Pablo Enriquez

ID: 80509037
CRN: 11281

Should Animal Testing be scientific or commercial? (Rough Draft)

One of the biggest and ongoing controversies that has been debated over for years is
whether animal research should be practiced or not. The controversy I will be analyzing in this
report is Should animals be used for scientific research or commercial research? Humans have
always experimented with animals to find solutions to sicknesses for centuries. Although where
have these experiments lead to over all these years? Has the practice of animal research has
exceeded scientific purposes and is now also being used for commercial product testing?
Commercial products such as cosmetics and hygiene products are being added to the
experiments on top of the quest to find and improve medicine and vaccines. Animal testing has
helped our society tremendously by developing vaccines and medicine that have saved humans
from many among the endless list of illnesses, a few examples would be polio, small pox, type 1
diabetes, leukemia, etc. The two genres that I have chosen to analyze would be an article from
the website procon.org titled should animals be used for Scientific or commercial testing?
and the other a video from a televised debate called Is Animal Testing Justified? (The Big
Questions)
Audience and Purpose
The first genre Should animals be used for Scientific or Commercial Testing? from
procon.org was intended for those who are seeking knowledge in animal testing. Those who
might be pursuing this knowledge would be students doing research, doctors, or scientists. Some
discourse communities that would be interested in this genre would be animal activist groups and
research teams. As for the second genre, it is very much intended for the same audience except
since it is a televised debate it is mainly intended for the general public.

Pablo Enriquez
ID: 80509037
CRN: 11281

The first genres purpose was to inform the audience about the controversy between
whether or not animals should be used for scientific or commercial testing. It informs by
providing historical information on animal testing such as the time that it started, how it has
changed over time, and some achievements. It also provides some information that the public is
free to provide in debate form by commenting in pro or con form their arguments on the matter.
The second genres purpose was mainly to entertain but to persuade as well. This genre is to
entertain because it is a televised debate broadcasted by the BBC (British Broadcasting
Corporation) for the public from primary sources such as doctors and organization leaders.
Though it is also to persuade because each side argues their perspectives to the best of their
ability in attempt to prove to others wrong.
The audience is able to relate with both genres because of the popularity of the
controversy. Animal testing is a very big debate in any aspect that a very large portion of society
is involved in. Especially since both these genres have debates the only difference being that one
is information directly from the public and the other is from people of high reputation. Though
the public can relate their beliefs with those of what are posted on either the article or with what
is said in the video.
With both genres the audience is likely to already know some famous rumors about
animal testing such as animals being tortured for the better of human health, or its because of
these studies that we even have the medicine that we have today, or that it takes a lot of tests to
find one answer there for using a lot of animals. What the audience would like to know is how
many animals it takes to find a result as well as what kind of animals are being used (rodents,
amphibians, or mammals?). They might want to know what the difference between scientific and

Pablo Enriquez
ID: 80509037
CRN: 11281

commercial testing is and to what extent are the ethics taken during these tests, and why there is
no alternative to animals in these tests.
The two genres have different amount of times required due to length and the way it is
presented to the audience. The article should require around 30 to 45 minutes to read the
arguments posted by the people, the article that talks about the history, regulations, and public
opinions, and finally to reflect on the information gathered. The video should require 20 minutes
from the audience because the duration of the video is 16 minutes and then a few minutes to
reflect should be taken after. The language in both of these genres are formal because they are
both presented to the general public which can be accessed by all ages. Even though in the video
the tone of voice gets very intense at some times, they still manage to keep the language clean
and formal.
Rhetorical Issues

Ethos
The first genre being he article attempts to establish its credibility with the audience by
stating at the top of the page that it is a nonprofit website that presents research, studies, and
pro/con statements on whether or not animals should be used for scientific or commercial testing.
The article also refers a lot of its information to places of high reputation such as The US
department of defense and PETA. The second genre being the video attempts to establish its
credibility with the audience by having people of high reputation such as doctors, priests,
scientists, and leaders of groups. This technique was effective because the audience was able to

Pablo Enriquez
ID: 80509037
CRN: 11281

see these people for themselves and speak their behalf right there and then, as well as hear their
professional views.
Pathos
Some emotions that may be brought up by both of the genres may be anger and
sympathy. Some people in the audience may strongly agree with some arguments from either
side and may generate arguments of their own luring them to the pro or can side. The article does
this by posting four videos, two are pro and two are con, and leaves the viewer to watch both and
decide. This method was effective.
Logos
The evidence provided in the article is shown by the public being able to provide their
own input on the matter by providing comments, and then showing videos of interviews with
scientists who work at animal testing facilities. Again it also gains credibility by constantly
stating where information is being found throughout the article. The video uses know evidence to
support its claims other than the speakers claiming to be who they are speaking based on their
experience and knowledge.
Structure and Delivery
The article starts out by showing a few did you know? statements about animal testing,
and then moves on to showing a few pro and con arguments on the topic. After the arguments it
gives information about the regulations, public opinion, early history, and finally the modern
debate. While the debate starts off with the oxford professor (Prof. John Stein) explaining why
he thinks animal testing is justified from a scientific point of view. Then one by one others put
their input in the matter starting from scientific to idealistic, to religious and realistic points of

Pablo Enriquez
ID: 80509037
CRN: 11281

views. Limits on these genres would be that the video only provides 16 minutes of information
as opposed to the article providing information at the readers own pace with more than just
debates but background on the topic as well.
Conclusion
In conclusion both genres covered the topic very well. The article provided way more
information than the second by giving a public opinion history and links to videos, but the video
provides input from a professional perspective from both sides. Animal testing is a big asset to
the advancement of human health but the study needs to be controlled and kept in the scientific
field.

Pablo Enriquez
ID: 80509037
CRN: 11281

References
ProCon.org. (2014, January 29). Animal Testing ProCon.org. Retrieved from
http://animal-testing.procon.org/
"Is Animal Testing Justified? (The Big Questions)." YouTube. YouTube, 18 Mar. 2012.
Web. 07 Sept. 2014. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD51eAOPSKc>.