Robert Taylor Animal Testing Rhetorical Analysis

Throughout history and into the present time, the topic and practice of animal experimentation/testing has been highly debated. Many people are for experimenting on animals, as it benefits the lives of humans, while others argue that testing on animals should be gotten rid of, with alternatives put in place. In this essay, my aim is to lay out the argument made by Robert Taylor in his article, “Testing drugs on animals: a test case for socially responsible investment”, argues as to why animal testing is beneficial and why companies engaged in testing and why investors in these companies should not be at fault, while then following up with my own counter argument as a response. Consequently, my plan in this essay is to lay out Taylor’s paper,

section by section, and respond to each section respectively with my counter arguments to his claims.
Taylor begins his argument by immediately laying out his views on the world of animal testing by stating that “while there is a strong desire to treat animals well, there is an equal imperative to advance medical science -- work that evidently depends on animal testing” (Taylor 164). He then backs up his claim that it is alright for animals to be used for experiments by listing the legal acts that have been put in place as a way to protect the animals being testing. These acts include The Cruelty to Animals Act of 1876 which introduced an inspection system and helped regulate the animals being tested; the Protection of Animals Act of 1911 which made the ill-treatment or unnecessary suffering of animals an offence; and finally, The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act of 1986 which “provides the current basis for controlling test procedure” (164). Taylor also lists out the worries of those activists fighting for the rights of animals, stating that those against animal experimentation claim that alternatives to testing on animals are available, and that physiological differences between animals and humans lead to the innaccuracy of the tests carried out. Taylor also claims that animal activists argue that the animals tests used for the development of new treatments are not used effectively. However, while Taylor states that “the broad evidence from scientists suggests that none of these claims reflects the true circumstances of medical research”, he is unable to back this statement up, as he gives no scientific evidence to refute the claims made by animal activists. Taylor finishes up his introduction by arguing that those campaigning against the testing of animals should not be directed at the companies or investors involved, but towards the government as not going after the government, according to Taylor, “prejudice[s] the consideration of the issues involved, including ways in which the position might be improved” (165).
My response to Taylor then, would be that while I do understand that advancements in medical science are very important, is the process of testing on animals really the only way we can go about making these advancements?

Taylor says that these advances are evidently dependent on animal testing but he does not lay out anything to back that up. What is so evident about the dependability on animal testing for medical advancements? Because in my opinion, it is evident to me that if we are able to make such strides in science and technology, including medical technology, then scientists should be able to come up with some way of replacing animals in experimentation. This view can also come in as a response to Taylor’s claim that scientific evidence suggests that the accusations brought from activists are not true, as one of these claims was that “tests are unnecessary because alternatives are available” (165). However, Taylor in no way provides any scientific evidence to support his claim. Going back then to my response that advancements in technology should be able to create some form of replacement for animal experimentation by now can be supported, as there have been reports of scientists growing organs in labs, and other such advancements. So because of this, it must be possible for scientists to come up with some sort of replacement. Taylor also starts listing off various animal protection acts, presumably as a way to backup the safety of the animals in animal testing and

to further his claim of support for animal experimentation. However, this paper was written in 2005, and the most recent of the acts that had come out was in 1986, more than 15 years before this paper was written. These acts are then highly outdated and it can not be made certain that all companies engaging in animal experimentation are following the rules laid out in the acts, or that they have not found loopholes that get them out of following such rules. For example, reports have come out of various facilities’ mistreatment of the animals they are experimenting on, as will be seen in a further section of Taylor’s paper in which he details the mistreatment carried out at Huntingdon Life Sciences. Taylor also claims in this section though, that activists should go after the government, not the companies or investors of such companies. While I do agree that we should go after the government in order to release new animal protection laws, I also must argue that the investors and companies are just as responsible, as they are funding and supporting the mistreatment of animals. It is, in my opinion, their responsibility to know what they are supporting, and should be held to the same level of responsibility as the government, as if they did not fund such experimentation, it would no longer exist and animals would no longer be mistreated in such a way.
In the following section, Taylor discusses the moral issues brought up by animal experimentation and answers the question of whether the “furtherance of human health and the saving of human lives justify the use of animals in the development of medical treatment” (166). Taylor justifies the use of animal experimentation by claiming that because “humans are sufficiently superior to animals to the extent that the death of an animal from developing a new drug is justified by the benefit to human life or well-being” (166). Taylor also uses evidence from the philosopher Mary Wornock who had made the claim that humans have a moral sense not able to be seen in other animals due to our apparent ability in dealing with abstract concepts (166). Taylor also backs up his claim of human superiority by bringing in the Judeo-Christian belief which is that “all humans are created in the image of God and, according to Genesis, have dominion over other animals” (167). He even goes on to credit this belief to being what caused humankind to move from being hunter-gatherers to domesticating animals and obtaining the various advancements we have today. Taylor then brings up the argument made by philosopher Peter Singer, who argues that if Darwin’s idea of there being an unplanned process of evolution is seen as true, then there “is no reason to assume that human interests should always take precedence over the interests of non-human animals” (167). Taylor then goes on to claim that if one were to follow Singer’s line of argument then it could also be concluded that the idea of survival of the fittests within humankind may be “undermined by the very development of the drugs that prolong the lives of those who are sick or help to manage hereditary and incurable illnesses” (167). He then goes on to acknowledge that Darwin himself had quoted that the experimentation on animals could be justified if it were for the medical advancements for humankind. Thus, by doing this, Taylor tries to argue that Singer cannot use Darwin to back up his belief that animals should not be tested on, as his argument ultimately can be seen as contradictory to Darwin’s belief that medical progress is important enough to justify animal experimentation.
My first response to this, is who is to decide whether or not we are superior to animals just because we are human?

Sure, we may have a higher moral sense than animals, but that does not mean that animals are unable to experience the pain and discomfort felt when being tested upon. Also, if we are to claim that the experimentation on animals are justified due to the differences in mental capabilities, then what does one have to say about those who are mentally handicapped or brain dead? Do they not have differences in mental capabilities when compared to a healthy person? Thus, it can be argued that if animals can be tested on because we are mentally and emotionally superior to them, that would then it that it should be seen as alright to test on those who are disabled or brain dead, as they are at times mentally and emotionally inferior. But we would never think to experiment on a human, let alone a mentally disabled one, even though they could meet the so called justifications for experimentation on animals. While Taylor is able to backup his claims of human superiority here, it must be noted that his evidence for this were a philosopher and a religious belief. To me, these do not seem like credible sources, as even though philosophers are educated, they are not necessarily professionals in the workings of the human and animal minds and capabilities. Also, using a religious belief to prove the superiority of humans to animals is also not very effective, as a good amount

of people do not follow such beliefs, and they are not scientific in nature, just simple beliefs. So it then may be seen, that while Taylor does a good job here of backing up his argument, two of the three of his sources of evidence are not entirely credible in nature.