Argumentative essay: "Science Needs Animal-Testing"

[Compaq]

This is my most recent edit. The only thing left now is carefully look for typos.

Writing is personal. Getting critique on your writing is like getting critique on your photos: The defensive position is easily assumed. I have worked on this essay for five weeks, and weekly gotten invaluable feedback.


Science Needs Animal-Testing


Medical research benefits humans greatly. Decades of medical studies has made
several diseases treatable, such as diebetis, tuberculosis, and malaria. Moreover,
medical research has prevented altogether diseases such as hepatitis A and B,
measles, and poliomyelitis. Common for all these developments is animal-testing
(Quimby, 1998). While testing on animals is not morally ideal, we lack good
alternatives. Thus, abandoning animal-testing is premature, because medical
research needs complex-system test-subjects, and the absence of which can be
risky for pharmaceutical consumers.


Animal testing has helped develope new medicine. Almost all research in
medicine awarded with the Nobel Prize have used animal-testing (Foundation
for Biomedical Research, nd). One example of this is the polio-vaccine. En-
ders's group's research on poliomyelitis, which used mice and monkeys, won the
Nobel Prize in 1954, and is considered the breakthrough in polio-research (En-
ders et al., 1980). Later that decade, Sabin developed the oral polio-vaccine.
Sabin states in a publication (1956) that, thus far, research has demanded circa
133 human volunteers, 9000 monkeys, and 150 chimpanzees in poliovirus-strain
studies.


Because of extensive polio-research, many lives have been saved. WHO writes
in fact sheet #114 (2012) that the polio-vaccine has prevented 10 million people
from paralizis and saved 1.5 million childhood lives. Polio-research has clearly
benefitted humans massively, which animal-testing has helped achieve.


As well as having helped develop medicine, American history shows that animal-
testing can reduce the risk of mass-poisoning as well. Sulfanilamide was a drug
used for streptococcal infections, existing as tablets or powder. S.E. Massen-
gill Company of Bristol wanted to develop a liquid preparate, and discovered
that diethylene glycol had satisfactory chemical and physical poperties. The
company did no testing of what they called "Elixir Sulfanilamide" before distri-
bution. Diethylene glycol is toxic unless treated, and 105 patients died (Wax,
1995). Had the drug been tested on animals, its toxicity would be observed,
and deaths prevented.


The moral questions of animal-testing, raised by animal-rights organizations, are
important. Animals suffer and die in some scientific experiments, which triggers
a moral response. Animal Aid, UK's largest animal-rights organization, claims
that animals "[...]die not only cruelly but in vain." (Animal Aid, nda). They
also claim to have found, in an undercover investigation, "[...]researchers laugh-
ing as they smashed live mice against bench tops to kill them." (Animal Aid,
ndb). Thus, there are strong, moral arguments against animal-testing.


However, strict legislation is implemented in many countries. One cannot use
animals unless all other methods are inapplicable - and their use, when allowed,
is governed. Institutions follow the three "R"'s: Replacing, reducing and re-
ning animal usage (Festing and Wilkinson, 2007). The UK has gone very
far with these laws. The Animals Act (1986), demands that everyone plan-
ning to use animals scientifically must carefully assess exactly how the animals
will suffer, what sorts of animals they will use, and how many. Further, they
must evaluate the costs and benets of the animals' role. In addition, after the
Freedom of Information Act (2005) was implemented, everyone can request
information from public bodies. This promotes openness, public understanding
of decision-making and spendatures, and accountability (Festing and Wilkinson,
2007). Countries try to govern animal use as best as possible, to minimize the
unnecessary suffering of animals. Thus, animal-rights organizations ought to
acknowledge animal-testing's contribution to scientific knowledge, even respect
it, and stop monsterizing researchers.


Indeed, in an ideal world, no animal-testing would happen. However, until an-
imals can be fully replaced as test-subjects, there must be good alternatives.
To effectively assess a new drug's toxicity, it is vital to know how the drug be-
haves in complex systems. The differences between humans and animals have
not helped develop new medicine, but the similarities among vertabrates have.
Many investigations can be carried out with mathematical modelations, or in
vitro studies, but when the interest is drug-activity in multi-organ organisms,
living animals is still the best choice (Quimby, 1998).


