안녕하세요 :)
오늘은 리서치 페이퍼 혹은 리서치 에세이에 대해서 포스팅 해드려요!
거의 대부분의 영어권 대학에서 자주 등장하는 에세이 과제로, 리서치 페이퍼는 필수이세요~!
English 수업을 제외하고도, psychology, sociology, economic 등등 리서치 페이퍼는 정말 많이 접하실거에요~
리서치 페이퍼에서 제일 중요한 부분은 어떤 소스를 이용을 하냐일것같아요~!
그래서 토픽을 정하실때도 퀄리티가 높은 좋은 자료가 많은 토픽을 정하시는게 유리하세요~
보통 그런 자료들을 scholar sources 혹은 peer-reviewed 자료라고 불려져요~
이러한 검증된 자료를 기반으로 리서치 페이퍼를 작성하셔야 점수를 잘 받으실수있으니 참고하시면 좋을것같아요 :)
아무쪼록, 저희는 어떤식으로 리서치 페이퍼를 작성했는지 샘플 확인해보시고, 궁금하신 사항있으시면 언제든지 저희 이메일로 문의 부탁드릴게요 :)
그럼 타지에서 유학하시는 모든 분들이 저희 리서치 에세이 샘플 보시고 도움 많이 되셨으면 좋겠어요!
감사합니다! :)
REASERCH ESSAY SAMPLE
The Moral Grounding of
Animal Testing: Final Essay
Animal
testing refers to the practice of conducting experimental projects on animals prior to human clinical trials to examine the
toxicity, dosage, and efficacy of pharmaceutical products (Sepahban, 2015). For
decades, animal testing to check the safety of human drugs has been in practice
despite the contentious debate as to whether the practice is ethical. On the one hand, proponents of animal testing
posit that mainly the practice has
enabled the development of vital life-saving drugs for humans and animals. On
the other hand, opponents of animal testing opine that the practice is cruel on
animals and that alternatives to animal testing exist (Akhtar, 2015). While
concerns regarding the cruelty of animal testing are valid, animal testing has
historically reduced the impact of deadly diseases necessitated by the
complexity of anatomy and physiological aspects that leaves no adequate
alternatives to save for the more
inhumane experimentation on human beings.
Historically,
the practice of animal testing has contributed to the development of
life-saving drugs and treatments; without which humanity
would still be batting severe illnesses.
Franco (2013) asserts that animal testing has led to many scientific and
medical breakthroughs in the past century such as blood transfusions, organ
transplants, and vaccinations that have resulted
to a better quality of life for humans. Experiments on animals are crucial to advancing biomedical knowledge,
which helps to understand how drugs would work on human beings. Testing on
animals has allowed scientists to identify side effects of medications before humans can use them.
Additionally, animal testing also helps to evaluate the efficacy of drugs, and therefore
determine their utility in treating human disease. This process therefore enables the development of drugs that
are both safe and effective. The development of vaccines, one of the most
significant advances in disease prevention and eradication, was aided in large
part by animal testing (Botting, 2015). Testing on animals led to the
development of vaccines against diseases such as smallpox, diphtheria and
tetanus. Additionally, animal testing was crucial in the development of antibiotics; drastically
reducing mortality due to infectious illnesses
that in turn contributed to the population boom the world has experienced.
Furthermore, the development of insulin revolutionized
the treatment of diabetes; and this procedure
was first isolated from animals (Botting, 2015). Animal testing has further
enabled the development of more sophisticated forms of treatments such as cardiac pacemakers and organ transplants. These
advances in medical treatment would not be possible without animal testing.
The
argument against animal testing fails to recognize
that there are no adequate alternatives to testing experimental cures and
treatments on a living, whole body system. Humans and animals are similar in
many anatomical and physiological aspects; and it would be difficult to
accomplish the needed experimental therapeutic studies without using animals (Hajar,
2011). One, human anatomy and animal anatomy are both incredibly complicated for
cell cultures in petri dishes to be used as alternatives. Drug behavior is not similar in cell cultures as
within a living system, mainly due to the effects of metabolizing body organs such as the liver (Katzung & Trevor, 2016).
