ABSTRACT:
The critical analysis essay involved choosing a text that addresses either a social, political, economic or social issue of interest and deeply analyze the text and its rhetorical situation. The social issue being addressed in this essay is on animal experimentation.The purpose of the critical analysis is to not just to inform the audience but evaluate the author’s argument in order to make it clear for the reader to understand. Then providing my own argument about the authors argument. More specifically, for this specific topic, it revolves around the matter of whether or not animal experimentation is necessary. The authors thoughts on animal experimentation is evaluated in order to make an argument on whether or not his argument is effective. Incorporation of outside sources are meant to support the overall argument and also be relevant to justifying the argument of the paper. In this assignment, I engaged in deep revisions and edits as I reflect on the experience of writing this essay. The writing process included drafting the essay and the steps taken that includes evaluating, quoting, paraphrasing, summarizing, analyzing, and citing sources to produce the final draft.
DRAFT
Marisol Vega
Writing for the Humanities
Kelly McIntosh
November 25, 2019
Critical Analysis Draft
The subject of animal testing has been up for debate for several years. It continues to be a much debated topic currently in today’s society, not just in the United States but around the world. Many stand by and fight for animal rights, testifying against experimenting on animals because animals are being exploited by research facilities. While there are others who believe that animals are a necessity for several reasons that include cosmetics, for biomedical research, medicine, and other products. In Lawrence Hanssons article entitled, “Lab experiments on dogs cruel and unnecessary,” he addresses the issue of animals being humans test subjects for the sole purpose of biomedical research. He argues against the testing of animals that occur in scientific research because he claims that it is unnecessary. Hassons uses personal stories paired with convincing logical arguments creating an effective argument that animals should not be experimented on.
The main purpose of the article is to expose the harsh realities of animal experimentation and persuade the audience that animal testing should be put to an end. He comments, “ I applaud House members in California for taking action to end this wasteful government spending on flawed research that involves the betrayal of creatures hopelessly hard-wired to depend upon the kindness and mercy of human strangers.” In order to solve this dilemma, he wants the government to take action to push an end of the use of dogs in experiments. The targeted audience would be aimed towards at politicians to push for legal reforms and additionally towards people who don’t quite understand why people may feel that it is more wrong than it being okay to test on animals. In order to back up his argument Hasson focuses on the ethical and scientific reasons to build his claim as a whole.
In his article, Hassen builds his credibility by sharing from his experience and commenting on the treatment of dogs and what they undergo in experimentation. In doing so, the author establishes his moral character and knowledge of the subject matter. In the article he says, “Back in medical school, I was instructed to cut apart and kill dogs — a Golden Retriever and a black Lab — for physiology demonstrations and surgical practice. In the latter case, we were made to perform weekly surgeries on the same dogs until the end of the lesson and until, frankly, the dogs couldn’t take any more of the mutilations and we put them out of their misery. I did it, qualms of conscience notwithstanding, because I was told it was “necessary.” It turns out this wasn’t true.” To simply put, from his experience with dogs were treated as test subjects, undergoing unethical care because it was an existing practice and of the essence that the students experienced for learning purposes. It evokes an emotional state of shock because the dogs are treated poorly and are subjected to pain as it was mentioned that they were “cut apart” and the same dog would be continuously being used until it gave up. There is a tone of remorse that gives off a feeling of regret for doing so. This is used to his advantage because it demonstrates that he is knowledgeable of the topic as he knows what occurs. Theres has been other instances detailing the treatment of dogs and other animals in laboratories that expands and is similar to the experience of Hasson. In People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) article “Dogs in Laboratories,” it states, “At Ohio State University, vivisector George Billman forced surgically manipulated dogs to run on a treadmill until they collapsed from a heart attack. The dogs were killed, and the damage to their heart tissue was studied. In a violent experiment at the University of Pennsylvania, puppies were bred to have a degenerative eye disease that culminates in blindness. During the study, 3-week-old beagles had their eyes cut out and were killed.” This is to say that these dogs endure abusive treatment inside other laboratories for the purpose of gaining information and studying that information. Both articles are similar in regards to detailing and exposing the conditions that the dogs endure. It reinforces Hasson point that one of the reasons animal experimentation should be put to an end is because it is unethical.
