Animals for testing or not
In the two articles, Heloisa Sabin and Peggy Carlson have different points about the animal testing. Both articles argued on the issue and there does not seem to be any agreement between the two writes, while there is an evident disagreement between them. Sabin agrees to Animal Testing. Animal research saves human lives but Carlson disagrees. Animal tests are unreliable. In “Animal Research Saves Human Lives” Heloisa Sabin (The Wall Street Journal, October 18, 1995) the author has given the example of her husband using polio vaccine as her persuasion as he was one that benefited a lot from the outcome of animal testing. Her husband, Albert Sabin, inventor of oral polio vaccine, told a reporter before his death in 1993. There could have been no oral polio vaccine without the use of innumerable animals, a very large number of animals. Sabin shows that polio has been eradicated in Western Hemisphere in about forty years after the polio vaccine was introduced to United State. She truly believes that the polio vaccine saves the world from the fear of the polio, therefore she repeatedly reference to reality to help her in persuading readers that animal testing is in fact an advantage. Since she shows that the information she pointed out was from the reality, not just something she made up, this makes readers easier to believe in her point of view. In “Why We Don’t Need Animal Experimentation” Peggy Carlson (The Wall Street Journal, November 7, 1995) the author she provides the information about how inaccurate animal testing is to support her point of view. Nearly everything that medicine has learned about what substances because human cancer and birth defects has come from human clinical and epidemiological studies because animal experiments do not accurately predict what occurs in humans. Carlson uses cancer and birth defects as an example to disagree with Sabin’s example of her husband using polio vaccine. It was unfortunate that the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document