Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In this argumentative essay written by Dr. Ron Kline a pediatrician who wrote his essay titled “A Scientist: I am the enemy”. The article gives an insight on how animal research has helped many people and shine a light on the benefits of animal research. Ron Kline is the director of bone marrow transplants at the University of Louisville. Furthermore, the essay explains his thoughts and his own reasons for his love of medical research. In addition, the essay include the opposing side of the argument which has a lot feedback from activist groups that think that animal research is horrible. First, in this article Dr. Kline presented many claims bases on animal testing. One of dr.kilne claim that he states was “If the more radical members of this movement are successful in limiting future research, their efforts will bring about a tragedy that will cost many lives”. Additionally, he also states that “In America today, death has become an event isolated from our daily existence--out of the sight and thoughts of most of us. As a doctor who has watched many …show more content…
In the article you can feel a sense of emotion just by him referring by to the title. .” I am the enemy! One of those vilified, inhumane physician- scientist involved in animal research. How strangle, for I have never thought of myself as an evil person. “According to Kline “he became a pediatrician because of his love for children and my desire to keep them healthy. Also states that he saw children, alive and healthy, thanks to advances in medical science, such infant respirators, potent antibiotics, new surgical techniques and the entire field of organ transplantation”. In addition, Dr. Kline felt very shocked and offended about people was calling him the” enemy’’ stating.” I am the enemy! One of those vilified, inhumane physician- scientist involved in animal research. How strangle, for I have never thought of myself as an evil
The information that animals have provided scientists over the past decades has changed society, and is still changing society for the better. Millions of lives have been saved with the use of animal testing and many more will be saved with continued research. However, there are many who dismiss this monumental achievement completely and oppose the use of animals in laboratory research. Though many find this practice to be
The respective areas of science and religion always seem to be overlapping, or stepping on the other area’s toes. In his book, Stephen Jay Gould addresses the topic of Non-Overlapping Magesteria, or NOMA. Gould examines the principles of NOMA as a solution to the supposed false conflict between religion and science. (Pg. 6) He starts off his argument on NOMA by telling a story of “Two Thomas’s.” The first Thomas is from the bible, of which he makes three appearances in the Gospel of John. The second Thomas, is a Reverend Thomas Burnet. Thomas the Apostle defends the magesteria of science in the wrong magesteria of faith, while the Reverend Thomas proclaims religious ideas within the magesteria of science.
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.
What would the world be like if there was no vaccine for polio? If there was no discovery of insulin? Thanks to animal research we don’t have to live without vaccines or insulin. Animal research is a topic debated everyday around the world. Some argue it is cruel to put animals through experiments that animals have no voice in what is being done to them. Others argue that animal testing is good because it collects a lot of information and helps with surgical techniques. I believe that without animal testing we would never know what we know now. Animal testing for medical research is necessary if there are no other alternatives because it allows for advances in medicine, provides treatments for people with diseases, it eliminates human suffering, and it also has helped treat diseases in animals. (Animal Research 2013)
At the turn of the new century, activists begun to protest the morality of animal experimentation: “… such methodology is far too cruel on beast, it cannot better mankind, but its lead to it demise…” Despite the rising concern for animal safety in laboratory research, federal legislations approved the practice. According to the federal bureaucrats, it is an essential tool to improve our current medical knowledge. Hence, most of the tested animals have a relatively shorter life span than human. Thus, it allows to test long-term disease in a smaller timeframe. Nonetheless, animal enthusiast request the banishment of animal experimentation in laboratory. Ergo, with our current technology, researchers are capable to reproduce the same result
Trull, Frankie L. "The Essential Need For Animals in Medical Research." AmericanChronicle.com. N.P. Oct. 2005. Web. 21 Nov. 2011.
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...
