Animal Testing
This is a topic of high controversy and one that I have always been interested in researching more in depth. Many people believe animal testing is necessary and the only method of finding out how pharmaceutical drugs will react on humans to treat debilitating and life threatening illnesses such cancer and AIDS.
Conducting medical research on animals to find possible cures for humans is unreliable and ineffective. Animals do not get the same diseases as humans and viceversa. Their bodies respond differently to the drugs injected to them therefore making the results of the test unreliable and ineffective. Humans continue to have side effects after taking medications tested on lab animals.
There has been major medical discoveries during the last century without the use of animal testing. It is now possible for science professionals to discover drugs for the prevention and treatment of human diseases using biochemistry rather than live animals who feel pain, anxiety and fear when confronted with the reality of being locked in a small cage waiting for the unknown.
You are off to a good start here. Still a few errors in correctness in your second post, but my main caution is to habitually cite your sources, using both in-text citations and a full citation at the end (as you would do in a "works cited" page).
ReplyDeleteKeep writing! Keep researching! Keep thinking!!!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLike any arguments, each side has points to lessen the idea of the other. I am pro animal testing. Putting emotions and attachment to animals aside, in my opinion, as inspired from the term survival of the fittest; I will put any animal lives’ at expense to sustain and lengthen my own. Whether by eating animals for substance, experimenting on them for my health and using their fur for a coat. Here are a few points I will share that got me to the side of pro animal testing. For instance, we share about 95% of our genes with a mouse. Having this similarity helped advance cancer treatments and cancer survival rates. An example of this is the discovery of "Herceptin" a well-known breast cancer treatment medication that comes from a "humanized mouse protein" this treatment has helped the increase of survival rate with breast cancer patients. In addition, testing and researching on an animal had helped produce vaccines such as polio, TB, meningitis and recently HPV. Lastly, dogs and cats are used "less than 0.2% of research animals" compare that to the millions we gather up in the United States, locked up In cages, and kill in animal pounds weekly with no advancement to medicine. With all these points, I am on the pro-animal testing side. Animal testing and the arguments between each other is a double edge sword. All the arguments that I researched on the "web" both sides give compelling points and research. But at the end of the day, to me, I revert to the human ego, what benefits me as a human being. I attached a website that has compelling arguments for anti-animal testing and i also attached where I got my sources from to respond to your blog. Good luck and looking forward to reading your views on this subject.
ReplyDeletework cited
"Animal Testing Is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint." PETA. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
"Herceptin: When Personalized Medicine and Animal Research meet." Speaking of Research. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Mar. 2014.
"Understanding Animal Research." Understanding Animal Research. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2014.
direct links
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-bad-science/
http://speakingofresearch.com/2010/09/02/herceptin-when-personalized-medicine-and-animal-research-meet/
http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/about-us/the-science-action-network/forty-reasons-why-we-need-animals-in-research/