Throughout the article, Hasson works towards using statistics to further support another point in his argument. He supports the idea that animals are not humans meaning that animal testing is not the best indicator of whats safe to use on humans by providing the use of facts. He argues, “ From a scientific perspective, the problem is that dogs, monkeys and mice are not simplified versions of humans. This is why the NIH reports that 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests — often including beagles — fail in humans because they don’t work or are dangerous. In my specialty, Alzheimer’s disease, the drug failure rate is actually 99.6 percent, and the use of animals has recently been referred to as “a cliff over which people push bales of money.” According to NIH, every drug or treatment that fails in human trials after passing animal tests represents 14 years and $2 billion wasted. Yet the agency continues to dedicate nearly half of its $32 billion research budget to animal research.” It addresses the issue that testing on animals is not always the way to go because the end results of these experiments prove that testing on animals is not always reliable. Although humans and animals are similar to an extent, humans and animals are not exactly the same when it comes down to the genetic makeup. This is an attempt to hook in the audience by making another argument that is perceived as logical as he provides specific examples and statistics it boosts up his claim. In a scholarly source entitled, “The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation,” its provides a different type of data in which supports Hasson claim of animals not being simplified versions of humans. In Aysha Akhtar article she declares, “The inability of animal amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) models to predict beneficial effects in humans with ALS is recognized. More than twenty drugs have failed in clinical trials, and the only U.S The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved drug to treat ALS is Riluzole, which shows notably marginal benefit on patient survival. Animal models have also been unable to reproduce the complexities of human TBI. In 2010, Maas et al. reported on 27 large Phase 3 clinical trials and 6 unpublished trials in TBI that all failed to show human benefit after showing benefit in animals.” This is to say that there are inconsistencies between animal models of disease and human disease. This is evident because of the repeated failures that have occurred for human treatment despite their being successful in terms of the animal results. Akhtar article reinforces Hassen argument because it is presenting numbers and may relief doubts related to the topic, automatically supporting his argument. The use of rhetorical convection Hasson uses gives the reader straightforward information by providing numbers such as giving a percentage of failures that occurred. He makes a convincing point from a scientific standpoint.
Another argument Hasson makes against animal testing which providing the reader information about the concept of replacing animals in scientific research by alternative methods presenting another logical point to sway his audience. He comments that, “Experiments on dogs aren’t scientifically “necessary,” especially when we have superior research technologies like human organs-on-chips to model diseases and test drugs.” With the advancements being made in technology, animals will no longer be needed because there are other alternatives that avoid the use of animals. His word choice makes a much more empowered statement. For example, the word choice of “superior” emphasizes their point that technology has evolved and is prominent especially in this age where technology is relied on heavily. He makes it known to the reader and persuades them by making another logical point in which is supported by another outside source where research has been done on the organ and chip model. In Jeremy D. Caplin et al. article, “Microfluidic Organ‐on‐a‐Chip Technology for Advancement of Drug Development and Toxicology,” he examines the organ on chip models, a new approach to biomedical research and how it aids in representing the function of organs for the purpose of drug testing and tissue engineering. An example he mentions is a microdevice that was developed to study the effects of liquid plug flows on human small airway epithelial cells (SAEC). He states, “The Weibel model was used as a reference for the size and speed of the plug flow. At a rate of 1 plug per minute, the results showed that only 24% of the cells survived after 10 min, with most damage occurring downstream where the plug erupted. This result shows the capabilities of lung‐on‐a‐chip devices for representing pulmonary diseases in a microfluidic platform.” This shows to prove that with the advancement of technology, the organ and chip model can not only allow someone to explore the function of organs as a chip it can further provide information that can lead to the development of new drugs. The results prove that the method of organs on a chip model is capable of mimicking an organs function, therefore it can be a possible method for conducting biomedical research instead of using animals. This not only provides support for using alternatives to replace animals but it helps strengthen Hassen argument.
