English 1A – 69
March 10, 2011
Animal Rights vs. Human Health
Developments of cures, vaccines and treatments for human illnesses have been done through animal testing. Over 25 million animals are tested each year in the United States (Stephanie Ernst, 2008): “It's impossible to know exactly how many animals are being used in research because U.S. laws do not require scientists to report how many mice, rats, or birds they use” (ASPCA). Animals are used to interpret what medicine effects will do to the human body; they will give the closest results. The real question when it comes to animal experimentation is not if it is wrong or right, but if it is for the better.
Kristina Cook poses that animal testing has benefited medicine, while Natasha Bantwal presents that more harm is done than helped. Kristina Cook is an Oxford student in the department of chemistry, and wrote “Pro-Test: supporting animal testing,” arguments sustaining animal testing for medical uses. Natasha Bantwal is a basic writer and wrote “Arguments Against Animal Testing,” arguments opposing the usage of animals for experimentation. A very common argument is that animals are being ‘tortured’ when they are being tested on. Cook approaches the issue quickly stating that “animal rights activists often demonise scientists, pretending that they are sadists who enjoy torturing animals just for the sake of it. There are countless examples of the lengths to which scientists go to minimize the suffering of animals. But the simple point is that scientists are not sadists: they act in the way that they see fit.” (Cook, 2006) However, the arguments are beyond that. They share two common grounds: animal testing has helped scientifically and medically, and that animal testing has been erroneous.
Although Cook and Bantwal agree that animal testing has been helpful, they have different approaches and viewpoints on how helpful it really has been. Cook declares that “vaccines,...