Animal testing has been around since at least 500 BC and in the last 100 years most medical breakthroughs regarding treatments and life-saving cures to ailments have resulted from research using animals, according to the California Biomedical Research Association.
The World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki, states it’s unethical to test on human volunteers unnecessarily before first testing on animals.
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) supports animal testing as it also helps the animals themselves, creating their vaccines for many of their own issues, including saving endangered species from extinction. The animals being tested, such as chimpanzees and mice, share 98-99% genetic DNA, biological organs and central nervous systems to humans, and are susceptible to similar illnesses.
The Federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) has been used in effect since 1966, in combination with local and state laws, but doesn’t include reptiles, most fish, avian or vermin such as rats and mice that are bred for research, which is about 95% of animals used for testing. The amount of animals truly used in research, around 26 million, are far less than Americans consume for food, being 9 billion domestic fowls and 150 million bovine. Notice, however, the animals used in testing, rodents, birds and fish, aren’t protected by the AWA. Interesting, no?
In the scientific case studies toward medical research and disease prevention, such as polio, rabies, brain cancer, the animals are not being treated inhumanely, as information from the Humane Society and PETA states. Any animal that is under duress would provide unreliable results thus ruining the overall research, as stated in Nature Genetics.
However, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) gives details of the harsh chemical research for the cosmetics used by vain consumers. Understand that bug repellent should undergo a toxicological test to protect humans from malaria carried by mosquitoes, while the American woman uses 12 beauty products a day that are also tested on animals, which are often put through traumatizing events and lethal doses of toxic chemicals.
Many political and scientific figures state that animals don’t have rights, as they do not have the capability nor cognitive awareness to make moral judgments. However, Bolivia’s new protection for their social and economical respect for nature makes them the first country to give legal rights to nature in the hopes to improve the quality of life to the Bolivian people. So if not nature, why not animals?
Discursive essay example
In this page, you will concentrate on one discursive essay structure.
Below you will find an example discursive essay. Read the essay over carefully. Study it and work out how it has been written.
Reading the essay
Whilst reading the essay, consider the following questions, writing down your ideas -
- what is the main idea the writer is arguing about?
- each paragraph has a sub-topic which contributes to the essay's main topic - what does each paragraph contribute to the argument?
- what evidence does the writer offer to support the arguments?
- which of the three suggested structures identified earlier does the writer adopt in this essay?
- does the writer link ideas clearly in the essay?
- You will probably want to read the essay over twice to help you answer these questions.
1 A subject which always arouses strong feelings on both sides of the argument is the use of animals in medical research. I believe that, though this may have been necessary in the past, other ways can be developed to test drugs and, in the future, animals should not be used.
2 One of my main reasons for saying this is that living tissues can be grown in test tubes and new drugs can be tested on these. Computers can also be programmed to show how medicines will react in the human body.
3 Moreover, animals are not always like humans. They do not suffer from all human diseases, so scientists have to give them the illnesses artificially. The joints in rabbit legs are inflamed with chemicals to help research in rheumatism. These tests do not always work because animals do not react to drugs in the same way as humans. Aspirin, for example, damages pregnant mice and dogs, but not pregnant women. Arsenic, which is a deadly poison for humans, has no effect on sheep, while penicillin, which is so valuable to humans, kills guinea pigs.
4 In addition, I believe that animal experiments should not be used because of the unnecessary pain that they cause to animals. The government introduced new rules about the use of animals in experiments in 1986. Scientists claim that these rules safeguard animals because they state that discomfort must be kept to a minimum and that painkillers must be used where necessary and appropriate. Surely this means, however, that scientists can still decide not to use painkillers in the animal experiments because they do not consider them appropriate. The British Union against Vivisection claims that 75% of animals experimented on are given no anaesthetic.
5 In spite of the claims of some scientists about the effectiveness of animal research, the death rate in this country has stayed the same over the last thirty years. There is also more long-term sickness, even though greater numbers of animals are being used in research.
6 On the other hand, scientists claim that some experiments are so small, for example giving an injection, that painkillers are not needed. They also argue that experiments on animals have been very useful in the past. For instance, the lives of ten million human diabetics have been saved because of experiments with insulin on dogs. Dogs also benefited, as the same drug can be used on them. In fact, a third of medicines used by vets are the same as those used by doctors.
7 It is argued by researchers that the use of animals in experiments cannot be replaced by methods using living tissue which has been grown in test tubes. These tests do not show how the drugs work on whole animals and so they only have limited effectiveness.
8 Although I accept that some drugs can be used on animals and humans, this does not mean that they have to be tested on animals in the first place when alternative methods are available. Alternative methods do work. Various groups have been set up to put money into other ways of researching. For example the Dr. Hadwen Trust has shown how human cartilage can be grown in test tubes to study rheumatism. Similar research is being done into cancer and multiple sclerosis. Tests can be done on bacteria to see whether a chemical will cause cancer. There is even a programme of volunteer human researchers, where people suffering from illnesses offer to help in research.
9 In conclusion, I accept that animal experiments have brought great benefits in the past, but now money needs to be spent on developing other methods of testing drugs and medical procedures, so that the use of animals can be phased out altogether.
After reading the essay
Now that you have read the essay and, hopefully, written down some ideas in response to the questions, look over the following commentson the essay.
The comments are presented as answers to the questions provided. This way you can check your own ideas against them.
What is the main idea the writer is arguing about ?
The writer is trying to argue that it is time to stop us animals for scientific experimentation.
Each paragraph has a sub-topic which contributes to the essay's main topic: what does each paragraph contribute to the argument?
- Paragraph 1 - the writer introduces the argument: experiments on animals should cease.
- Paragraph 2 - tests can now be done using modern technology.
- Paragraph 3 - animals are different: they do not respond to tests as humans do.
- Paragraph 4 - they cause animals too much pain.
- Paragraph 5 - death-rate in UK has remained constant: experiments have not improved things.
- Paragraph 6 - the other side of the argument: animal experiments have been useful.
- Paragraph 7 - secondary argument justifies experiments: test tube tissue research is limited; whole animal testing is still needed.
- Paragraph 8 - author re-states conviction that experiments are not necessary.
- Paragraph 9 - conclusion: new methods needed to replace current animal testing methods.
What evidence does the writer offer to suport the arguments?
- Paragraph 1 - not relevant: introduction.
- Paragraph 2 - use of test tube technology; computers.
- Paragraph 3 - aspirins affect animals badly, but not humans.
- Paragraph 4 - animals given no anaesthetic.
- Paragraph 5 - more long-term sickness, despite greater number of animal experiments.
- Paragraph 6 - alternative arguments: benefits to diabetics, even animals.
- Paragraph 7 - living tissue not as satisfactory as whole animal testing.
- Paragraph 8 - Dr. Hadwen Trust re. human cartilage; research into cancer and multiple sclerosis.
- Paragraph 9 - not relevant: conclusion.
Which of the three suggested structures identified earlier does the writer adopt in this essay?
The writer is trying to argue strongly Against a given idea (i.e. that animal experiments are acceptable).
Does the writer link ideas clearly in the essay?
There is clear evidence of good linkage in the essay:
- 'One of my main reasons...' (para 2)
- 'Moreover...' (para 3) clearly continues argument
- 'In addition...' (para 4) clearly moves argument on
- 'On the other hand...' (para 6) signals clearly that the writer is moving on to arguments the opposing side would offer in support of experiments
- 'In conclusion...' (para 9) clearly indicates argument drawing to a close