Rebuttal—Dunkindonuts

Animal Testing is Necessary

P1: What is a better way to find a cure to prevent diseases for humans, without harming any in the process? Animals have been used most commonly by researchers in order to find the right medicine to help. According to the organization Understanding Animal Research, animals are known to “suffer from similar diseases to humans including cancers, TB, flu and asthma.” This helps compare the reaction animals have with the reaction of humans. Since particular animal bodies are very similar to humans, about 95%, it only seems right to test it on them first.

P2: This method kills two birds with one stone. First off, humans will not be harmed throughout this process and if everything goes well, there will also be a solution in the end. For example, cancer survivors have “doubled in the past 40 years.” This would not have been possible if it was not for animal research. Thanks to these animal methods the pre-clinical contract research organization Pharma Models states,  “oncologists have achieved a great amount of knowledge in their field and extended the lifespan of countless patients.” World-wide, numerous of human’s lives have been saved due to animal testing.

P3: When it comes to finding another method of finding cures, there is nothing that would be able to replace all the animals in research. Yes, even though there are other procedures available to not harm animals, there is nothing as great as using them. The bodies of mice, rats, fish and birds have all been found with a similar body system as humans. Because of that, animals are just as susceptible to diseases as humans are, allowing researchers to find the cure on them just as easy. From the result of this type of research, there have been medicines created starting from asthma and insulin to cancer and kidney transplants. The medicine just keeps growing and only will continue with the help from animals.

P4: If humans were to be tested more often than animals, it would just lead to an “extremely complex” method. Researchers would only be able to retrieve helpful information in small intervals which would not allow them to study more of what is going on inside the rest of the body. Also, some tests are straight up unethical to use on humans. The lives of some could be put in danger, exposing them to chemicals that should have been experimented on animals beforehand. Animals do not have the same rights as humans do. Since they do not have the same “cognitive ability or moral judgment” as humans, it gives researchers a go ahead to continue using them. When it comes to certain products, “the US Food and Drug Administration endorses the use of animal tests”, like makeup. They do this to ensure the safety of the human consumers. When it comes to an extent, this is the least harmful thing animals go through. Minimal animals are used for testing meanwhile, billions of cattle, chickens and pigs are being eaten everyday which is not compared to the number that is being tested on.

P5. Animal testing is not about purposefully harming the animals, its about the outcome that comes from it. If there was no benefit in the end from these experiments, it would not be worth it. There is a whole lot of information out in the world about medicine that no one knows about. Since there are so many unanswered questions, we can not just guess this type of knowledge. Having animals available allows researchers to test and see what else is out there. If they stop using animals and rely on technology for alternative methods, there is no guarantee it will relate to a real living thing. So, using animals for testing gives researchers the ability to observe and experiment without taking away the actuality of it.

P6: Not only has “animal research been regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act”, but animals receive a benefit out of these tests as well. If it were not for some being tested on to find a cure, there would be “millions of animals who would have died.” Also, it would not have resulted in “saving endangered species from extinction.” Animal testing may have its downsides but there are also lots of upsides to it all. Humans are getting a benefit out of these test and are able to live a better, healthier life. If it were not for these few animal groups used for experimentation, there would be a higher rate of deaths per year. Animals and humans having a very similar body system creates an easy task for researchers. Even though animal testing may have negative sides to it, the positives help overlook that.

Works Cited

“Animal Testing – ProCon.org.” Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing? N.p., 24 May 2016. Web. 03 Apr. 2017.

Chu-Carroll on April 2, 2009, Mark C. “Can Simulations Replace Animal Testing? Alas, No.” Good Math, Bad Math. Seed Media Group, n.d. Web. 01 May 2017.

“Medical Benefits.” Speaking of Research. N.p., 06 Apr. 2016. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

Pharma Models. “Animal Testing Significantly Advances Cancer Research.” Animal Testing Significantly Advances Cancer Research. N.p., 13 May 2014. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

This entry was posted in A09: Rebuttal Argument, dunkindonuts. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Rebuttal—Dunkindonuts

  1. davidbdale says:

    Dunkin, you have collected excellent sources here for a Rebuttal argument, but, as you now understand, you’ve employed them incompletely. The first correction is to connect the random-seeming quotation marks in your text to the actual language used by your actual sources and identify them with informal citation as modeled here: https://rowancomp2.com/informal-citation/

    Then, instead of letting their claims stand, you need to refute them by attacking their methods, their evidence, their credibility, or their conclusions.

    You’ve made some intriguing claims of your own that you haven’t backed up yet. I hope you can. You say “alternative methods” can replace animal testing and produce even better results, cheaper and more humanely. You haven’t named a single method. Nobody will believe you until you do. Do you have primary sources for that?

  2. dunkindonuts10 says:

    I have added in-text citations when needed.
    I will be making sure to add alternative methods that are available to my final paper as I have found some but just did not add it in my paper.

  3. dunkindonuts10 says:

    I have added P5 and talked more in P6. I tried to elaborate more on how using humans or alternative method is not that great as it seems and why they should continue with animal testing as my rebuttal.

  4. davidbdale says:

    Improvements noted.
    Regraded.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s