Overall, Hasson uses a combination of his personal experiences helped to evoke emotions as well as including logical argument with the incorporation of statistics makes an effective argument. There is solid evidence that have been gathered that support what he is trying to stand for. Therefore the several points he mentioned that are towards arguing against animal testing is deemed to be credible as there are sources that expand upon his claim. Based on the arguments presented by the author, it is clear that there is an opposition on animal experimentation on an ethical and scientific standpoint. Incorporating elements of pathos and logical reasoning allows for this side of the debate claim to be a convincing argument as each are a mode of persuasion of its own. It not only informs the reader of the potential claims in regrads to animal testing but it effectively perusade the audience to take a side against animal experimentation. He is spreading awareness by sharing his thoughts on this topic because the topic itself can go unnoticed. The concerns of animal experimentation and the arguments that have arose have been conjured up in regards to being concerned about the safety of new medical treatments or the overall safety of products that are being developed. It has caused this major uproar and requires significant consideration based on what is the correct solution when it comes to finding new discoveries especially in biomedical research.
Work Cited
Akhtar, Aysha. “The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation.” Cambridge quarterly
of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees vol. 24, (2015): 407-19. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4594046/
Hasson, Lawrence. “Lab experiments on dogs cruel and unnecessary.” The San Diego Union
Tribute. 15 Dec. 2015, https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sd-utbg-dogs-experiments-cruelty-20161215-story.html
Caplin, J. D., Granados, N. G., James, M. R., Montazami, R. and Hashemi, N. (2015), Microfluidic
Organ‐on‐a‐Chip Technology for Advancement of Drug Development and Toxicology. Adv. Healthcare Mater., 4: 1426-1450. doi:10.1002/adhm.201500040
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. “Dogs in Laboratories,”
PETA. https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/dogs-laboratories/
FINAL
Marisol Vega
Writing for the Humanities
Kelly McIntosh
December 9, 2019
Critical Analysis: An argument on Animal Experimentation
The subject of animal testing has been up for debate for several years. It continues to be a much debated topic currently, not just in the United States but around the world. Many stand by and fight for animal rights, testifying against experimenting on animals because animals are being exploited by research facilities. While there are others who believe that animals are a necessity for several reasons that include cosmetics, for biomedical research, for new treatments and other products. In Lawrence Hansen’s article entitled, “Lab experiments on dogs cruel and unnecessary,” he addresses the issue of animals being humans test subjects for the sole purpose of biomedical research. He argues against the testing of animals that occur in scientific research because he claims that it is unnecessary. Hansen uses personal stories paired with convincing logical arguments creating an effective argument that animals should not be experimented on which is supported by scientific literature.
In his article, Hassen builds his credibility by sharing from his experience and commenting on the treatment of dogs and what they undergo in experimentation. In doing so, the author establishes his moral character and knowledge of the subject matter. He says, “Back in medical school, I was instructed to cut apart and kill dogs — a Golden Retriever and a black Lab — for physiology demonstrations and surgical practice. In the latter case, we were made to perform weekly surgeries on the same dogs until the end of the lesson and until, frankly, the dogs couldn’t take any more of the mutilations and we put them out of their misery. I did it, qualms of conscience notwithstanding, because I was told it was “necessary.” It turns out this wasn’t true.” To simply put, from his experience the dogs were treated as test subjects, undergoing unethical care because it was an existing practice that the students experienced for learning purposes. This evokes an emotional state of shock because the dogs are treated poorly and are subjected to pain as it mentioned that they were cut apart and the same dog would be used continuously until they can no longer put up with it. There is a tone of remorse from Hansen that gives off a feeling of regret for doing so. This is used to his advantage because it demonstrates that he is knowledgeable of the topic as he knows what occurs and realizes that it is wrong. Theres has been other instances detailing the treatment of dogs and other animals in laboratories that expands and is similar to Hansen experience. In People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) article “Dogs in Laboratories,” it states, “At Ohio State University, vivisector George Billman forced surgically manipulated dogs to run on a treadmill until they collapsed from a heart attack. The dogs were killed, and the damage to their heart tissue was studied. In a violent experiment at the University of Pennsylvania, puppies were bred to have a degenerative eye disease that culminates in blindness. During the study, 3-week-old beagles had their eyes cut out and were killed.” This is to say that these dogs endure abusive treatment inside other laboratories for the purpose of acquiring new information and studying the information. Both articles are similar in regards to detailing and exposing the conditions that the dogs endure. It reinforces Hansen point that animal experimentation should be put to an end because it is unethical.
