Rhetoric in Animal Experimentation

These articles each explore viewpoints or information on animal experimentation. Animal experimentation can be shown as ethical due to many findings using animals to provide medicine or products for human use; it can also be seen as unethical due to the harm it causes to animals. There are many factors that each author of each article uses to demonstrate their rhetorical situation in order to come across the reader.

The article called, “EPA Chief Directs Agency to Dramatically Reduce Animal Testing” by Karin Brulliard, is from the daily newspaper, “The Washington Post” and introduces the new update in animal experimentation of agencies or companies and what the results are of these new acts or regulations that have been established.

The article includes readers of animal rights activists who have been fighting for the reduction of animal experimentation for a long time and want to find out if they influenced any agencies or congress on their belief against animal experimentation. For example, the article includes phrases such as, “while such developments have been praised by animal advocates,” which demonstrate that animal activists follow this type of information (EPA Chief directs agency to dramatically reduce animal testing 2). The readers may also be people who are not against animal experimentation, and are part of companies who have used animal experimentation to make their products successful and safe to use for consumers. For example, the article states, “some researchers and public health and environmental groups that say animal tests remain critical for determining risks to people” which demonstrates people information relevant to non-advocates (EPA Chief directs agency to dramatically reduce animal testing 2).

The author presents her information very formally with strong and unbiased facts. The stance remains neutral and just informs the public on the current stand of animal experimentation. The information is presented with the facts of different departments and agencies, letting the reader interpret their own opinion on whether they are against animal experimentation or not based on the give information. For example, it states the impact of congress on some companies such as, “prohibiting most uses of dogs in medical research at the department of veteran affairs” (EPA Chief directs agency to dramatically reduce animal testing 1). She also presents both sides of opinions on the “toxic substance control act” that amended during the Obama administration (EPA Chief directs agency to dramatically reduce animal testing 2).

The language composed in this news article is a formal composition of reports from representatives of companies and reports of legislation from congress that have to do with animal experimentation. Phrases such as “The EPA performs tests on animals and in some cases requires such tests from chemical companies” which indicates the formal and factual information the author provides (EPA Chief directs agency to dramatically reduce animal testing 1).

The purpose of this article is to inform readers on animal experimentation and the stand of congress or agencies on animal experimentation. This article also provides an unbiased view of animal experimentation since there is no shown opinion on animal experimentation from the news article. It also allows readers to be properly informed of the fact that some companies use animal experimentation in their products and how some departments from congress have required animal experimentation (EPA chief directs agency to dramatically reduce animal testing).

The article called “Science Instead of Animal Experiments” demonstrates notes from a conference that was held to talk about how valid animal experimentation is and what are the alternatives of it. The author of these conference notes are Corina Gerrick and Silke Strittmater who participated at the German based organization called “Doctors Against Animal Experimentation” who held their second conference called “Science Instead of Animal Experimentation” (Gerick, Corina, and Silke Strittmatter 1).

The audience of this conference includes the general public who are interested in what scientific findings exist or were recently found on animal experimentation. Also, scientists who discovered new alternatives to animal’s experimentation that other scientist can use to develop drugs or products for consumer use or for companies. Physicians and veterinarians were there to collaborate the possible alternatives other than animals that scientists can use to test on. Politicians attended to discuss new legislation and challenge them. Activist from the animal protection movement attended to praise the work of these professionals and remain current on the change in animal experimentation (Gerick, Corina, and Silke Strittmatter 2).

The author presents the information in a very formal tone due to the countless professionals at the conference that used phrases such as, “cerebral cortex structure and cognitive functions” (Gerick, Corina, and Silke Strittmatter 1). It is also optimistic since scientists share the alternatives with each other. For example, the article states, “stem cells from patients are now being used for research on the disease and may be useful to test drug candidates” (Gerick, Corina, and Silke Strittmatter 2). It is critical since the participants’ challenge the past in term of successful medical drugs that had not used animal testing. The article states, “aspirin, which was developed more than 150 years ago without animal testing, would not pass todays’ safety tests on animals” (Gerick, Corina, and Silke Strittmatter 2).

The stance of this conference was leaning more towards the protection of animals used in experimental research. For example, this conference included the collaboration of scientists that had ideas of “alternatives” they know or discovered. Another example comes from one of the speakers named Dr. Jerred Bailey, who is a research scientist and stated that “deprivation of fluid and food, and fixation of the head may cause a state comparable with human post-traumatic stress disorder, which influence results” (Gerick, Corina, and Silke Strittmatter 1). This demonstrates her viewpoint of not using animals in experiments because they will be tested on while their state of mind is compromised with PTSD due to their environment in the lab, and the experiment will have skewed results.