As a result, a cell culture method is
therefore inadequate to yield complete and relevant information; and cannot be
solely relied on during drug experimentation. Additionally, In-vitro or
cellular techniques also lack scientific validation and standardization (Mak, Evaniew, & Ghert, 2014); hence, they are
not a viable alternative to conventional animal testing. Some opponents of
animal testing have proposed the use of less sophisticated
organisms due to their potential lack of a well-developed nervous system that
increases the capacity to suffer and feel pain. However, even the use of less complex organisms faces drawbacks such as their
lack of an immune system; making it difficult to carry out certain types of research such as vaccine
studies. Therefore, the complexity of drug testing and the lack of a viable
alternative makes animal testing a necessity in realizing
future medical breakthroughs.
If
animal testing is abolished, the only
other physiological alternative is conducting experimental tests on humans,
which is much worse. Incidents such as the Tuskegee syphilis experiments or the
Nazi medical experiments reveal the inhumane and unethical reaches of human testing
and the long-lasting consequences involved. Abandoning animal testing in favor of human testing would expose people to
the dangerous effects of medicines in the preclinical stages of drug testing.
In particular, toxicology tests that are essential to hazard and risk
assessment cannot be carried out on human subjects as they would be dangerous
for human health (Klitzman, 2015). Human testing would lead to mutagenic,
teratogenic and carcinogenic effects of drugs, as well as other adverse general
toxic effects on the human body. This impact not only makes human testing
impractical, but it would also be unethical to expose human beings to the
dangers associated with drug testing. At the same time, computer models or
simulations are still currently far from being reliable to provide accurate
information about the efficacy and side effects of experimental drugs on
humans. Computer-based methods are used to provide information about drug
absorption, to model diseases such as asthma, diabetes and cardiovascular
disease, as well as to evaluate drug toxicity (Doke & Dhawale, 2016). These
models aim to predict relationships of drug interaction within the body;
however, the information they provide is statistical and the results do not adequately
capture the complexity of biological systems. Therefore, computer models cannot
accurately predict human reactions to
drugs; and such tests will still require additional animal or human testing. Other
techniques such as microdosing, which has
been proposed as a new technique to reduce animal testing by measuring how
small doses of drugs move within the body, also have limitations as they cannot
predict toxicity at higher doses (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011). As such, the
current alternatives to animal testing have not developed to a level that is
reliable enough to provide conclusive evidence on the effects of drugs on the human body. Animal testing therefore remains as the most
appropriate solution for drug experimentation; and abandoning it for less
effective alternatives would be an unrealistic endeavor.
Additionally,
modern regulations have ensured that animal
testing is performed with the ethical
consideration for animals. Today, moral scientists
attempt as much as possible to protect animals by not using animals or not
inflicting pain where possible. According to Ferdowsian and Beck (2011), it is widely acknowledged among the scientific
community that animals can experience pain and distress. As a result,
scientists have modified experimentation to apply ethical measures such as te use of anaesthetic and analgesic agents to
assist in reducing the impact of suffering experienced by animals. Other
refinement techniques include improvement of animal
housing to satisfy the physiological needs of animals and therefore
improve their well-being (Franco, 2013). Where possible, animal testing is also
conducted using noninvasive procedures by applying good animal welfare and
humane science (Festing & Wilkinson, 2007). Scientists design
methodologically sound research procedures whereby the method of administration
and the effects of the drug on the animal are
taken into account. This move is intended to reduce undue harm to the
animal. Moreover, scientists operate under various legal controls for
protecting animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes (Sepahban,
2015). These restrictions not only ensure
that the use of animals is justified,
they also promote fair treatment of animals during the research process. Regulatory measures and legislation put in place by many countries,
including the United States, help to ensure that animal testing is in line with
ethical considerations.
However,
opponents of animal testing argue that the practice is cruel and inhumane, and for
some animal rights groups, the practice should
therefore be abolished altogether. Animal rights groups and animal
protection activists criticize the method of animal testing, citing that animals are subjected to unnecessarily painful
procedures (Akhtar, 2015). The argument follows that from an ethical
standpoint, all animals have a right to exist and not to be subjected to unnecessary pain in the name of
scientific research. Also, it is common practice to euthanize animals used in testing after they have served their
purpose under various medical procedures during their period in captivity. While it is expected that this killing should be done
in a manner that does not subject animals to additional pain, animal rights
group readily find evidence of animals subjected to death that in some cases
can be considered to be cruel (Cressey, 2013). On the other hand, some
opponents of animal testing oppose the practice on
the grounds that no animal should be
placed in captivity.
Additionally, while regulations exist to protect animal welfare, animal
rights groups argue that these regulations
fail to protect the animals most used for experimentation
such as mice, rats, and frogs which constitute 80-95 percent of animals
that are experimented upon (American
Psychological Association, 2002). These arguments by opponents question the
ethicality of the practice on various grounds.