The roots of animal experimentation began in the early 1600s when the world expressed in interests on the functions of animals and their uses in human life. However, it wasn’t until the incident regarding the drug thalidomide in 1960 did the government make it a requirement for drugs be tested on animals. During the incident, millions of women took the medication believing that it would be a source of relieve from morning sickness, not knowing however that it would cause irrevocable effects on their unborn children (Watson 4). Although the ruling seemed to provide a sigh of relief to some, the very idea of placing animals in strange uncomfortable environments and experiencing pain and euthanasia angered many. According to the American Anti-Vivisection Society, commonly known as AAVS, It is wrong to treat animals as objects for the purpose of scientific research, and to cause them pain and suffering (“Animal Research Is Unethical and Scientifically Unnecessary”). Although the arguments against animal experimentation seem credible, animal testing on medicines and products are necessary in order to insure the safety of human beings.
Since the mid-20th century, a central debate in the philosophy of science is the role of epistemic values when evaluating its bearing in scientific reasoning and method. In 1953, Richard Rudner published an influential article whose principal argument and title were “The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments” (Rudner 1-6). Rudner proposed that non-epistemic values are characteristically required when making inductive assertions on the rationalization of scientific hypotheses. This paper aims to explore Rudner’s arguments and Isaac Levi’s critique on his claims. Through objections to Levi’s dispute for value free ideal and highlighting the importance of non-epistemic values within the tenets and model development and in science and engineering,
Every year there are tens of millions of animals like rats, dogs, birds, and farm animals that are killed to discover new information on medical discoveries, product testing, and for educational purposes. Many believe animal testing is inhumane because just like humans, animals feel pain as well, but others believe we should not treat animals as moral equals. However, in the recent years there have been new products introduced to decrease the use of animal testing or even possibly completely stopping it.
Millions of animals are used to test consumer products, but they also become victims of experiments for medical research. In The Ethics of Animal Research (2007) both authors state that there have been many medical advances with the development of medicines and treatments as a result of research conducted on animals (para 1). These medical improvements have helped many people be able to enjoy life, but some people still believe that animal research is mean and avoidable .... ... middle of paper ... ...
When someone goes to the store and buys a product, or is prescribed medication, they don’t have to worry if the product is safe to use nor should they. The entire human race benefits from animal research. “Without animal research, medical science would come to a total standstill”(O’Neil 210). It is not as if Scientist and researchers just sit in their labs all day and torture animals for fun. Not to mention animal use is being reduced as much as possible, “most scientist are glad to use alternative test because they are usually faster and cheaper than test on animals”(Yount 72). However, “you cannot study kidney transplantation or diarrhea or high bloodpressure on a computer screen”(O’Neil 212). Besides, “Animal research has led to vaccines against diptheria, rabies, tuberculosis, polio, measles, mumps, cholera, whooping cough, and rubella. It has meant eradication of smallpox, effective treatment for diabetes and control of infection with powerful antibiotics. The cardiac pacemaker, microsurgery to reattach severed limbs, and heart, kidney, lung, liver and other transplants are all possible because of animal research”(O’Neil 210).
Thomas S. Kuhn’s, “The Nature of Necessity of Scientific Revolutions” want us to understand that the nature of the universe is evolving because people gain new knowledge in science. He addresses that as the universe is evolving human beings aquire new knowledge in science. In Kuhn’s work he mentions, “Simultaneously we have had to alter the fundamental structural elements of which the universe to which they apply is composed.” From this I understood that the universe is growing and human beings are expanding their knowledge and discovering new things, all thanks to the evolution of the universe.
He and many others see the testing as inevitable and say it must continue to help humans survive. “The elimination of horrible disease, the increase of longevity, the avoidance of great pain, the saving of lives, and the improvement of the quality of lives achieved through research using animals is so incalculably great. ”(Cohen 27-28). 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.
...ines to stop dangerous diseases (Paul). Animal research has played a vital role in medical science for the last century. Animal testing has been very essential to medical research and have led to discovering new tools to help individuals. Because of animal testing we have discovered new medicines and procedures to benefit people such as, antibiotics, blood transfusions, organ-transplantations, and vaccinations. Animal organizations and activist has little knowledge on medical research, so they don’t know how this research benefits us. Animal testing has proven to be a very important part in medical studies and it will continue to be for generations to generations. Animal testing will never end but evolve and lead us to further medical understanding. Without animal testing we would be expose to chemical, Air-Bourne, and contagious diseases this world will hand to us.