Essay Comparison
It is estimated that more than 1 million people die annually in the United States from heart disease and cancer combined (Leading Causes of Death). What if all of those human lives could have been saved by sacrificing relatively few animals? Conservationists and animal rights activists always have the best of intentions for animals and the environment. They believe that animals should never have to suffer because of the choices human beings make. This view can be unrealistic in many situations. Jane Goodall’s A Question of Ethics was a very emotional and Rogerian style essay, but I found it lacked the supporting facts and credibility that can be found in Heloisa Sabin’s aggressive “classic” styled essay Animal research Saves Human Lives.
Heloisa Sabin helped establish the Sabin Vaccine Institute in 1993 whose mission is to promote the role of vaccines which will eliminate needless deaths from preventable and treatable diseases. (Heloisa Sabin | Sabin Vaccine Institute). Her essay is an extension of her husband’s work and views. ““There could have been no oral polio vaccine without the use of innumerable animals, a very large number of animals,” Albert told a reporter shortly before his death” (Sabin 155). Through citing her husband’s views to support her argument she empowers her essay with the credibility of a man who is responsible for curing a disease that “struck down 58,000 children in 1952 alone” (Sabin 154). To take away the ability to test on animals would be the same as condemning those children to pain, suffering and death. As for Jane Goodall, she has no formal education or training (Muller 157). Jane’s life experience come from following a childhood dream of living with animals and doing a much...
... middle of paper ...
...to tip the scales of a person on the fence about animal testing while Jane Goodall’s essay feels empty. As science evolves and technology rapidly changes our realities I hope there will be a day that animal testing is no longer required. When will that day come? Hopefully sooner than we think.
Works Cited
"Early Days | the Jane Goodall Institute." The Jane Goodall Institute |. Web. 18 Mar. 2010. .
"FASTSTATS - Leading Causes of Death." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Web. 18 Mar. 2010. .
"Heloisa Sabin | Sabin Vaccine Institute." Home | Sabin Vaccine Institute. Web. 18 Mar. 2010. .
Muller, Gilbert H. The McGraw-Hill Reader: Issues across the Disciplines. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2008. Print.
This is important because understanding the way in which this happens, attitudes towards animal testing, are formed and how they spread will likely have an impact on public policy on animal welfare and animal rights activism. The information presented and the results will justify my view on animal testing and why it should be banned from scientific reasonings. (75 words)
Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this concern is still subject to much disagreement. The political, cultural and philosophical animal liberation movement demands for a fundamental transformation of humans’ present relations to all sentient animals. They reject the idea that animals are merely human resources, and instead claim that they have value and worth in themselves. Animals are used, among other things, in basic biomedical research whose purpose is to increase knowledge about the basic processes of human anatomy. The fundamental wrong with this type of research is that it allows humans to see animals as here for them, to be surgically manipulated and exploited for money. The use of animals as subjects in biomedical research brings forth two main underlying ethical issues: firstly, the imposition of avoidable suffering on creatures capable of both sensation and consciousness, and secondly the uncertainty pertaining to the notion of animal rights.
Rebecca Skloot’s novel provides much insight into what it means to conduct scientific research. To begin with, she accurately outlines the scientific process, documenting all her steps. She also explains how altruism and profit influenced the research around HeLa, and the pros and cons of profit guiding research. Finally, she shares the obstacles she faced to demonstrate the difficulties of conducting research purely for altruistic reasons. Her novel is an excellent example of how scientific research really works, including all the hidden forces guiding the research.
Without animal research, cures for such diseases as typhoid, diphtheria, and polio might never have existed. Without animal research, the development of antibiotics and insulin would have been delayed. Without animal research, many human beings would now be dead. However, because of animal testing, 200,000 dogs, 50,000 cats, 60,000 primates, 1.5 million hamsters, and uncounted millions of rats and mice are experimented upon and die each year, as living fodder for the great human scientific machine. Some would say that animal research is an integral part of progress; unfortunately, this is often true. On the whole, animal testing is a necessary evil that should be reduced and eliminated whenever possible.
Phillip A. Whitner and Randall C. Myers The Journal of Higher Education , Vol. 57, No. 6
Polio: An American Story describes a struggle to find a vaccine on polio through several researchers’ lives, and over the course of many years. The second thesis is the struggle between Salk and Sabin, two bitter rivals who had their own vaccine that they believed would cure polio. The author David M. Oshinsky, is describing how difficult it was to find the cure to a horrifying disease, which lasted from the Great Depression until the 1960’s. Oshinsky then writes about how foundations formed as fundraisers, to support polio research. Lastly, the author demonstrates how researchers were forced to back track on multiple occasions, to learn more about polio.
