Issues related to animal experimentation are frequently discussed these days college term papers free download, particularly in the media. It is often said that animals should not be used in testing because it is cruel and unnecessary. This essay will examine the arguments for and against animal testing. Take a look at the question and model answer below essay on my family, and think about how the essay has been organised and how it achieves coherence and cohesion. Ideas are also extended and supported by the use of reasons and some examples or further clarification. No ideas are left unclear or unexplained. It is thus very clearly organised papers on plagiarism, with each body paragraph having a central idea. In conclusion, I am of the opinion example of how to write an essay, on balance, that the benefits do not outweigh the disadvantages short essay about my city, and testing on animals should not continue. Although it may improve the lives of humans, it is not fair that animals should suffer in order to achieve this. This animal testing essay would achieve a high score. It fully answers all parts of the task - explaining the arguments 'for ' in the first paragraph and the arguments 'against ' in the next. Conclusions are then drawn with the writer giving their opinion in the conclusion. However, many people believe that animal testing is justified because the animals are sacrificed to make products safer for human use and consumption. The problem with this reasoning is that the animals' safety, well-being, and quality of life is generally not a consideration. Experimental animals are virtually tortured to death, and all of these tests are done in the interest of human welfare, without any thought to how the animals are treated. Others respond that animals themselves benefit from animal research. Yet in an article entitled "Is Your Experiment Really Necessary?" Sheila Silcock, a research consultant for the RSPCA an example of a college essay, states: "Animals may themselves be the beneficiaries of animal experiments. But the value we place on the quality of their lives is determined by their perceived value to humans" (34). Making human's lives better should not be justification for torturing and exploiting animals. The value that humans place on their own lives should be extended to the lives of animals as well. Against Animal Testing. The Body Shop, 1993. Orlans, F. Barbara. In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation. New York: Oxford UP, 1993. However, many people are concerned that animals are suffering unnecessarily and cruelly. They do not believe that every new drug needs to be tested on animals, especially with the huge database of knowledge and modern computer models. They also are worried that many animal tests are ineffective. pointing out that any drugs have had to be withdrawn from the market despite extensive testing. They particularly feel that animal testing should not be used for non-essential products such as cosmetics essay on my family, shampoos, soaps, and cleaning products. Furthermore, some campaigners would like to see certain tests replaced and more humane methods used. We need to make sure that the millions of animals who are used for testing new products are treated with the minimum of suffering. Although some animal testing may be unavoidable at present. treating our fellow creatures as mercifully as possible will demonstrate our humanity . While some contest the use of animals for animal testing it is not a new idea. Research tests conducted on living animals have been practiced since 500 BC. Nonetheless there are those who argue that the use of animals for testing is an inhumane and cruel practice. They argue that alternative methods should be developed to prohibit the need for animal testing. Many organizations such as PETA fight for increased research into alternative methods of testing so that testing on animals can be alleviated. They also argue that tests on animals will yield irrelevant results compared to humans and therefore there is no purpose in animal testing. Furthermore, animal rights supporters label scientists as ‘cruel’ for causing animals to die in medical experiments, while they do not oppose the people, mostly farmers, who kill animals for food, even though they know that 99% of animals deaths is caused by farmers while only a small percentage essay about money and success, i.e. 1% is caused by scientists. The underlying reason for that is they find scientists easier to attack and cannot deal with farmers who are organized and strong. Although the animal rights activists claim that people and animals are equal and thus they should be treated equally writing application letters sample, I think that people and animals cannot be seen equal, and therefore the death of an animal cannot be the same thing as the death of a person. For that reason, causing animals to die for science, for the sake of saving human lives, may be considered ethical to some extent if it will contribute to the advancement of science and will be to the benefit of humanity in general.
0 Comentarios
Deja una respuesta. |
ArchivosCategorías |