The presented arguments by the doctors and research scientists (two experts in their field) indicate that this is a subject that divides opinion between informed, intelligent people. The clear issue in the debate revolves around morality and whether animal experimentation is necessary to safeguard human beings against potentially harmful new drugs and practices in medicine, and is vehemently supported by both sides. 2. Were the problems or issues expressed effectively? Describe how the problems or issues were or were not best expressed. The two articles vary on their ability to express the issues effectively. Lankford uses the article to defend the position of support towards animal experimentation. In this manner, the article does not address the issue but just seems to provide a list of statistics to prove his point. The work highlights a number of animal research achievements and how it has led to the prevention of disease but does not suggest any form of resolution of the issue. The Carlson article does attempt to resolve the issues. The work discusses that “we can learn to improve public health by looking first at what threatens it” (Carlson), indicating a willingness to seek a resolution. This viewpoint also acknowledges that it is vital to keep questioning forms of medicine and that it can be beneficial to look at the argument from different perspectives. 3. How would you determine the credibility of the sources of information used by the authors in the articles when investigating the problems or issues presented by your topic? The two articles appear to be fairly reliable and credible sources of information regarding the animal experimentation debate. The first, written by Lankford, was written for the Foundation for Biomedical Research. The group is in favor of animal experimentation and use medical facts and statistics to back up their claims. The author is clearly knowledgeable, although the article does not highlight his position in the organization. The second article is an expert opinion in the field of research science. Her work contrasts with the first, emphasizing that the results of animal experimentation have been grossly misjudged. Carlson relies on findings from University studies and medical journals to persuade her audience. In terms of credibility, both articles appear to be so, though Carlson does provide sources for the statistics used whereas Lankford states facts such using language such as “between 1950 and 2004” (Lankford) but fails to ascertain where they come from. 4. Compare two steps that would be most effective in refining solutions to the problem and resolutions to the issues presented by your topic. The animal experimentation debate is saddled with a number of issues concerning morality and ethics. For animal experimentation to be proven necessary and useful to society, it appears that more clear research and positive results are needed that link the success of medical improvements to the need to test them on animals. The main difficulties to overcome are the beliefs surrounding animal cruelty which animal extremist groups chiefly use as their main argument against animal experimentation. These groups will perhaps never be persuaded as to the benefits of animal experimentation but scholars such as Carlson indicates that there is no proof that animal testing is necessary to
Appendix B An analysis of Animal Experimentation articles 1. Identify if the topic you chose—as presented by both articles—is a problem or an issue, and explain what makes it a problem or an issue. If you believe the articles present both problems and issues, identify and explain what the problems are and what the issues are…
After using these animals in experimentation, these animals are euthanized through intravenous injection with either a high dosage of sodium thiopental1, isoflurane2, or pentobarbital3. To shorten the painful death of animals used in experimentation, these two types of drugs could make the animals fall unconscious followed by a cardiac arrest.
Are these methods as competent as animal testing or even better/ Are people justified to be against animal testing? “Animal Experimentation: Science or a sorry Excuse for Medicine” is an article written by Megan Dunford for the Northern Virginia Daily on 17th January 2012.
Many have argued that it is against the rights of animals on the contrary others claim use of animals is more logical than use of humans. This paper will seek to clarify as to whether animal experimentation be permitted. Breakthroughs in treating spinal cord injuries, like practically all medical advances, depend upon experimentation on animal.
Animal Experimentation. The issue of animal testing draws some strong sentiments aimed at the benefits and demerits of the practice. For this reason, this paper aims at examining the available attitudes relating to animal testing and the measure that should be taken to treat animals humanely.
For example, they are used to test new drugs and medical procedures, which determine whether it is beneficial to humans, or harmful. Other uses include learning the harmful effects of a new product such as a cosmetic, food additive, or an insecticide.
Some people believe that we have no right whatsoever to so mercilessly exploit other species for our own benefits.
The contention is that each article contains elements that elicit both emotional and intellectual responses and that their effectiveness depends not only on content and presentation, but also on the moral values and preconceived ideas of the individual reader.
With the help of many different animal species, science has made significant inroads into combating some major diseases. However, it has all been without the animals' consent, and it has not been without significant cost to human lives as well as millions of animals' lives.
According to the discussion with the help of many different animal species, science has made significant inroads into combating some major diseases. However, it has all been without the animals’ consent, and it has not been without significant cost to human lives as well as millions of animals’ lives.
To shorten the painful death of animals used in experimentation, these two types of drugs could make the animals fall unconscious followed by a cardiac arrest.
The use of animals in laboratory experiments has its advantages and disadvantages.