As he backed himself into the corner of the cage, fear penetrated the little guinea pig’s eyes while he watched the man carrying a scary needle closer to him. Now imagine that little guinea pig being your pet. Being a pet owner, you can tell when your pet is sad, happy, or not acting like themselves. Thinking about that, I picture my guinea pig in a scary room with strangers who continuously do tests on him and that is truly terrifying. There are many questions about animal testing. Is it right? Is it wrong? If major companies have been doing it for years, it can’t be that bad. Little does anyone realize, there is another way we could conduct tests that do not harm animals in the slightest. No animals should be tested on because although a few studies have shown to help humans, the tests are very harmful to animals when there are other ways to test products. Should animals be used for biomedical research? In the article, “Animal Testing and Its Gifts to Humans” (April, 2015), written by Frankie Trull at the Wall Street Journal, it is argued that animal testing is necessary in the development of finding cures to certain diseases. An experiment done at Duke University, found a treatment for Glioblastoma, an aggressive brain tumor, using a virus that was injected into the brains of macaque monkeys. Another drug that was made to fight Ebola showed incredible results when tested on Rhesus Monkeys. A study in 1996 was done where they infected the cells of Mice to see if they could use the polio virus to eliminate human tumors – a study that was very successful. Trull adds that critics say animal testing is needlessly cruel. Many of those critics argue that these studies are not relevant to humans because they were done on animals. Trull replies that animals and humans have very much in common. Trull finishes by saying that if you doubt animal testing, then just look at the lives that have been saved by these trials. In the article “Animals Do Not Need to Be Harmed for Better Products” (May, 2016), the author Carly Yashiki argues that testing products on animals should be banned because it is not needed. Yashiki explains that over 100 million test on animals have been done that lead to pain and suffering of that said animal. Well-known brands such as Maybelline, Dove, Mac, and etc. are all products that test on animals. Yashiki mentions that there are bills being introduced that can put an end to testing on animals but while that is being done, there is more we can do. We can start buying cruelty-free products instead of one that test on animals. Another solution Yashiki mentioned was using human cells instead of testing on animals. These human cells would be preferred over animals because it would replicate how this product would work on humans instead of potentially hurting an animal. Out of all the experiments done on animals and have been successful, 92% of those still fail the human trials. Yashiki ends her article by stating that even though animal testing is legal, it is not absolutely required due to the fact that it is either ineffective or dangerous, and ends up being very wasteful and expensive. Trull’s article, “Animal Testing
…show more content…
Using scientific data from tests that the physicians and scientists at numerous universities have conducted, you are able to determine how a product would work on an actual person. This article appeared in the Wall Street Journal, so her audience consists of those reading for business and financial news. In Trull’s case, this is considered business news because it focuses around business’s that test on animals. Trull pushes to raise awareness about all the success that testing on animals has had. Trull is a Biomedical researcher, so it is understandable that her viewpoint would be for animal testing in order to find cures. She mainly took a very biased side when writing because she was not worried about the harm it would cause the animal, but only the outcome of the harm being done. Trull’s approach leaned more towards the appeal of logos. She used specific data revolving around testing on animals that proved successful when then used on
Using scientific data from tests that the physicians and scientists at numerous universities have conducted, you are able to determine how a product would work on an actual person. This article appeared in the Wall Street Journal, so her audience consists of those reading for business and financial news. In Trull’s case, this is considered business news because it focuses around business’s that test on animals. Trull pushes to raise awareness about all the success that testing on animals has had. Trull is a Biomedical researcher, so it is understandable that her viewpoint would be for animal testing in order to find cures. She mainly took a very biased side when writing because she was not worried about the harm it would cause the animal, but only the outcome of the harm being done. Trull’s approach leaned more towards the appeal of logos. She used specific data revolving around testing on animals that proved successful when then used on