The use of animals in research has become a hot topic these days, with people questioning whether it is ethical or not. However, the use of animals for research purposes is nothing new. Ancient Greek doctors dissected animals for anatomical studies because the use of humans was considered taboo. As medical science progressed, the number of animals used for experimentation also increased, particularly in the 19th and 20th centuries. So, with the increase in the number of animals used, opposition against it has also increased. Organizations such as CAAT, ECEAE and PETA were created to protect animal rights. Rather, organizations such as Pro-Test, the Biomedical Research Foundation, and the Research Defense Society were created to support animal testing. In this essay, we will examine both perspectives from both groups. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay First, we will examine the perspective that supports the use of animals for research. An article published by The Guardian “Animal research may be justified – but 'kindness' doesn't matter” written by Obaro Evuarherhe. The credibility of the source can be judged by the fact that it is published by a very reputable British newspaper. The writer is a very learned person who studied at the University of Bristol and holds a doctorate in neuroscience. The writer begins by giving an example of how he lost a debate to an animal rights activist even though he had experience in the field. He lost the debate once the facts were established. He goes on to say that despite the genuine concern that animal researchers have for animals, they inevitably come to a point where they must choose between one creature over another, the other creature being us humans. I think the way the author begins his article is quite engaging, he is able to grab the reader's attention with his direct approach. The fact that he admits that he lost the debate shows that he is very accepting of the outcome of the debate and is not afraid to admit defeat, which I believe makes him helps build trust between the reader and themselves. Asking a hypothetical question like “Whether the life of a little girl or a mouse is more important” is incredibly arrogant. He cites Gandhi to establish his view that some of history's greatest thinkers believed in the sanctity of all conscious creatures. I think the author quoting Gandhi strengthens his argument because he is quoting someone who is very well known and has a good reputation. The philosophical debate about the sanctity of living creatures should not be taken lightly. He gives an example of how most people choose a lamb's delicious taste over its cuteness, following it with a sarcastic remark. The author then criticizes an article published by Daily Mail regarding the use of kittens and calls it "ignorant and irresponsible." I think the writer is being somewhat childish and irresponsible in openly criticizing a famous newspaper. The writer could have had a more subtle approach, but he chooses an aggressive approach. Openly criticizing someone does not leave a very lasting impression on the reader. The author further downgrades the Daily Mail article by pointing out that the photos taken are from Wisconsin. How they provide honest details about experiences may be constructive but is irrelevantwith the author's argument. At many Russell Group universities, research has not been carried out for years and a University of Cambridge spokesperson says it was carried out on a small number of cats in order to find a new treatment for amblyopia. Apart from this, it ignores the Daily Mail article by stating that universities carrying out the research would need approval from the Home Office. Openly criticizing the article is something I personally think is the wrong approach taken in this paragraph, but the author is able to start a good debate against the other article. He gives examples of Russell Group universities that instantly established the credibility of his research. Sarcastically, the writer states that everything he has written is irrelevant and all that matters is that the experiment is about kittens, who are an embodiment of cuteness. Again, I believe that the use of sarcasm in the article may not appeal to some readers and it somehow weakens his argument and makes it seem more childish. The benefits of animals in research are significant, from heart transplantation to blood transfusions and more. Many of us have benefited from the use of animals in one form or another. I think the writings are able to present a fair view that animal research has benefited us, I don't think many people would dispute that. The main argument, in my opinion, is whether it is ethical for us to use them. The author does well to give a very balanced conclusion in the following paragraph. The author makes three points. First, replace animals wherever alternatives are present. Second, reduce the number of animals. Finally, refine experiences to minimize pain. The author states a reality that we should approach the use of animals with an open mind and objectivity rather than being overwhelmed by emotion. He gives his own point of view, so not everyone has to accept it. Finally, the author concludes his article by stating that animals being put under anesthesia before plates are inserted into their skulls is no different from what humans experience on a daily basis. So if we trust the experts who devote their entire lives to studying mammalian biology to provide us with treatments that benefit us, then those who have an easy answer to the questions mentioned at the beginning must accept the full weight of the moral dilemma that this subject present. . While the others are still thinking about this, I tip my hat to them. So the author makes a very strong logical argument at the end by comparing that humans also undergo many procedures and that we should trust the experts when it comes to animal research. In another article published by the Telegraph “Should we experiment on animals? Yes”, written by Colin Blakemore, British neurobiologist. He is the author of numerous books and has received awards for his contributions to science. He is also a professor at the University of Oxford. So, given his credentials, he is a very educated person. The writer shares many similar opinions to Evuarherhe. He begins his article by asking the following question: what do vaccines, antibiotics, organ transplants, etc. have in common? ? He replies that they were all developed through animal testing. Additionally, he further states that alternatives should be used whenever possible, no one chooses to use animals if they are not necessary. He states that humans and animalsas rats and mice react the same way to diseases. However, one of the main counter-arguments in favor of using animals in research is that in many cases the response to certain drugs is not similar, this view will be discussed further down the line. 'antithesis. He claims that animal research contributed to 70 percent of Nobel Prizes in physiology or medicine, but without providing proof. To strengthen his argument, he gives the example of the tragic case of Daniel James, who committed suicide after being paralyzed in an attempt to stop British research using rats. He therefore adds that those who oppose the use of animals have the right to refuse treatment. I think it makes some sense, if you don't want animal research done, then just refuse to be treated for diseases for which animal research has been done. The author ends his article by stating that many diseases are still incurable and therefore we still need animals to find cures and test them. Overall, I believe that the article is somewhat biased and at times the author becomes aggressive. However, he does not completely fail, his arguments are logical and can be reasoned with. Now, let's look at the other side of the perspective, which is that it is wrong to use animals for research. The main article that will be analyzed is published by the New York Times “Saving the Animals: New Ways to Test Products” written by Barnaby J. Feder. The publishing journal has a very good reputation. The writer has written numerous articles for the New York Times and has been writing for quite a long time, so he has a lot of experience. The author begins by stating that the skin, eyes, etc. Humans are routinely grown in test tubes from donated human cells in order to replace animals in drug tests. The author goes on to highlight other alternative methods to animal testing, for example the use of simulation software. The development of these alternatives shows what happens when pressure for change meets a scientific challenge. The author then quotes Alan M. Goldberg, a professor of toxicology, who says it is disappointing that development has been rather slow. The author quotes a knowledgeable person who establishes the credibility of the article. It is estimated that millions of animals are killed each year for research purposes. This could be an ordeal for companies who have to give a lot of explanations to animal rights activists. The article fails to establish where the estimates come from, so the reader is unsure whether or not to trust the author. The main factors that have caused companies to abandon animal testing are reliability and high costs. Industry executives say about 25 percent of drugs show no side effects in animals and then had to be discontinued. Companies therefore use several animals and species to test their products. Questions regarding the benefits and costs of animal use are increasing. The article also fails to support its statement with evidence. There has been a 50 percent decrease in the number of laboratory animals sacrificed since the 1970s among species tracked by the Department of Agriculture, in 2005 the total was 1.18 million. However, tracking total numbers is difficult and government statistics exclude many creatures. The author quotes Martin Stephens, vice president of animal research issues at the Humane Society of the United States, who agrees that the numbers are in.