"Why America should ban animal testing," the title of an article I just read by Glen Gordon. The article is about 3 main reasons animal testing should be banned. The most obvious one: cruelty, another: price, and lastly:alternatives. The first half of the article was quite strong. "Granted for rabbits whose eyes are intentionally damaged to serve as a model for 'dry eye' conditions in humans," I personally think that is a horrible thing to do to animals, so the author was smart and used a little thing we like to call emotional appeal. Then we get to a part about the costs of animal testing, which I think could be a good argument if you have the right evidence to back it up. Southern Adventist University uses minks in there biology lab. "The minks used cost around 10 dollars apiece... they are already dead... over time with so many students to provide for, minks can be far more costly..." What is he arguing?! He is saying the minks cost a large amount of money but they are dead already...? Minks is a safe alternative, why is he arguing that it costs more?!
"Computer modeling alone would substantially cut costs for scientists, as computer software is versatile and in fluently reusable." NO! That statement should be thrown out a window. On a computer screen can you see little malfunctions that could happen? NO! For example in the new spider man movie the scientist guy uses a computer to find a growth formula that will make his arm grow back. And he ended up a big green lizard. I agree with the general idea. But not the argument for it.
Photo Credit
No comments:
Post a Comment