In conclusion, until there are good alternatives, animal-testing must prevail.
Animal-testing has helpedus in the past, and its absence has cost us. Moral
concerns are important, but not ignored. In the future, animal-rights organi-
zations should promote research for alternative methods, and bring attention
to this research field.



References


Animal Aid (n.d.a). Betrayed - the silent suf-
ferings of cats and dogs. Retrieved 11/4-12:
[Animal Aid: BETRAYED - The Silent Suffering of Cats and Dogs].


Animal Aid (n.d.b). Killing animals and humans. Retrieved 11/4-12:
[Animal Aid: Killing animals and humans].


Enders, J. F., Robbins, F. C., and Weller, T. H. (1980). The cultivation of
the poliomyelitis viruses in tissue culture. Reviews of Infectious Diseases,
2(3):493-504. Nobel Lecture, held on 11 December 1954, Karolinska Institute,
Stockholm, Sweden.


Festing, S. and Wilkinson, R. (2007). The ethics of animal research. Talking
point on the use of animals in scientific research. EMBO Reports, 8(6):526-530.


Foundation for Biomedical Research (n.d.). Nobel prize. Retrieved 16/4-13:
[http://www.fbresearch.org/nobelprize/].


Quimby, F. (1998). Contributions to veterinary medicine from animal research.
Applied Animal Behavior Science, 59(1-3):183-192.


Sabin, A. B. (1956). Present status of attenuated live-virus poliomyelitis vaccine.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 162(18):1589-1596.


Wax, P. M. (1995). Elixirs, diluents, and the passage of the 1938 federal food,
drug and cosmetic act. Annals of Internal Medicine, 122(6):456-461.


World Health Organization (2012). Poliomyelitis. Retrieved 10/4-13:
[http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs114/en/].

 

[Compaq]

No opinions on the matter? When I chose the topic I "knew" I had chosen a great topic for an argumentative essay.

 

[runnah]

Canon tests on animals.



http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01669/monkey-camera_1669480i.jpg

 

[The_Traveler]

So you only want us to point out typos?

 

[Compaq]

So you only want us to point out typos?

No, that is my job. I was interested in your opinions on the topic.

 

[leighthal]

This is my most recent edit. The only thing left now is carefully look for typos.

Writing is personal. Getting critique on your writing is like getting critique on your photos: The defensive position is easily assumed. I have worked on this essay for five weeks, and weekly gotten invaluable feedback.


Science Needs Animal-Testing


Medical research benefits humans greatly. Decades of medical studies has made
several diseases treatable, such as diebetis, tuberculosis, and malaria. Moreover,
medical research has prevented altogether diseases such as hepatitis A and B,
measles, and poliomyelitis. Common for all these developments is animal-testing
(Quimby, 1998). While testing on animals is not morally ideal, we lack good
alternatives. Thus, abandoning animal-testing is premature, because medical
research needs complex-system test-subjects, and the absence of which can be
risky for pharmaceutical consumers.


Animal testing has helped develope new medicine. Almost all research in
medicine awarded with the Nobel Prize have used animal-testing (Foundation
for Biomedical Research, nd). One example of this is the polio-vaccine. En-
ders's group's research on poliomyelitis, which used mice and monkeys, won the
Nobel Prize in 1954, and is considered the breakthrough in polio-research (En-
ders et al., 1980). Later that decade, Sabin developed the oral polio-vaccine.
Sabin states in a publication (1956) that, thus far, research has demanded circa
133 human volunteers, 9000 monkeys, and 150 chimpanzees in poliovirus-strain
studies.


Because of extensive polio-research, many lives have been saved. WHO writes
in fact sheet #114 (2012) that the polio-vaccine has prevented 10 million people
from paralizis and saved 1.5 million childhood lives. Polio-research has clearly
benefitted humans massively, which animal-testing has helped achieve.