Throughout the article, Hansen works towards using statistics to further support another point in his argument. He supports the idea that animals are not humans meaning that using animal is not the best indicator of what’s safe to use on humans. He argues, “ From a scientific perspective, the problem is that dogs, monkeys and mice are not simplified versions of humans. This is why the NIH reports that 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests — often including beagles — fail in humans because they don’t work or are dangerous. In my specialty, Alzheimer’s disease, the drug failure rate is actually 99.6 percent, and the use of animals has recently been referred to as “a cliff over which people push bales of money.” According to NIH, every drug or treatment that fails in human trials after passing animal tests represents 14 years and $2 billion wasted. Yet the agency continues to dedicate nearly half of its $32 billion research budget to animal research.” It addresses the issue that testing on animals is not always the way to go because the end results of these experiments prove that testing on animals is not always reliable. Although humans and animals are similar to an extent, humans and animals are not exactly the same when it comes down to the genetic makeup. This is an attempt to hook in the audience by making another claim in his overall argument that is logical. He provides specific examples and statistics to bolster up his claim. In doing so, he contradicts what other experts are saying who state that animals are essential for research. In “Why Are Animals Used in Research?,” Steve Olson states “ Some animals have biological similarities to humans that make them particularly good models for specific diseases, such as rabbits for atherosclerosis or monkeys for polio. (The polio vaccine was developed, and its safety is still tested in monkeys.) Animals are also indispensable to the rapidly growing field of biotechnology, where they are used to develop, test, and make new products such as monoclonal antibodies.” The argument made for testing animals include assertions that animals are good models in comparison to humans because they are able to determine new products or treatment for diseases. However in a scholarly source entitled, “The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation,” its provides a different type of data in which supports Hansen claim of animals not being simplified versions of humans. In Aysha Akhtar article she declares, “The inability of animal amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) models to predict beneficial effects in humans with ALS is recognized. More than twenty drugs have failed in clinical trials, and the only U.S The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved drug to treat ALS is Riluzole, which shows notably marginal benefit on patient survival. Animal models have also been unable to reproduce the complexities of human TBI. In 2010, Maas et al. reported on 27 large Phase 3 clinical trials and 6 unpublished trials in TBI that all failed to show human benefit after showing benefit in animals.” This is to say that there are inconsistencies between animal models of disease and human disease. This is evident because of the repeated failures that have occurred for human treatment despite their being successful in terms of the animal results. Akhtar article reinforces Hassen argument and contracts what other experts are saying because it is presenting gathered statistics which may relieve doubts related to the topic. The use of rhetorical convection Hansen uses gives the reader straightforward information by providing numbers such as giving a percentage of failures that occurred. He makes a convincing point from a scientific standpoint supported by other literature.
Another argument Hansen makes against animal testing is providing the reader information about the concept of replacing animals in scientific research by alternative methods as another logical point to sway his audience. He comments that, “Experiments on dogs aren’t scientifically “necessary,” especially when we have superior research technologies like human organs-on-chips to model diseases and test drugs.” With the advancements being made in technology, animals will no longer be needed because there are other alternatives that avoid the use of animals. His word choice makes a much more empowered and impactful statement. For example, the word choice of “superior” emphasizes his point that technology has evolved and is prominent especially in this age where technology is heavily relied on. He makes it known to the reader and persuades them by making this point that is supported by another outside source where experts evaluated the organ and chip model. In Jeremy D. Caplin et al. article, “Microfluidic Organ‐on‐a‐Chip Technology for Advancement of Drug Development and Toxicology,” he examines the organ on chip models, a new approach to biomedical research and how it aids in representing the function of organs for the purpose of drug testing and tissue engineering. An example he mentions is a microdevice that was developed to study the effects of liquid plug flows on human small airway epithelial cells (SAEC). They state, “The Weibel model was used as a reference for the size and speed of the plug flow. At a rate of 1 plug per minute, the results showed that only 24% of the cells survived after 10 min, with most damage occurring downstream where the plug erupted. This result shows the capabilities of lung‐on‐a‐chip devices for representing pulmonary diseases in a microfluidic platform.” This shows to prove that with the advancement of technology, the organ and chip model can not only allow someone to explore the function of organs as a chip but it can further provide information that can lead to the development of new drugs. The results prove that the method of organs on a chip model is capable of mimicking an organs function, therefore it can be a possible method for conducting biomedical research instead of the use of animals. In addition, with the discussion of alternative methods, Hansen brings up that it is also less expensive while animal testing is more expensive. In Pro and Con, “Animal Testing” it states “ Biotechnology company Empiriko invented synthetic livers which can predict the liver’s metabolic reactions to drugs in a process that is quicker, cheaper, and more accurate than animal testing; in one trial it provided a level of specificity which previously would have required testing on 1,000 rats and 100 dogs.” Instead of wasting money and the lives of thousands of animals, it can be inexpensive when turning to alternatives as it is cheaper. This not only provides support for using alternatives to replace animals but it helps strengthen Hansen argument overall.
