RESEARCH PAPER ORGANIZATION KEY SAMPLE
The Moral Grounding of Animal Testing: Final Research Essay Organization Key Sample
Organization Key
Hook
Background/Summary
Thesis/Restated
thesis
Topic
sentence
Arguments and
Explanations
Conclusion
sentence
Takeaway
The Moral Grounding of
Animal Testing
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.
RESEARCH PAPER JUSTIFICATION SAMPLE
The Moral Grounding of Animal Testing: Final Research Essay Justification Sample
Justification
The essay is a good model for an
argumentative essay for several reasons:
1. Essay
Mechanics
The essay is logically arranged into 3 key
section: Introduction, Body, and Conclusion sections. This logic placement carries onto the
arrangement of each section.
The introduction is clearly split into
three sections: A hook, background, and a thesis. The hook used is a definition
that serves as a starting point for the essay. Following, is several sentences
that give background on the topic of animal testing. Finally, there is a thesis
statement that makes an attempt to summarize the key arguments to be discussed
in the body section into a single statement. Combined, these three provide the
reader with context and the position of the author.
The body section consists of several
paragraphs. The first four paragraphs argue the pro arguments (arguments in
support of the author’s position). What makes the essay effective is the
inclusion of two extra paragraphs; an opposing view paragraph and a rebuttal
paragraph. The significance of having both additional paragraph is to signify
the critical thinking employed by the author whereby the author has considered
opposing viewpoints and provided a counterpoint to the opposing views.
The conclusion section ties off the essay.
It consists of three broad sections. A restatement of the thesis, a summary of
the key arguments, and a takeaway. It must be restated that no new information
should be included in the conclusion which only serves to summarize the essay. The
takeaway enhances the essay by challenging the reader by providing “food for
thought”.
2. Coherence
Besides the structure
of the essay, vocabulary, and grammar, the essay is a good model for an
argumentative essay based on its coherence. This refers to the flow of arguments
from one idea to the next. Foremost, this is achieved by having each argument
have its own specific paragraph. Secondly, coherence is achieved by using
transition phrases such as “however”, moreover” to connect ideas or sentences
within a paragraph. Third, coherence is achieved in the pattern of organization
where the essay starts off with the strongest arguments as the lead paragraphs.
Finally, the essay ensures each body paragraph ends with a brief conclusion to
provide a transition from one paragraph to the next.
=========================================================
The following is PLAGIARISM REPORT for 'The Moral Grounding of Animal Testing: Final Research Essay Sample Organization Key and Justification - by homeworkvan'.
COPYRIGHT © 2018. All Rights Reserved by homeworkvan.
No comments:
Post a Comment