As well as having helped develop medicine, American history shows that animal-
testing can reduce the risk of mass-poisoning as well. Sulfanilamide was a drug
used for streptococcal infections, existing as tablets or powder. S.E. Massen-
gill Company of Bristol wanted to develop a liquid preparate, and discovered
that diethylene glycol had satisfactory chemical and physical poperties. The
company did no testing of what they called "Elixir Sulfanilamide" before distri-
bution. Diethylene glycol is toxic unless treated, and 105 patients died (Wax,
1995). Had the drug been tested on animals, its toxicity would be observed,
and deaths prevented.


The moral questions of animal-testing, raised by animal-rights organizations, are
important. Animals suffer and die in some scientific experiments, which triggers
a moral response. Animal Aid, UK's largest animal-rights organization, claims
that animals "[...]die not only cruelly but in vain." (Animal Aid, nda). They
also claim to have found, in an undercover investigation, "[...]researchers laugh-
ing as they smashed live mice against bench tops to kill them." (Animal Aid,
ndb). Thus, there are strong, moral arguments against animal-testing.


However, strict legislation is implemented in many countries. One cannot use
animals unless all other methods are inapplicable - and their use, when allowed,
is governed. Institutions follow the three "R"'s: Replacing, reducing and re-
ning animal usage (Festing and Wilkinson, 2007). The UK has gone very
far with these laws. The Animals Act (1986), demands that everyone plan-
ning to use animals scientifically must carefully assess exactly how the animals
will suffer, what sorts of animals they will use, and how many. Further, they
must evaluate the costs and benets of the animals' role. In addition, after the
Freedom of Information Act (2005) was implemented, everyone can request
information from public bodies. This promotes openness, public understanding
of decision-making and spendatures, and accountability (Festing and Wilkinson,
2007). Countries try to govern animal use as best as possible, to minimize the
unnecessary suffering of animals. Thus, animal-rights organizations ought to
acknowledge animal-testing's contribution to scientific knowledge, even respect
it, and stop monsterizing researchers.


Indeed, in an ideal world, no animal-testing would happen. However, until an-
imals can be fully replaced as test-subjects, there must be good alternatives.
To effectively assess a new drug's toxicity, it is vital to know how the drug be-
haves in complex systems. The differences between humans and animals have
not helped develop new medicine, but the similarities among vertabrates have.
Many investigations can be carried out with mathematical modelations, or in
vitro studies, but when the interest is drug-activity in multi-organ organisms,
living animals is still the best choice (Quimby, 1998).


In conclusion, until there are good alternatives, animal-testing must prevail.
Animal-testing has helpedus in the past, and its absence has cost us. Moral
concerns are important, but not ignored. In the future, animal-rights organi-
zations should promote research for alternative methods, and bring attention
to this research field.



etc etc etc

Red= grammer, at least the ones I caught
Green= comes across as a lecture from a personal opinion and IMO ruins your scientific argument.

Am not an English Major but I would like to see a better corolation between your opening thesis and your summary. Your summary is focused on animal rights activists adopting a new view; yet your opening is about how science is progressive with animal testing. Therelationship is there but you need to hunt for it.

 

[amolitor]

Your essay is pretty neutral, I think, which makes it hard to disagree with.

You do claim that the absence of animal testing has cost us, in your final paragraph. I think you make a respectable argument that its absence COULD cost us, but I see no evidence produced that it HAS cost us. This is worth digging in to, and also what those costs are:

- is it simply that we're paying more money to get equally effective medication?
- or are we actually getting medications that are less effective, products that are more toxic?
- are we getting equally effective medications, but more slowly, thus costing lives?

On the subject of the legal machinery thats been built, I think your essay is a little muddled. You throw a lot of laws in a lot of jurisdictions at us, but it's disorganized. The Freedom of Information Act (2005) seems to refer to a specific law, but it's not clear in what country you mean. Are there many of these things in many countries, or what?

 

[The_Traveler]

The first paragraph doesn't present the argument that you will discuss.

for example "There is a constant tension between the benefits of animal testing in science and the possible ethical and moral implications of animal use."

