose altogether” (Hau et al., 2002, 15). Yes, we appeal to morality and ethnics, and do it for one simple reason. People believe in their superiority and are certain that animal testing is the best way to conduct investigations in different spheres. At the same time, they choose animals as the most appropriate, as human and animal organisms can be similar in a number of different ways. So what do we get? It seems to be an obvious contradiction, which leads to double standards. As a result, animal research becomes a double standard procedure.
Nevertheless, there is something more to this than bare words. Let’s look at some statistical data. Some people believe that involving animals in research is a good idea. But do they actually understand what conditions of experiments? There is a common believe that such kind of research is not an issue because animals don’t suffer greatly. After summarizing the results of some laboratory functioning, we can state the following. In average, 28% of animals (including rats, mice, birds, species used for food and fiber research) experience pain and distress and gets drug relief. Over 6% experiences the same without any relief (Hau et al., 2002, 15).
As it was already mentioned, animals are chosen for experiments due to the resemblance to humans; they own similar organisms. So it raises another question: why do we still have so many issues unresolved and where are the results of this great idea. It is time to agree that such beliefs can be misleading, and when it comes to finding an alternative for animal testing, it should get a chance. The misleading and rejection of new technologies is “associated with three more implicit fallacies: 1) exaggeration of the extent of our ignorance; 2) great overestimation of the fidelity of mammals as models; and 3) a tendency to ignore all the advantages of correlation” (Balls, 2007, 146). What does it mean? It means that a single bacterium can be suitable for conducting experiments, but people tend to reject this fact or leave it unnoticed just because it sounds unusual. Still, scientists have already managed to prove non-believers wrong.
Finally, let’s get to the most essential part. It was said a lot about animal testing in medicine, and there is a kernel. But how can anyone justify research of commercial products? This one doesn’t cause any doubts. Manufacturers are ready to put other beings in stressful or even life threatening conditions for For what, actually? For letting some glamorous lady buy a new lipstick. For providing someone with durable furniture. For selling detergents, which aren’t potentially harmful for humans’ health. If in case with medical testing people try to save lives, here manufacturers only sell suffering or even death.
Animals are often called our younger brothers. We can keep them at home, can play with them and necessarily have o take care of them. A lot of people stick to such beliefs and habits without even thinking what could have happened with their pets. In the end, they would be appropriate for testing, too. For commercial research and manufacturing, which lead to producing a huge amount of useless things. And this process keeps doing more harm for ecological situation. But we don’t want to notice it. As well as we don’t want to notice that humans are better material for research, needed for further production of products that will be used only by them.
1. A persuasive piece is a quite different form of writing if we compare it to description and narrative. Being persuasive means to know, define and state your position. Sometimes it can be complicated, for there are a lot of controversial issues. In this case, an author should still choose only one side and one opinion, though he may describe other versions and arguments, compare different points of view and so on. Persuasive essay is about expressing your idea or position. For this, you need to clarify it. The essay should be based on facts and evidences. There is no way to prove something if you don’t have enough data, background and backup. One more significant detail is to show the other side. Every issue has several approaches. An author can be categorical, but he must demonstrate that other points of view exist and explain why they are not appropriate, what are weak moments. If you just deny everything, it is not persuasive approach, it is simple rigidity. In this essay, both points of view are mentioned and preferences are supported by facts from academic sources. Very often using rhetorical questions is a good decision. It is one of the ways to express your opinion directly, but at the same time making a person feel that he or she has made that decision independently.
2. PowerPoint presentation may be (and in most cases is) a very helpful supplement for a persuasive essay. It is a well-known fact that the majority of people better perceive visual information. Thus, correctly designed slides can be very helpful. In order to create a successful presentation, it is necessary to take into account several details. Target audience is one of the most significant ones. If you know what specific audience you are going to deliver information to, you can choose correct and effective ways to represent statistical data, can define what will seem more reasonable or acceptable for them, what they are familiar with, what should be explained and what should be omitted. Preparing the essay for representatives of PETA meant that I could be more categorical. PETA stands for animals rights, so there is no need to remind general information.
3. The book Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science, Second Edition: Essential Principles and Practices, Volume I belongs to the list of basic course books for undergraduate and graduate laboratory animal science courses. This already can be the best argument for its credibility. This book provides detailed information on genetics of animals and review alternative techniques of experimentation, which is very important. Chapters are thoroughly revised. It deals with issues related to animal testing and research, discovering it from the inside, but still revising from different points of view. There is a separate chapter devoted to ethics.
4. A presentation is a supplement, which is used for demonstrating statistical data. It includes several main facts in form of numbers and sketches. Thus, people see the key information. Diagrams provide more data than included in essay. In addition, there are pictures that demonstrate what animal testing for commercial purposes really is. However, chosen pictures aren’t too violent. It can be also explained by the audience: PETA knows what animal testing really is.
Reference page
Balls, M. (2007). Alternatives to Animal Experiments: Time to Focus on Replacement.
AATEX, 12 (2), 145-154.
Hau, J., Schapiro, S. J., Hau, J. (2002). Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science, Second
Edition: Essential Principles and Practices, Volume I. Miami, FL: CRC Press.
Rowan, A. N. (1997). The Benefits and Ethics of Animal Research. Scientific American, 276
(2), 79-93.
