Animal Testing

by Tran Pham 12/6/2013

Animal testing it's time to talk about it again by Bibi van der Zee At the beginning of the article, Bibi van der Zee explains why people refuse to talk about animal testing. While we feel sorry for the pain that animals suffer from medical research, we cant forgo the cure for Parkinsons for our mother. The other reason is the unethical behavior of some animal extremists turned this controversial issue into darkness. However, things have moved on, she offers the possibility of bringing this issue back to a debate. High-speed computing power can replace animals which are now considered as the oldfashion models. Many consortiums spend a large amount of money to invest this innovation. She organizes the article in the logical way. She is brave to confess the truth that we are taking advantage of animals for our purpose. She is fair enough to

disclose the mistakes that some anti-animal testing activists made. That is way she builds the reliability for this article. Using authorized organization and reliable report, she claims the potential of computer power in medical research. She uses consortiums as a great economic supporter for this innovation because they invest at least 325m. I tend to believe the perspective of this project relying on the fact that she offers. By using ethos to support arguments, logos to organize ideas and pathos to create connection, she does a good job to appeal the approval from readers. Animal Research: Why We Need Alternatives by Hope Ferdowsian The article Animal Research: Why We Need Alternatives gives a brief explanation about the connection between the soreness

and the facial expression in human. From that, she develops her thesis statement by connecting humans with mice. Mice do feel pain and express discomfort through their faces just like humans. She talks about the fact that a lot of animals used in experiments are excluded from Animal Well Fare Act. She also gathers different opinions of many experts in medical research to

finally give a conclusion about the need of alternatives.

Although she didnt introduce herself as an M.D., M.P.H., and board-certified in General Internal Medicine and General Preventive Medicine & Public Health, as reading the article, she can be easily recognized as a welleducated woman having a high social status. She and her colleagues at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine organized "Animals, Research, and Alternatives" to consider all the ideas of experts working in animal experiment field which is a reliable source. She focuses on the suffering of the animals: they immersed the animals' tails in hot water, used radiant heat on them, attached a binder clip to their tails, injected irritants into their feet These descriptive experiments appeal pity from readers. She makes me feel sorry for those animals and raise resentment toward cruel researchers. Medical terminologies and organizations are also used to increase ethos. Including the logical arrangement, this article is worth to read. Caring or Cruel? by James Randerson Randerson works as a journalist for The Guardian where he was given a chance to access a rare animal research facility in UK. Firstly, he describes a specific experiment conducted on a marmoset which is a good hook to make readers interest about medical research. He cites some quotations of animal research protestors explaining about how cruel researchers are when they handle animal for medical purpose. However, the reality tour makes him realize that these quotations dont apply for what happens in this secret facility.

Researchers try to provide as closely as possible all the opportunities marmoset would have in the wild. They refuse to conduct the experiment if its not necessary and they treat marmoset with carefulness. I think his conclusion is supposed to be for animal testing but no. He concludes with the opinion of a non-animal medical researcher: She favors methods such as tissue culture, computer modeling and brain scans, which she says

Why labs need chimps While a lot of people want to put the end on animal testing, the article Why Labs Need Chimps give a clear explanation about essential of chimpanzee on treatment for human and animal diseases. Chimps are used to test the potential vaccine against Ebola, a disease that endanger chimps living in the wild. Because the use of marmoset is highly regulated, researchers guarantee to treat them humanly and offer optimal conditions for their subject. I feel less guilty when he talks about Ebola vaccine experimentation. We are using chimps not only for our own sake , we also care about chimps living in the wild. There is nothing to be misunderstood about the aim of the writer; however, it seems to be lack of supportive elements. Moreover, its hard to combine ethos, logos and pathos into a short article like this. Stop Wasting Tax Dollars on Chimp Abuse by Eric Kleiman Eric Kleiman, who is a research director of In Defense of Animals, writes a persuasive article Stop Wasting Tax Dollars on Chimp Abuse to make the US taxpayers acknowledge how tax money is used. The National Institutes of Health wants you to believe that chimpanzee experimentation is necessary, he says. In other words, they want to use tax for chimps experimentation. However the contradiction begins to grow when many medical researchers stop using chimpanzees for testing because its unnecessary. He also

are more advanced and relevant to human patients. I think this article is written well. Randerson does a good job to appeal the reliability of article based on experience he gains from the visit. The way he organizes the article is easy for readers to understand. He creates the perspective contradiction between anti-animal testing activists and animal researchers by giving quotations and descriptive images. At the end of the article, he raises a question in my mind. While there are so many alternatives, why researchers still insist on using animals? Also, the big question stated in the title Caring or Cruel? discloses the confusion of the writer and gives readers the right to judge.

gives statistic to impress the large amount of tax money spent on this method.

Randerson, James. "Caring or Cruel?" The Guardian (London, England). 31 May 2008: 22. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 03 Nov 2013. "Why Labs Need Chimps." Washington Post. 08 Mar 2011: A.14. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 03 Nov 2013. Zee, Bibi Van Der. "Animal Testing It's Time to Talk about It Again." The Guardian. N.p., n.d., 18 July. 2013. Web. 03 Nov. 2013.

Kleimen uses the power of money to appeal the attention of the US citizens who are really concerned about taxes. If the money was used for unnecessary purpose, definitely, American will stand up raising protest. He lures the approval of taxpayers to go against chimps abuse. By taking advantages of authorized organizations and statistics to back up his viewpoint, Kleimen builds reliability for his article. However, it doesnt have enough emotional appeals to create pathos connection. References: Ferdowsian, Hope. "Animal Research: Why We Need Alternatives." The Chronicle of Higher Education. N.p., 7 Nov. 2010. Web. 03 Nov. 2013. Kleiman, Eric. "Stop Wasting Tax Dollars on Chimp Abuse." McClatchy - Tribune News Service. 22 Nov 2011: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 03 Nov 2013 .
.