Albert Sabin, the developer of the polio vaccine once said, “Without animal research, polio would still be claiming thousands of lives each year.” Polio is a deadly disease caused by a virus that spreads from person to person. This infectious disease renders the brain and spinal cord helpless while also ensuring a permanent case of paralysis to the victim. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “…13,000 to 20,000 para-lytic cases were reported annually,” before the 18th century. After the introduction of the polio vaccine, “…a total of 2,525 paralytic cases were reported, compared with 61 in 1965.” This dramatic decrease in the prominence of the polio disease can only be attributed to the success of animal testing. Animal experimentation is used in the research of genetics, drug testing, biology, toxicity testing, cosmetic testing, and many other fields. Despite all of its beneficial traits, animal testing has been wildly controversial over the past decades because of its perceived unethical treatment towards animals. Although animal testing may be deemed unethical by many, it is a form of medical testing that has not only saved lives but has also greatly revolutionized the medical world.
Office of Information Services. "FASTSTATS - Leading Causes of Death." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 30 Dec. 2013. Web. 1 Apr. 2014.
In her essay “A Question of Ethics,” Jane Goodall, a scientist who has studied chimpanzees for years, tries to resolve a heavily debated ethical dilemma: Under what circumstances is it acceptable to cause animal suffering to prevent human suffering? Her answer, however, remains uncertain. Although Goodall challenges scientists to avoid conducting unnecessary tests on animals, she does not explain the criteria by which scientists should determine necessity.
“Animals and Research Part 4: Ethics of using animals in research.” Editorial. Seattle Post-Intelligencer 20 Apr. 2000 <http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/anml4.shtml>.
For centuries scientists have used animals to study the causes of diseases; to test drugs, vaccines and surgical techniques; and to evaluate the safety of chemicals used in pesticides, cosmetics and other products. However, many scientists amongst animal- right activists forbid the use of animals in scientific research regardless how many illnesses are eliminated through the use of animals in scientific research. Amongst animal right activists, David Suzuki also raises concerns towards animal experimentation. In his article, The Pain of Animals, Suzuki argues that humans have no right to exploit animals because--much like humans--animals also experience pain. In contrast to Suzuki, Haldane, in his article, Some Enemies of Science, argues because animals are very similar to humans, scientists have no choice but to use animals in scientific experiments. Both authors greatly contrast their opinions towards animal experimentation; however Haldane has a more explanatory approach towards animal experimentation. He argues animal experimentation should be acceptable because other forms of animal exploitation are acceptable in society. Secondly, unlike other forms of exploitation which seek pleasure in killing animals such as leisure sport, scientists, most likely do not harm animals; if pain is intended on an animal it is strictly for the purpose of scientific advancement. Thirdly, although, animal experimentation may cause some extinction, it is only one of many other causes of extinction, if other causes are not condemned; then neither should animal experiment...
Animal testing is a controversial topic with two main sides of the argument. The side apposing animal testing states it is unethical and inhumane; that animals have a right to choose where and how they live instead of being subjected to experiments. The view is that all living organism have a right of freedom; it is a right, not a privilege. The side for animal testing thinks that it should continue, without animal testing there would be fewer medical and scientific breakthroughs. This side states that the outcome is worth the investment of testing on animals. The argument surrounding animal testing is older than the United States of America, dating back to the 1650’s when Edmund O’Meara stated that vivisection, the dissection of live animals, is an unnatural act. Although this is one of the first major oppositions to animal testing, animal testing was being practiced for millennia beforehand. There are two sides apposing each other in the argument of animal testing, and the argument is one of the oldest arguments still being debated today.
Hargrove, Jim. The Story of Jonas Salk and the Discovery of the Polio Vaccine. Childrens Press: Chicago, 1990
As in any debate though there is always an opposing side, which seems to toss out their opinions and facts as frequently as the rest. So many in today’s world view animal research as morally wrong and believe animals do have rights. Peter Singer, an author and philosophy professor, “argues that because animals have nervous systems and can suffer just as much as humans can, it is wrong for humans to use animals for research, food, or clothing” (Singer 17). Do animals have any rights? Is animal experimentation ethical? These are questions many struggle with day in and day out in the ongoing battle surrounding the controversial topic of animal research and testing, known as vivisection.
Many people that are in favor of animal testing say simply that the lives of people are more important than the lives of animals, and while it is unfortunate that sometimes animals must suffer and die, it is worth it if human lives are saved by this research. Thousands of years ago, humans began to use animals for the purpos...