October 10, 2018
Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation or animal research, is the use of non-human testing to experiment the control of variables that affect the behavior or biological system under research. Medicine, cosmetics, and food products are one of the many things that are tested on animals before they are used on humans. Some people agree that animal testing is beneficial, and others disagree and say that it is horrible and awful and should not be done. In an article, Animal Testing 101, the writer is against animal testing and says that “Right now, millions of mice, rats, rabbits, primates, cats, dogs, and other animals are locked inside barren cages in laboratories” (1). Even though animals have helped us obtain good medicine and treatments to cure disease, Animal Testing 101 explains to the reader how animal testing is not right by showing the reader logos, pathos, and ethos to demonstrate their arguments.
In this article Animal Testing 101, a video by PETA was inserted explaining how animals are hurt. They say that animals react to drugs differently than humans do. For example, mice are not men because they can not tell people how much it hurts. Animals feel pain, bleed, and suffer just like humans do. The writer also states, “Examples of animal tests include forcing mice and rats to inhale toxic fumes, force-feeding dogs pesticides, and dripping corrosive chemicals into rabbits’ sensitive eyes” (2). The article is trying to convince the reader that animal testing is bad and horrible. “Just because a product was shown to be safe in animals does not guarantee that it will be safe to use in humans” (2). The author shows that because a product was eventually proven safe to an animal does not mean the product will be one hundred percent guaranteed to be safe to humans, and the suffering of animals was done in vain.
The article also informs that there are other nonanimal related tests and experiments that can help save many animals. The list was not there, but the article does say that these non-human tests are more humane, faster, and relevant to humans. There could be many human volunteers that can be willing to get tested on. In a book, Alternatives to Animal Testing, the author Roy M. Harrison says, “Thus tests are normally conducted in laboratory animals as surrogates for humans. Even when testing in humans is possible, preliminary testing in animals is usually required” (1). There are multiple ways to do research and tests that do not involve animal suffering. In relation to the article Animal Testing 101, they explain to us that there are other non-animal related test methods, but no list appeared. This can perhaps be one of the examples of the many ways that testing can happen without animals. Even if animals are usually the surrogates for humans in the laboratory tests, actual humans who are sick are the ones who can volunteer on medical tests and is shown to be possible. This is one example of logos being presented in the Animal Testing 101 article because of the arguments it is comparing using logic.
The article Animal Testing 101 explains how animals feel pain. To support it in the book Animal Experimentation: A Guide to the Issue, the writer Vaughan Monamy says, “A sentient animal not only has an awareness of its surroundings but is capable of experiencing pain” (6). Animals go through hungers, thirst, fears, stress, and pains. In the article’s video, it says that animal testing is torturing animals because they feel pain. When scientists are injecting a disease into an animal, they feel the pain. They get sick just like a human would. The article shows pathos because the writer feels bad and sorry for all the animals in which have died or have felt pain due to these experiments and is explaining the ways that they experience these sufferings to get an emotional response from the reader.
In order to continue to convince the reader that animal testing is bad, the writer of Animal Testing 101 gave credibility to programs, agencies, and administrations by stating that there are natural ways to do tests on animals. “Animals are also used in toxicity tests conducted as part as massive regulatory testing programs that are often funded by U.S. taxpayers’ money. The Environmental Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, The National Toxicology Program,… are just a few of the government agencies that subject animals to crude, painful tests” (2). All these organizations are trying to help animals by preventing them from being used in experimentations. In another article, Transforming Environmental Health Protection, the writers Collins, Gray, and Bucher say, “In 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with support from the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), funded a project at the National Research Council (NRC) to develop a long range vision for toxicity in animal testing and a strategic plan for implementing that vision…” (1). Some organizations are willing to fund projects for future testings, so that toxicity will not be as dangerous for animals. Ethos is given by the credibilities of the different agencies being applied who are doing crude and non-harmful testing to animals and to the agencies funding.
In my perspective, I am not against it, and I do find that animal experimentation is beneficial. Animal testing has helped us find medicines that have cured and treated many people. Painkillers were first tested on animals after surgeries. Then, they were given to humans and worked efficiently in the same way. It is true that animals are just like humans. Animals do feel pain and hunger just like any human being would. Since animals are much like humans, they are perfect candidates for testing and experimentations. Another reason why I support animal testing is that how easier it is to do experimentations to them due to their shorter life cycles. For example, mice and rats have a lifespan of three years. In those three years, scientists are able to do so many research, that helps us with our daily lives. Other products instead of medicine that are doing animal testing are cosmetics. Mascaras, foundations, eyeshadows, lipsticks, eyeliners, and many other cosmetic products are used on animals before they are used on people. It is important to test makeup on animals because it ensures the cosmetic safety. We do not want to be wearing products that can possibly hurt our skin, so it is beneficial to get them tested and examined on animals so that we feel more comfortable and secure.
To conclude, most of the things being sold to us are products that are first used on animals, and everybody has their own opinions and perspective towards animal testing. The article, Animal Testing 101, shows us the use of pathos, logos, and ethos to make its point to try to convince the reader that animal testing is bad and cruel and should be prevented. Logos is being shown by convincing us that there are other things and ways to prevent animal cruelty by humans actually volunteering. Animals do fear, get sick, and feel pain is the way pathos showing the emotional appeal. Lastly, giving credit to all the agencies who have done many nonharmful tests is a way to convince the reader using ethos that it is possible to help the animals from getting tested or used in experiments.
Collins, Francis S., et al. Science (New York, N.Y.), U.S. National Library of Medicine, 15 Feb. 2008, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2679521/.
Harrison, Roy M., and R.E. Hester. Alternatives To Animal Testing. Royal Society of Chemistry,2006.
Monamy, Vaughan. Animal Experimentation : A Guide to the Issues. Vol. 2nd ed, Cambridge University Press, 2009.
“The Truth about Animals Used for Experimentation.” PETA, http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-101/.
Mackenzie, Macaela. “The State of California Just Made a MAJOR Cruelty-Free Beauty Move.” Allure, Allure Magazine, 5 Sept. 2018, http://www.allure.com/story/california-cruelty-free-cosmetics-act-bill.