As a
rebuttal, while these concerns are valid, it would not be reasonable to abolish
animal testing altogether as it has significant benefits for human health. Complete
and immediate abolishment of animal testing would have enormous and severe
consequences for scientific research of cures and treatments; as it will hamper
the development of medicines and medical devices. In the past century,
incidents involving the release of drugs
that had not undergone animal testing led to mass adverse effects, including
deaths of hundreds of people. According to Hajar (2011), these incidents
illustrate human harm due to use of substances that have not been tested on humans, and underlie the
importance of human experimentation to avert or prevent human tragedy.
Moreover, there should be a middle ground for how animal testing should be
conducted (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011). The purpose and benefits of testing should be
considered, all while ensuring high standards of human welfare and
considering alternatives where possible. In vitro testing does provide insights
into an experimental cure or treatment
but it is an inadequate procedure as far as the effects of the remedy on the human body are concerned (Doke &
Dhawale, 2015). Alternative methods are therefore useful for understanding the
model of disease or treatment but cannot replace animal testing.
With
the need to develop cures and treatments for human and animal ailments, the
lack of more effective alternatives due to the complexity of anatomy and
physiology, and the ethics of human experimentation makes the argument for
animal testing morally and ethically justified. Historically, animal testing
has been beneficial to human health and it would pose a significant danger to medical research and public health if the
practice is abandoned. This move would not only set back drug
development, it would also harm human
health by exposing human beings to unsafe drugs. Nevertheless, stakeholders should work
towards reducing the number and suffering of animals in research. Responsible
use of animals in scientific research has benefits for both human health and
animal welfare. Ethical animal testing through the use of the 3Rs; replacement
of animals with non-living models, reduction in use
of animals and refinement of animal use practices; is necessary for advancement
in drug discovery, and helps to uphold the moral responsibility of humane
animal treatment.
References
American Psychological
Association (2002). Rats, mice and birds excluded from Animal Welfare Act. Monitor on Psychology, 33(7), 14.
Akhtar, A. (2015). The flaws
and human harms of animal experimentation. Cambridge Quarterly of
Healthcare Ethics, 24(04), 407-419.
doi:10.1017/s0963180115000079
Botting, J. (2015). Animals
and medicine: The contribution of animal experiments to the control of disease.
Open Book Publishers.
Cressey, D. (2013). Best way
to kill lab animals sought. Nature, 500, 130–131. doi:10.1038/500130a
Doke, S. K., & Dhawale,
S. C. (2015). Alternatives to animal testing: A review. Saudi
Pharmaceutical Journal, 23(3), 223-229.
Ferdowsian, H., & Beck,
N. (2011). Ethical and scientific considerations regarding animal testing and
research. Plos ONE, 6(9), e24059.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024059
Festing, S., &
Wilkinson, R. (2007). The ethics of animal research: Talking point on the use
of animals in scientific research. EMBO Reports, 8(6),
526-530. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400993
Franco, N. (2013). Animal
experiments in biomedical research: A historical perspective. Animals, 3(1),
238-273. doi:10.3390/ani3010238
Hajar, R. (2011). Animal
testing and medicine. Heart Views, 12(1), 42.
doi:10.4103/1995-705x.81548
Katzung, B. G. & Trevor, A. J. (2016). Basic &
clinical pharmacology. McGraw-Hill Medical.
Klitzman, R. (2015). The ethics police?: the struggle to
make human research safe. Oxford University Press.
Mak, I. W., Evaniew, N., & Ghert, M. (2014). Lost in
translation: Animal models and clinical trials in cancer treatment. American
journal of translational research, 6(2), 114.
Sepahban, L. (2015). Animal
testing: Life-saving research vs. animal welfare. Capstone.
=========================================================
The following is PLAGIARISM REPORT for 'The Moral Grounding of Animal Testing: Final Research Essay Sample - by homeworkvan'.
COPYRIGHT © 2018. All Rights Reserved by homeworkvan.
죄송합니다. 다른 과제들때문에 업데이트가 늦었습니다.
Plagiarism 부분이 11%인 이유는 Heading Title때문에 3% 더 높게 나온 결과이고, 실직적으로는 8% 미만이며, Plagiarism 걸린부분은 모두 in-text Citation 을 포함하였기때문에 Plagiarism에 걸릴 이유가 없으니 전혀 걱정 안하셔도 되십니다.
