Argumentative essay on animal testing

On July 8th, 2016, the Los Angeles Times Magazine wrote an editorial called “Why Test Chemicals On Animals If We Don’t Have To?”. The Times Editorial Board has given the audience an excellent argument, because this article presents an alternative way to stop harming animals while maintaining successful lab results. Those who opppose animal testing are concerned about the animals getting harmed in the process. The Board has given the audience a very clear thesis “This new regulatory philosophy is not just humane; it is also smart, prudent and a reflection of the remarkable advances in chemical testing that are producing better results than those obtained by torturous testing over the years, guinea pigs, rats and mice.” (Par.1). The Board gives great evidence and realistic alternatives to stop harming animals.

The author begins by explaining safer, alternative methods for animal testing; a law rewritten in 2016 mandates the EPA to develop and explore these. In addition, they also want to share their knowledge with other labs to make animal testing safer everywhere. The changes they want to make during testing on animals are protected from pain and death. Furthermore, the goal is to dramatically reduce the use of animals in the process of testing chemicals. They have found more efficient and more accurate ways to test chemicals in the lab without harming animals; this is also applicable to human safety.

This article states their argument but there is no evidence that supports any of their claims, which shows the information is not validated. The main points given are supported by the thesis. The Board does give detailed explanations on supporting humane treatment and more effective animal testing. The detailed explanations of the authors are convincing throughout the article because they provide the results of safer animal tests that are now available. This has worked to stop most people’s arguments who are pro animal testing. “These days, researchers can grow human skin cells in vitro test the chemicals on them. The results are more relevant to human safety since they were tested on human cells, not rabbits. Similarly, eye irritation tests don’t require a live animal’s eyes anymore” (Par. 5). The conclusion is effective because it explains how the alternative way has worked.

Logos are used throughout this editorial to persuade the audience by reason and logic. They want to share their findings with other labs so animal abuse can be reduced as a whole. “The changes in the EPA guidelines have been well received not only by animal welfare organizations but also by the chemical industry. And the industry officials have said that they are willing to share the technology involved in alternative testing with each other” (Par.4). This shows a colbative effort to make animal testing safe everywhere. The article did a great job at persuading the audience with examples in the article. The only negative is that the Board did not include any sources. While the article is encouraging to animal lovers and is ideal for people who work in labs, it is questionable due to its lack of sources.

The board does not establish authority and does not remain credible because the information stated in the article has no evidence with no sources which makes the authors untrustworthy. Their attitude throughout the article is professional, calm and informative. “The new law revamps the Toxic Substances Control Act, which covers chemicals found in paints and thinners, wood varnish, plastics, and furniture, among other products.

It instructs the EPA administrator to “reduce and replace” the use of vertebrate animals in the testing of chemicals by encouraging and facilitating alternative methods.” (Par.2). This quote is very informative but lacks sources which makes the board questionable. The authors are biased;“But it is also being praised by animal welfare advocates for a landmark provision that could reduce dramatically the use of animals in the process of testing animal safer” (Par.1). The article shows emotion by explaining what happens to the animals before the safer changes were made.

“But now that our safety can be protected without inflicting pain or death on an animal-whether rabbit or rat- continuing to do these tests would simply be cruel and inhumane” (Par.3). But, Patidar showed more emotion in her article, “Every year, sea full of experimental animals is used all over the world. The tenderness, grief and death experienced by the animals during experiments have been a debating issue for a long time.” (Patidar 79). Which is a perfect example of pathos because they show the emotional side of animal testing and how the animals get killed.

My initial understanding of the topic was that they are trying to make animal testing humane for animals, while also wanting to share their knowledge with other labs to make testing safe everywhere. The authors gave a decent argument, but they only gave one alternative solution with no evidence. Scholars approach this subject by finding safer ways to test animals without hurting them but they also include their findings from the opposing side of the argument with sources. The scholars are more convincing than the Board because the scholars provide several alternatives while this article has one. I agree with this article because they are making an effort to stop animal testing; they are not being abused or killed. But, they only have an alternative for some of the animals which means there are still some animals being abused by testing.

“There remain some areas of safety testing for which there is no alternative other than to test on animals” (par.6). May goes more in depth on how why there is no replacement for animal testing at this time, “Currently, there is still a place for animal testing within the toxicty setting, as it has a well-documented history and provides the opportunity to study the entire organism. However, many alternative in vitry methods are now avaUable (sic) and in devlopment, and, while not currently a complete replacement for animal testing, can be used prior to, and in some cases to complement, existing techniques” (May et al. 160). It is upsetting how not all animals are saved from the abuse of testing at this time.

For example in the article written by Archibald, it was stated that, “Before a drug is tested on humans, there should be persuasive evidence that it is safe and effective. No method, neither animal, human nor test-tube, can predict the reactions of every patient with 100 per cent (sic) accuracy”(Archibald 15). Since animals do not consent to testing they should find a way to not need animals for labs.
I do feel the same after critically reading and evaluating the article, every area of animal testing should be safe or stopped completly. Overall, the article was effective because it reaches its audience and it communicates how scientisist are successfuly making animal testing safer; it reveals how reasearchers no longer need certain animals anymore. This further demonstrates how labs are getting closer to not needing animals for testing products in the future. The Board also entertains the audience on the viable alternatives. Although “Why Test Animals If We Don’t Have To” was a good read, the authors should have added sources to make themselves more trustworthy

Works Cited

• Archibald, Kathy. “Animal Testing: Science or Fiction?” The Ecologist, vol.35,no 4, May 2005, pp14-17. Proquest, http://libproxy.wc.edu:2104/docview/234925491?accountid=7142 Accessed 30 Oct. 2019.
• May, J. E., et al. “Toxicity testing: The search for an in vitro alternative to animal testing.” British Journal of Biomedical Science, vol. 66, no 3, 2009, pp. 160-65. Proquest http://libproxy.wc.edu:2104/docview/227920508?accountid=7142. Accessed 30 Oct. 2019.
• Patidar, Archana, et al. “3D Printing Technology: An Alternative of Animal Testing.” International Journal of Pharmacy & Life Sciences, vol.7, no.9, Sept. 2016, p.79. EBSCOhost,search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=118973252&site=ehost-live&scope=site. Accessed 1 Nov. 2019
• “Why Test Animals If We Don’t Have To?.” Los Angeles Times 18 July 2016, https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-epa-animal-testing-20160710-snap-story.html Accessed 3 Oct.. 2019