Rhetorical Analysis Killing To Stay Alive

In the article “Killing to stay alive” the author details how hard it can be to balance the idea of ethics with the advancement of science. He says how difficult it can be to weigh whether the scientific gain is worth the lost lives of the animal test subjects. Ericson specifically looks at how being able to bioengineer genetics and mutations allows for even more discrepancies in animal research, as the gray area of ethics is expanded, and the definitive line of what is ethical and what is not is blurred. Finally, he mentions how importance of have organizations such People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which make sure that research groups are being ethical in their research.

The article aides my research by helping highlight some

of the problems of animal research, and the ethical gray areas that can arise. By showing some of the less ethical areas of Clinical animal research, it makes it takes a look at both sides of the story, and not just the pro side. The article provides a different perspective than most of the other articles, as it holds less of a pro-animal testing standpoint than my other sources, it also considers a slightly different area of animal research then I am focusing on, such as the alteration of biogenetics and transgenesis. This article has credibilty, because it uses references from other publish, and peer reviewed works to support its claims. It also has quotes from different scholars and organizations within the animal rights and animal testing community. I believe that this article will provide an interesting perspective to my research, by providing an alternative view to my own.

This journal discusses the use of animals in vaccine development, and how scientists are currently working on different ways to test vaccines during production that do not involve testing on animals. The journal mentions how when a new vaccine candidate is ready to be tested, it must be tested using animals before it can go into a clinical trial with human subjects. So, while there are currently animal alternatives being tested, scientists have yet to find a test subject that responds as similarly as animals do to vaccine tests. The article finishes by stating that though researchers are working on alternatives to animal testing, it may be many years before a good alternative is found.

The article tells how in Australia there are procedures that must be followed before a new research study can be conducted with animals. The researchers weigh whether the loss of the animals is outweighed by the gain of the research or vice versa. They were also developing a system to effectively measure the benefits of the studies over the cost, both ethically and monetarily. The system also then helps you determine the balance of those two subjects. The journal also examines the balance between productivity and animal welfare, to help decide where to draw the ethical line.

This article helps show the ways in which researchers are being held accountable for what they are doing, and how they are conducting their experiments. It adds to my research by showing specific protocol that researchers must go through and pass before they can begin their studies, which helps reduce the gray areas of what is ethical in animal testing. This article is similar to some of my other articles because it looks at the ways that research groups are being made to maintain certain levels of ethics. This article especially differs from differ my first source because this article is pro-animal testing where as my first source was much more anti-using animals in clinical research studies. This source is credible because it uses private and government policies to show the different procedures it discusses. It also references specific laws and protocols. The author is also a known figure in the field of animal ethics and research.