Vivisection: Is it for you?
Animal Research has become a heated debate over the past few decades, reaching a high point around the end of the twentieth century yet it still continues through today. There are two main ways to look at this topic: the logos pro side and the pathos anti side. Those who are for animal testing realize the amazing benefits that can come out of such research while those against animal testing stand up for animals’ rights and try to find ways to better such research without killing so many innocent, defenseless animals. While both sides seem to carry their argument well, those against animal testing ruin their ethos by making their argument an emotional one while those who are for animal testing build their ethos by giving logical reasoning for testing animals. Exploring both sides deeper should help provide a clear stance for each one.
Those who stand behind animal testing usually tend to be groups of scientists as well as animal testing companies. One such company, Huntingdon, argues that animal testing is a necessary evil. While nobody enjoys killing animals, Huntingdon suggests it is necessary by showing us that millions of people have been saved through various operations that would not have been able to have been preformed if it had not been for animal testing. On one if its web pages, Huntingdon stated:
[H]ere is a list of the average number of operations performed in the UK in a year: 3,000,000 operations under general [anesthetic], 90,000 cataract operations, 60,000 joint replacements, 13,000 coronary bypasses, 10,000 pacemakers implanted, 6,000 heart valve repairs or replacements, 4,000 heart defects corrected, 2,500 corneal transplants, 2,000 kidney transplants, 400 heart/lung transplants. (“Benefits”)
To finish up their argument, Huntingdon added, “The contribution that animals have made to human wellbeing is immense” (“Benefits”).
People against animal testing tend to not have the ability to convey themselves unemotionally when it comes to giving logical reasons for discontinuing its use. Many of the people who are against animal testing ask the same question: do animals not have just as much of a right to live as humans do? Their main argument, as seen in David Lewis’ article “Molecular Modeling as an Alternative to Animal Testing,” is that there are many alternative methods to animal testing. Lewis suggests in his article that we use computer simulations to get the information needed. If we have the ability to use alternative methods, why not use them? Computers have come a long way over the years and we should be able to save lives, human or animal, by using them. Such computer simulations can represent a large number of chemicals and compounds and how they would react to a living organism. Overall, those against animal testing use computer programs as a logical way to discontinue animal testing. One of Lewis’ arguments is that animal testing is not always reliable:...