Medical research benefits humans greatly. not the argument. It is the animal use that is at issue

Decades of medical studies USING ANIMALS AS TEST SUBJECTS has made
MANY not several diseases treatable, such as diebetis (sic sp), tuberculosis, and malaria, that previously ravaged mankind without hindrance.
Moreover, medical research has provided ways to prevent altogether diseases such as hepatitis A and B,
measles, and poliomyelitis.
Common for all these developments is animal-testing (terrible sentence and should be deleted)
(Quimby, 1998).
Thus, abandoning animal-testing is premature, because medical
research needs complex-system test-subjects, and the absence of which can be
risky for pharmaceutical consumers. (this is a conclusion and belongs at the end and not in the first paragraph.)

You aren't making the points clearly and completely and the points aren't well organized.

 

[Compaq]

This is my most recent edit. The only thing left now is carefully look for typos.

Writing is personal. Getting critique on your writing is like getting critique on your photos: The defensive position is easily assumed. I have worked on this essay for five weeks, and weekly gotten invaluable feedback.


Science Needs Animal-Testing

Red= grammer, at least the ones I caught
Green= comes across as a lecture from a personal opinion and IMO ruins your scientific argument.

Am not an English Major but I would like to see a better corolation between your opening thesis and your summary. Your summary is focused on animal rights activists adopting a new view; yet your opening is about how science is progressive with animal testing. Therelationship is there but you need to hunt for it.

Thank you. Great point, and I have actually noticed that myself. I had to hand in the essay last week, and did not have time to restructure the text. I should have, but did not. I think getting the text cohesive is the hardest part. We have been drilled in writing a good thesis statement that crystallizes the arguments, but I find it hard. I need to work on structure.

I was hoping my Animal Aid example would justify that "monsterizing" point. I agree that part may be too "journalistic"; this is supposed to be an academic argument after all.

Your essay is pretty neutral, I think, which makes it hard to disagree with.

You do claim that the absence of animal testing has cost us, in your final paragraph. I think you make a respectable argument that its absence COULD cost us, but I see no evidence produced that it HAS cost us. This is worth digging in to, and also what those costs are:

- is it simply that we're paying more money to get equally effective medication?
- or are we actually getting medications that are less effective, products that are more toxic?
- are we getting equally effective medications, but more slowly, thus costing lives?

On the subject of the legal machinery thats been built, I think your essay is a little muddled. You throw a lot of laws in a lot of jurisdictions at us, but it's disorganized. The Freedom of Information Act (2005) seems to refer to a specific law, but it's not clear in what country you mean. Are there many of these things in many countries, or what?

I see your point. The term "cost" is not very precise. The meaning I meant was in lives and suffering, but that did not come through it seems. Thanks for pointing it out!

The first paragraph doesn't present the argument that you will discuss.

for example "There is a constant tension between the benefits of animal testing in science and the possible ethical and moral implications of animal use."

Medical research benefits humans greatly. not the argument. It is the animal use that is at issue

Decades of medical studies USING ANIMALS AS TEST SUBJECTS has made
MANY not several diseases treatable, such as diebetis (sic sp), tuberculosis, and malaria, that previously ravaged mankind without hindrance.
Moreover, medical research has provided ways to prevent altogether diseases such as hepatitis A and B,
measles, and poliomyelitis.
Common for all these developments is animal-testing (terrible sentence and should be deleted)
(Quimby, 1998).
Thus, abandoning animal-testing is premature, because medical
research needs complex-system test-subjects, and the absence of which can be
risky for pharmaceutical consumers. (this is a conclusion and belongs at the end and not in the first paragraph.)

You aren't making the points clearly and completely and the points aren't well organized.

I agree my thesis statement resembles a conclusion, but it is supposed to state my argument in a sentence or two.

I am not sure I fully agree with your reformulations of my sentences. They seem rather imprecise and wordy, e.g. "to ravage", "provide ways to prevent".

"Common for all these development is animal-testing." Why is this a terrible sentence? I agree it would be more logically structured if I wrote, "Animal-testing is common for all these decelopment." That is easy, clear, and concise; we know who is doing what, and it shows how animal-testing relates to the diseases. I do not see the problem.


Thank you for your input, this is invaluable! I cannot believe that in just over a year, I am starting my master's thesis! Our University has no Writing Centre and the writing courses aren't mandatory for anyone. That is shameful.