Shelby Skelton
Yvonne De La Cruz
Writing 10-Essay #3
11/16/2013
The Ethics behind Animal Testing
As a result of technological advances, people are becoming more cognizant of the
impacts of everyday utilized items and materials. Of course testing experimental compounds and
substances on human beings is illegal and immoral due to the possible mutations and death that
may ensue as an effect. The most logical option at that time was the utilization of animal analog
because of their genetic similarity to humans without a government enforced set of rights.
Luckily, PETA and several other humanitarian groups in conjunction with the white house has
implemented several animal saving practices into the controversial HPV (High Production
Volume Chemical Challenge program). However, because the project began in 1999, technology
has greatly advanced since its implementation and the need for animal testing has greatly
diminished (Bishop 1). These advancement’s implementation is not yet wide spread, calling
laboratories to subsequent evaluation in order to protect animal rights.
A balance exists between the harm we are willing to cause for the progression of medical
research and the resulting cures to deadly diseases. The question becomes how many live are we
willing to risk and how many animals are we willing to “consume” in order to same human lives.
Consumptions is the commonly referred to term when utilizing animals in testing. Animals are
affected by all forms of research, biological, psychological, and consumer testing. The term
consumed means no care was taken for the safety of the animal, making the assumption that the
damages inflicted would necessitate euthanasia as the most humane option for the not mangled
of diseased animal. Further insight into the attitude of researchers can be obtained through a
recent report of testing on type 2 diabetes. In order to obtain information, information must be
interpreted since, “None of the known single species is exactly equivalent to human diabetes, but
each model act as essential tool for investigating genetic, endocrine, metabolic, morphologic
changes and underlying aetiopathogenic mechanisms that could also operate during the evolution
of type 2 diabetes in humans (Srinivasan 467)”. Although some could interpret this piece of
information as being a major breakthrough, if you place this in the context of animals, each
model means another animal being consumed. Regardless of the species being experimented
upon, a standard of protection should be established for all cognizant living things. Alternatively,
if no other alternatives existed, the loss of animal life would be much more justifiable than
thousands of individuals losing their lives to experimental drugs or unsafe materials.
Overall, researchers attempt to justify their actions by saying that the suffering and loss
the animal’s lives impart some miraculous research that furthers medicine in a way that will save
thousands of lives further down the road. In an attempt to ensure the safety of the public, the
United States government has necessitated the testing to any medication that is placed into the
commercial market on animals in order to evaluate possible effects and establish a system of
dosages (Latham 2). In few cases, that actually is true, with every drug on the American market
as proof of successful animal testing. Until this legislation is overturned, the possibility of
replacement-one of the 3 R’s of animal testing reform as advocated by Russel and Burch (Saraf
8)- is unfeasible and instead reduction needs to be implemented instead. Animal rights advocates
do not wish to completely obliterate the usage of animals, just streamline the processes in order
to minimize losses. “It also recognizes that immediate abolition of all experiments is not
possible. Vital medical research must continue to find treatments for diseases with lessens the
quality of human and animal life. New consumer products, medicines, and industrial and
agricultural chemicals must be adequately tested in order to identify potential hazards to human
and animal health and to the environment (Ranganatha)”. In order to still abide by the afore
mentioned legislation, the classification of animal has been more loosely adapted in order to
protect more important animals while using more common and easy to produce animals such as
rats and small organisms who does not possess a significant value to humanity.
There exist both benefits and setbacks to removing animal testing from research.
According to Ranganatha, “The use of human tissue in toxicity testing is more accurate than the
animal models”. Many animals cannot withstand the same dosages necessary to treat human
conditions and therefore do not constitute a sufficient analog. However, some basic information
obtained from the way that animal cells respond to small non-lethal amounts could provide some
insight into how human tissue will respond. This human tissue can be obtained through donors
and cadavers to avoid harming the masses and therefore using less animals in the process.
Ethical issues are always at the forefront of animal testing, however, financial viability is
analyzed far less often. A researcher and advocate for animal research stated, “The set up for
conducting animal studies is costly and faculty must be trained in handling animals well (Saraf
8)”. Due to increased Refinement-another of the 3 R’s-animal treatment before the
experimentation even begins means that animal experimentation is more expensive than using
substitutes such as synthetic skin. Ranganatha provides an example of the successes of an testing
substitute with, “InVitro International’s Corrositex (synthetic skin) can provide a chemical
corrosivity determination in as little as 3 minutes to four hours, unlike animal testing that often
takes two to four weeks (Ranganatha 31)”. Because animals are occasionally used or multiple
studies, rarely it may be a better decision to use animals only after all necessary evaluation takes
place. Therefore avoiding animal testing could actually provide beneficial in some instances for
laboratories due to a greater availability of funds to appropriate.