From The San Diego Union Tribune, an American metropolitan daily newspaper, published in San Diego, California, Hansen speaks on and shares his opinion on the topic regarding animal experimentation. In this brief article, from the very first paragraph Hansen mentions the reasons to push for an end to animal experimentation.The order of the reasons which are ethical, economic and scientific that are mentioned in the first paragraph align with how the article is structured. In the first few paragraphs he discusses the ethical reasoning, explaining his personal experience with animal experiments and making a connection to his experience with what animals undergo in other laboratories in another paragraph. He then transition and mentions the economic dilemma on how much money goes into animal testing as another main point in his argument. Then after, in the middle of the articel he spends discussing the scientific perspective and aspects of animal testing discussing that animals are different from human beings providing statistics. With that, he brings up the alternative testing methods that exist. At that final point, he wraps up his article with a concluding statement paragraph, that address the actions that need to be taken in regards to animal experimentation. The main purpose of his article is to expose the harsh realities of animal experimentation and persuade the audience that animal testing should be put to an end. He comments, “ I applaud House members in California for taking action to end this wasteful government spending on flawed research that involves the betrayal of creatures hopelessly hard-wired to depend upon the kindness and mercy of human strangers.” In order to solve this dilemma, he wants the government to take action to push an end of the use of dogs in experiments. The targeted audience would be aimed towards at politicians to push for legal reforms and additionally towards people who don’t quite understand why people may feel that it is more wrong than it is okay to test on animals. In order to back up his argument Hansen focuses majority on the ethical and scientific reasons to build up his argument.
Overall, in our society, discussions around animal experimentation are controversial and have varied in responses from writers, to medical students, to scientists, to experts etc. Hansen is aligned with the general conversation about the experimentation of animals. He establishes a well constructive argument to prove his main point that animals should not be used as a tool for testing on an ethical and scientific standpoint. Hansen also contradicts the other side of the story that insists that animals are essential. With support from scientific literature there is a convincing and compelling argument in which the outside sources not only support but help to expand upon Hansen claims that he makes in his article. He is spreading awareness by sharing his thoughts on this topic as it requires significant consideration about what the correct solution is when it comes to gaining knowledge, specifically in biomedical research.
Work Cited
Akhtar, Aysha. “The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation.” Cambridge quarterly
of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees vol. 24, (2015): 407-19. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4594046/
Caplin, J. D., Granados, N. G., James, M. R., Montazami, R. and Hashemi, N. (2015),
Microfluidic Organ‐on‐a‐Chip Technology for Advancement of Drug Development and Toxicology. Adv. Healthcare Mater., 4: 1426-1450. doi:10.1002/adhm.201500040
Hansen, Lawrence. “Lab experiments on dogs cruel and unnecessary.” The San Diego Union
Tribute. 15 Dec. 2015, https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sd-utbg-dogs-experiments- cruelty-20161215-story.html
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. “Dogs in Laboratories,”
PETA. https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/dogs-laboratories/
ProCon.org, “Animal Testing.” ProCon.org. n.d., animal-testing.procon.org/
Olson, Steve. “Why Are Animals Used in Research?” Science, Medicine and Animals. (1991)
https://www.nap.edu/read/10089/chapter/3
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
