Specific Purpose “ To persuade my audience that animal testing is wrong and how other safer alternatives should be taken Essay
Specific Purpose â€“ To persuade my audience that animal testing is wrong and how other safer alternatives should be taken.
Central Idea â€“ By going the extra mile in using safer alternatives when experimenting with animals will not only prevent conflicts from pro-life activists, it will minimize lawsuits and morals will be preserved.Introduction I. Okay I got a riddle I made up for the class. A.
What was once cute and furry but becomes a bloody rotted mess? B. You guys give up? C.
Well the answer to this question is an animal that has undergone chemical testing. II.
I know that wasn’t too funny but I needed some sort of attention-grabber and this hit home on the question of my topic; whether animal testing is right or wrong. A. After all, the question whether animals should be tested is often hotly debated. B.
Through intense research I have discovered that the issue on whether animals should be experimented upon, or “vivisection”, has cropped up in history as early as the 17th century.
III. Although animal testing is much less frequent today than in the past, I will reinforce the idea that alternatives to animal testing should be preserved today. A.
I will first explain the conflicts in the past where animal testing caused many problems. B. Then I will reinforce the solution to animal testing by discussing the various alternatives that can be taken.Transition: Let us first look at the problem of animal testing.
BodyI. As I have mentioned, the question on animal testing was posed even as early as the 17th century, according to the All For Animals Newsletter. A. According to this newsletter, Philosopher Jeremy Bentham rejected philosopher Rene Descartes’ theory that because animals have no reasoning that humans have, they therefore cannot feel pain or suffering.
1. But Bentham went further in this issue, rejecting Descartes’ idea because the idea of reasoning was irrelevant on the moral issue whether animals should be tested. 2. Bentham’s philosophy on animals, instead, was: “The question is not can they reason? Nor can they talk? But could they suffer?” B.
Vivisection began early after Bentham’s time period as scientists cut open animals to learn about the functions of the heart, lungs, and other parts of the body.C. The practice of testing cosmetics on animals started around 1933. 1.
This began after a woman used Lush Lure cosmetics darken her eye lashes. 2. The woman’s eyes eventually burned, and later the woman became blind and eventually died. 3.
Because of this incident, the Food and Drug Administration passed the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in 1938 to protect the public from unsafe cosmetics and resorted to animals for testing dangerous cosmetics.D. Other deadly tests on animals that began to crop up included the Draize Test and another tested called LD50. 1.
The Draize Test was named after the Federal Drug Administration scientist John Draize. a. In this test, substances were dropped directly into an animal’s eye usually an albino rat and results were recorded. b.
Through this inhumanity, the first successful eye droppers were developed. 2. The other test was the LD50, or in longhand, the Lethal Dose 50. a.
According to a National Institute of Health release, this procedure was where a substance was fed to a group of animals until half the test subjects died. b. This example to me personally represents the epitome of cruelty by modern science toward animals.Transition: Now that I have explained the cruel injustices of animals in the past, let us now look at how these problems are solved today.
II. One of the ways animals are now protected is through laws and organizations. 1. One such important law that was signed in 1966 was the Animal Welfare Act that regulates the treatment of animals in research, exhibition, transport, and by dealers.
a. In brief, certain animals could only be used in laboratories. b. Also, records were to be kept on number of animals and details on the animal experimentation.
2. There are also such organizations as the National Institute of Health, The American Anti-Vivisection Society, as well as the The Humane Society of the United States to name a few.3. One other animals rights organization, the Alternatives Research Development Foundation, has made it on the news recently with a winning lawsuit against the United States Agriculture Department.
a. With this won lawsuit, the USDA is required to expand Animal Welfare Acts to not only include chimpanzees, cats and guinea pigs, but to also include rats, mice, and birds. b. Researchers estimate that biomedical laboratories will be required to pay from 80 to 90 million dollars for scientific research.
c. Director of the department, John McArdle, even estimated that there are around 23 million rodents used for research in medical schools, pharmaceutical companies and other laboratories. d. According to this won lawsuit for the Alternatives Research Development Foundation, Tina Nelson, executive director of the American Anti-Vivisection Society states, “The more than 90 percent of animals used in laboratories who currently have no legal protection could now be covered by federal law.
“Conclusion I. On a closing note, I would just like to re-mention that alternatives have already been taken to prevent animals from being subjected to the cruelties of scientific research. II. I merely wanted to reinforce the idea on how most vivisection problems are now solved, and should stay solved.
III. After all, if you were a guinea pig or albino rat, would you like to be tested upon by dangerous chemicals?