The Good, the Bad, and the Informative

Tonight, I’m going to “live blog” about a source that I am going to use for my research project that focuses on the use of animals for scientific and commercial testing. The source is from an online website called ProCon.org, a website that presents controversial issues in an unbiased pro-con format. Now that that’s been said, let the blogging begin in 3…2…1…

9:55 PM: The article opens with an array of quotes that relate to animal testing and why animals are favored for experimentation. One quote that stands out in particular is, “A 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% ‘agreed that the use of animals in research is essential.’” I find this quote to be interesting because it’s not surprising that most scientists believe that the use of animals in research is essential, but I’m wondering more about the poll that was taken. While the poll does include an exact number of who was surveyed, I’m wondering where they obtained these results. Did they only ask 1,000 biomedical scientists that worked under one or two corporations that held the same views, or did they ask a variety of scientists from different places? I would like to see how these results were obtained and if these scientists are credible.

10:05 PM: The next section of the article compares the pros and cons of animal testing while staying unbiased and informative. One major pro for animal testing that I would like to use in my research project to show the positive side of this issue is “some cosmetics and health care products must be tested on animals to ensure their safety”. According to the source, “The US Food and Drug Administration endorses the use of animal tests on cosmetics to ‘assure the safety of product or ingredient.’” I do agree with this statement because it is important to assure the safety of a product before it is released on the market so that it does not endanger human health or safety, so I feel that this would provide a good point in my argument that argues for animal testing.

10:17 PM: After reading through more pros, I found that the quote, “animals do not have rights, therefore it is acceptable to experiment on them”, to be extremely unsettling. While it is true that animals do not have rights, it does not mean that they can be inhumanely treated. This will lead me to investigate further in my research by obtaining how animals are mistreated in the labs, which will support my argument against animal testing.

10:28 PM: Moving on to the cons of animal testing, the articles provides many negative points against the use of animals for experimentation. The quotes that I find the most appealing and useful for my research project include:
“Animal testing is cruel and inhumane” and “According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and “killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means.” These quotes will ultimately be used to rebut the previous quote I examined about how animals do not have rights and how it is acceptable to experiment on them. One thing that I would like to question is how often these types of experiments are performed. While some labs are known to mistreat animals, is there a way of knowing how many do this and how often?
“Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals.” This segment of the article provides solutions for animal testing including in vitro and microdosing. This information will allow me to provide support for my solution for animal testing.

10:43 PM: In the last few paragraphs, the article addresses the background, history, regulations, public opinion, and the modern debate of animal testing. I decided to focus on the regulations. I wanted to look into the regulations in animal testing because I wanted to see what was currently being done to put an end to animal testing. In 1966, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) was passed to provide protection to animals. However, “while the AWA regulates the housing and transportation of animals used for research, it does not regulate the experiments themselves”. This quote was surprising to me because I thought an animal protection act would actually provide protection to an animal’s safety. This information would be useful in my research project because I could compare my solution to the current “solution” and prove how it is more beneficial.

This article was very informative and unbiased, which allowed me to view both sides of the argument without having to feel obligated to choose a side. I believe that this article will be a valuable source in my project, not only because it is unbiased, but because it also uses reliable sources in its statements. After reading this article, I am still against the use of testing of animals for scientific research. Previously, I felt that animal testing was morally wrong because it was cruel, but reading this article gave me more insight as to why animal testing is negative. I can now create a stronger argument in my research project because I have more points backed by factual evidence instead of solely relying on my own uneducated opinion. I think that this article also provided new insight on why animal testing is positive. Animal testing can assure the safety of some products, but is it truly reliable 100%? I still do not agree with animal testing, but I can now see both sides of the argument so that I can carefully construct my essay and effectively rebut the main points that support animal testing. I would still like to delve deeper into the research that was conducted for who supports and opposes animal testing, especially in the polls that were conducted. From this, I can find if the results were reliable and not fixed. Overall, this article will be very useful in my research project since it will allow me to construct a stronger argument.