Overall, animal testing should be used sparingly, and only used in order to appease the current
legislature in place. Furthermore, lower order sentient beings need to be used whenever animal
testing is necessary in order to avoid long-term harm in addition to the research benefit that longterm genetic history can be controlled in laboratory rats. The three R’s of moral animal
experimentation needs to be implemented and further regulated by the EPA and FDA. The
research industry is reaching a point where animal experimentation alternatives are very much
available and financially viable, possibly paving the way for animal testing to eventually be
phased out.
Works Cited
Bishop, Patricia, Joseph Manuppello, Catherine Willett, and Jessica Sandler. "Animal Use and
Lessons Learned in the U.S. High Production Volume Chemicals Challenge
Program."Environmental Health Perspectives 120.12 (2012): 1631-639. Academic
Search Complete. Web. 16 Nov. 2013.
Latham, Stephen R. "U.S. Law and Animal Experimentation: A Critical Primer." Hastings
Center Report 42 (n.d.): 35-39. Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 Nov. 2013.
Ranganatha, N., and J. Kuppast. "A REVIEW ON ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMAL TESTING
METHODS IN DRUG DEVELOPMENT." International Journal of Pharmacy &
Pharmaceutical Sciences 4 (2012): 28-32. Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 Nov.
2013
Saraf, Shyam, and Vinay Kumaraswamy. "Basic Research: Issue with Animal
Experimentation."Indian Journal of Orthopaedics 47.1 (n.d.): 6-9. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 14 Nov. 2013
Srinivasan, K., and P. Ramarao. "Animal Models in Type 2 Diabetes Research: An
Overview." Indian Journal of Medical Research (2012): 451-72. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 15 Nov. 2013
Peer Review Feedback Form
Writer: Shelby Skelton
Essay: The Ethics Behing Animal Testing
To the best of your ability, using the assignment and grading rubric for this course, answer the questions
below for your peer accordingly. Peer feedback in this class should be constructive, helpful, and
supportive. When finding weak areas in a peer’s work, leave a comment or ask a question to help
guide them in the improvement of that area.
Clarity—the paper addresses the prompt, there is a clear and concise thesis statement, and an
outline of what’s to come.
I had a difficult time locating your thesis. Are you opposed or for animal testing?
Coherence—the text is easy to understand. Key terms are defined, and a reader’s point of
view is considered along with the writer’s perspective.
The essay was written in an understandable way, it was very logical based and used a very high
lever vocabulary.
Cohesion--the text is arranged efficiently and effectively. It has a chronological structure,
follows a theme, and the organization fits the topic.
The text is very informative about why animal testing is used, and it remains that way
throughout.
Organization—the paper has a logical, thoughtful, and easy-to-follow structure. There is a
thematic/rhetorical thread schema going through the paper. There are effective topic sentences
and transitions.
The essay is well organized.
Development--each body paragraph: 1) provides adequate (quantity and quality) evidence; 2)
develops key ideas thoroughly; and 3) moves the argument further along.
Each paragraph provided a large volume of research and logical based evidence, however I still
had trouble discerning whether or not animal testing was good or bad.
Style—the author’s writing is appropriate for the intended audience and for the assignment.
The text is interesting to read and appropriately representative of a writer’s identity.
Your style seems to be pointed towards the knowledgeable reader. the essay was interesting to
read and learn new facts.
Flow-- the author’s particular selection of words, construction of sentences, arrangement of
ideas, and varied usage of rhetorical strategies is engaging and appropriate for the intended
audience.
The essay flowed nicely.
Logic--explains and supports the problem addressed in a problem-solving thesis.
This I believe was your strong point, there were many sources used
Mechanics-- the paper observes standard English conventions in spelling, grammar,
punctuation, and documentation.
I found your grammar to be used correctly.
Something I really liked about this piece was:
I liked learning about something that I had never heard any information about.
Something I found interesting is:
The logical reasons why animal testing is used.
Something I’d like to ask about this piece is:
What kind of animals do they use for different types of products?
Reviewer: Aaron Barnhart
Peer Review Feedback Form
Writer: Shelby Skelton
Essay: The Ethics Behind Animal Testing
To the best of your ability, using the assignment and grading rubric for this course, answer the questions
below for your peer accordingly. Peer feedback in this class should be constructive, helpful, and
supportive. When finding weak areas in a peer’s work, leave a comment or ask a question to help
guide them in the improvement of that area.
Clarity—the paper addresses the prompt, there is a clear and concise thesis statement, and an outline of
what’s to come.
I think the paper addresses the prompt correctly, however, I think the thesis needs to be improved to
address the topic more and to outline what is to come of your paper. I also think the intro sentence could
be better, too.
Coherence—the text is easy to understand. Key terms are defined, and a reader’s point of view is
considered along with the writer’s perspective.
