Neal D. Gluck's Second Thoughts Of An Animal Researcher

1330 Words 6 Pages
Although some topics may be considered controversial, they need to be talked about. This is true with the subject of animal testing. In an article published in the New York Times, "Second Thoughts of an Animal Researcher", author John P. Gluck informs the reader why a scientist, who formerly conducted experiments on monkeys, would change his views to be against the practice of animal experimentation. He does this by using personal experiences. In another article, "Animal Research is Wasteful and Misleading", authors Neal D. Barnard and Stephen R. Kaufman use scientific data and evidence to make a logical case against animal testing. Finally, Carl Cohen in "Why animals have no rights" argues that animal testing cannot be a violation of animal …show more content…
John Gluck appeals to his readers’ emotions and morals in “Second Thoughts of an Animal Researcher”. Through personal experience he realized that animals have their own personalities and unique qualities. Gluck also brings logic into the equation when he pointed out that animals have very similar pain receptors to humans. In “Animal Research is Wasteful and Misleading”, Barnard and Kaufman also use logic to persuade against animal experimentation. Data shows that testing on animals is not effective. It can often take research in the wrong direction. Examples, such as experiments proving that smoking both does and does not cause cancer, show how animal testing can be used to prove virtually any theory. Unlike the others, Carl Cohen’s piece, “Why animals have no rights”, is in favor of animal experimentation. He would refute Gluck’s claim that animal testing is morally wrong because he believes animals do not have rights. Animals cannot comprehend moral judgment and cannot intelligibly defend their actions. Out of all three arguments, “Animal Research is Wasteful and Misleading” is the most persuasive because of all the scientific data shown from past experiments. Even if Cohen is correct in saying that we can test on animals because they have no rights, that does not mean that is it always the most logical thing to do. Barnard and Kaufman claim that is it a waste of time and money to test for cures to human diseases on anything that is not human because the results will not be

Related Documents

Related Topics