Animals in Medical Research

Good afternoon, my name is Saeed Graham and today I’ll be presenting on the topic of the use of animals in medical research. An article will be disputed in an attempt to convince you that animals SHOULD be used in medical research. Kelly Overton posits the article “Stop Animal Testing – It’s not just cruel, it’s ineffective” in the Baltimore Sun. As is evident from the title of the writing, Mr. Overton is of the opinion that the use of animals for medical testing be desisted on the basis of its ineffectiveness and inhumanity. However, I will attempt to dissect (no pun intended) the his argument to illustrate the flaw of his position. I have here three excerpts for his article. The first point basically attempting to class animal medical testing as a complete failure, the second conveying that humans are too different from animals to be used to make proper inferences, and the third, a solution or alternative to the use of animals for testing. Background research however revealed that Mr Overton is the executive director of People Protecting Animals and Their Habitats (PATH) in Cambridge, Mass; an animal conservation and protection group. The fact that he holds such a prominent position in this organization (executive director) was cause for a little speculation regarding a possible latent agendas. Probably a potential for financial gain in arguing the position that he did maybe? Mr Overton’s perspective on this controversial issue therefore reflects that of his affiliate. Debates regarding the use of animals in the acquisition of medical insight antedate the 17th century, a period where vivisections (vivus; Latin for living and section meaning cutting) prior to the genesis of anesthesia aroused the opposition of many who considered the practice barbaric. Presently, those who foster support for the discontinuation of animal testing have diversified their argument beyond that of those proposed centuries ago.
Kelly’s first thesis “Animal testing has never really