For the most part, the text is well-defined and easy to understand. The one main part that was unclear was
the 3 R’s of research. I think those need to be laid out and better defined before they are mentioned in the
paper several times. Other than that, I thought the paper was easy to understand!
Cohesion--the text is arranged efficiently and effectively. It has a chronological structure, follows a
theme, and the organization fits the topic.
The text is arranged efficiently, I liked how and where you introduced the opposing view. It is not
chronological necessarily, but with your paper, I don’t think it needs to be.
Organization—the paper has a logical, thoughtful, and easy-to-follow structure. There is a
thematic/rhetorical thread schema going through the paper. There are effective topic sentences and
transitions.
I like the organization of your paper. It could use some smoother transitions, but overall I think the topics
flow into one another very nicely.
Development--each body paragraph: 1) provides adequate (quantity and quality) evidence; 2) develops
key ideas thoroughly; and 3) moves the argument further along.
I do think each body paragraph provides adequate evidence, although you could probably include more
for a bit more detail. The key ideas are developed well, though, and the argument does progress fluidly
throughout the paper.
Style—the author’s writing is appropriate for the intended audience and for the assignment. The text is
interesting to read and appropriately representative of a writer’s identity.
I think the style is appropriate for the given audience and pertains well to the assignment. The text is
interesting, especially the part about using skin samples instead of animals, and easy to read. While it is
hard to represent the writer’s identity in a research paper, I feel she expressed her opinion on the topic
nicely towards the end.
Flow-- the author’s particular selection of words, construction of sentences, arrangement of ideas, and
varied usage of rhetorical strategies is engaging and appropriate for the intended audience.
While I think the diction was appropriate for a scholarly audience, I think some words did not need to be
so large and complex. For instance, as soon as I read the first sentence, I was already questioning what the
word “cognizant” meant. I do like the structure though, and the word choice was nice.
Logic--explains and supports the problem addressed in a problem-solving thesis.
The body paragraphs support the problem, but the thesis needs to be stronger and more relevant to the
topic.
Mechanics-- the paper observes standard English conventions in spelling, grammar, punctuation, and
documentation.
There were only a few minor typos, and aside from those, the mechanics of the paper were executed well.
Informal Peer Review:
Something I really liked about this piece was:
I liked your presentation of the various sides of the argument, I thought it was nice how you introduced
details that were truly opposing your argument and could cause the audience to disagree with your side. I
also like your topic in general.
Something I found interesting is:
I found it interesting that it is more expensive to use animals in research than it is synthetic skin. I would
have thought it to be the exact opposite, hence why we use animals instead.
Something I’d like to ask about this piece is:
I would like to ask what the 3 R’s of moral animal experimentation are and why they are not being
implemented today in animal testing.
Reviewer: Catie Hall
Peer Review Feedback Form
Writer: Shelby Skelton
Essay: The Ethics Behind Animal Testing
To the best of your ability, using the assignment and grading rubric for this course, answer the questions
below for your peer accordingly. Peer feedback in this class should be constructive, helpful, and
supportive. When finding weak areas in a peer’s work, leave a comment or ask a question to help
guide them in the improvement of that area.
Clarity—the paper addresses the prompt, there is a clear and concise thesis statement, and an
outline of what’s to come.
Yes, and it does so very informatively. Could use a little emotion though robot ;)
Coherence—the text is easy to understand. Key terms are defined, and a reader’s point of
view is considered along with the writer’s perspective.
Finally, is all I can say when it comes to this peer review shenanigans. Good shit
Cohesion--the text is arranged efficiently and effectively. It has a chronological structure,
follows a theme, and the organization fits the topic.
Yes, yes, yes, berry gud
Organization—the paper has a logical, thoughtful, and easy-to-follow structure. There is a
thematic/rhetorical thread schema going through the paper. There are effective topic sentences
and transitions.
Great organization, I’m glad you kicked this one out of the ballpark as your rough drafts
are concerned
Development--each body paragraph: 1) provides adequate (quantity and quality) evidence; 2)
develops key ideas thoroughly; and 3) moves the argument further along.
I SAY, this paper is well written
Style—the author’s writing is appropriate for the intended audience and for the assignment.
The text is interesting to read and appropriately representative of a writer’s identity.
It is very informative, and you have the evidence to back it up. I like it
Flow-- the author’s particular selection of words, construction of sentences, arrangement of
ideas, and varied usage of rhetorical strategies is engaging and appropriate for the intended
audience.
Damn good madam!
Logic--explains and supports the problem addressed in a problem-solving thesis.
Yez, iz nize, very nize
Mechanics-- the paper observes standard English conventions in spelling, grammar,
punctuation, and documentation.
There are quite a bit of grammatical errors, but other than that the paper is good!