 

The language of this conference was to reveal the alternatives to animal experimentation with other professionals and speakers to be spread around the world and to speak about any future collaboration formally.

The purpose of this conference was to reveal the alternatives to animal experimentation with other professionals and speakers to be spread around the world and to speak about any new upbringings in scientific research of animal experimentation (Gerick, Corina, and Silke Strittmatter).

This magazine article, “Protection priority: all involved in animal research must ensure that rules for ethical experiments are observed,” speaks about the regulations a procedure that is carried out in order to allow scientists to experiment on animals and explores some of the experiments that did not follow these procedures and have resulted in animals suffering. The author of this article is an editor from the magazine called, “Nature” who provide nature related news or information.

The audience includes the general public who grew an interest or are curious of how animal experimentation works in laboratories and research and how the scientist come about the idea of using animals to test out their theories or findings. Also, this magazine article may result in readers who are against animal experimentation and want to learn who is behind these companies who are allowed to have scientist use animals in their experiments or to see the procedure of scientists on animals and if they are being harmed or not. Some may be curious to see the companies who were found not following these procedures or following procedure that affected the animal badly. In turn of finding this information, there may be animal rights activist who want to protest these companies and spread the controversial Information about them. In contrast, there may be companies looking as this article who want to make sure they are not spreading false information about their scientists or researchers who are using the procedure properly and not harming the animals.

 

The tone of this article seemed very apologetic due to expressing the need for companies or scientist to submit truthful information to avoid having to make corrections of articles that have already been published. The article also presents a formal and organized tone since it demonstrates the procedure that researchers or scientists follow respectfully following steps in order and the departments that regulate it.

The stance of this article leans more towards animal experimentation being ethical but only under certain terms. For example, the article states that, “Institutions should do more to make sure that the guidelines they set are respected”, which reveal that experiments are approved under the public’s eyes only if they experiment on these articles with reliable data and a reliable procedure that make sure the animals will not be hurt. They also require that the board thoroughly investigate the research and experiment over all to avoid controversy. In contrast to this, animal experiments conducted by scientist have resulted in negative effects. For example, mice were tested in a lab and were grown tumors by the scientist then tested by them to see how to reduce the tumors or make the tumor go away entirely. However, these scientists did not monitor and regulate the tumors which resulted in an increase in size and harmed the mice used causing them pain.

The language of this article was formal and introduces policies in which people may have not known about. For example, the article states “animal experiments are approved only after thorough discussion” (Protection priority: all involved in animal research must ensure that rules for ethical experiments are observed 1).

The purpose of this article is to inform readers on the procedure that research institutions follow and how the board or departments carefully review the experiments in favor of the animals used. It also shows how scientist must submit their data to remain ethical and to remain working on their experiment (Protection priority: all involved in animal research must ensure that rules for ethical experiments are observed).

This article from the website “Heart Views”, provides information on the importance of animal experimentation when it comes to medical advances and safe drugs for humans. The author is a Rachel Hagar, the director of non-invasive cardiology section, department of cardiology. The readers of this article are doctors who want to read about significant medical advances in history using animal experimentation. This article may also apply to the general public who are against animal testing since this article demonstrates examples of what can happen if researchers don’t use animal experimentation when introducing a new drug. The readers may also be animal rights activists who want to know the stand of medical professionals on animal testing or experimentation.

The tone of this article is passionate since the article provides information of what would happen if drugs did not use animal experimentation, using graphic examples. For example the author uses terms such as “another tragic drug fiasco” which demonstrates the exaggeration she is using to guide her readers towards her direction (Hajar 2). The author’s stance is leaned towards animal experimentation due to her background in the medical field and the advances in medicine. For example, she demonstrates that a pharmacist and chemist put a flavoring to a drug he developed which changed the drug entirely. He then distributed the drug for consumer use, without testing the drug on animals first, which in turn left hundreds poisoned and led to death (Hajar 2).

The language of this article is persuasive since the author uses examples of medical advances to show her readers that animal experimentation is not bad. She also provides both sides in the beginning but counteracts it using examples of the negative effects of not using animal experimentation.

The purpose of this article was to inform readers about animal experimentation used in the medical field. It also provides examples in history that people may have not known about from animal experimentation (Hagar).

All the articles overall have provided both stands on animal experimentation. The website, “Heart Views” leaned more towards the experimentation of animals in which the magazine article agreed with as well. However, the scholarly source explored ways that animal experimentation, does not have to be used and that there are other alternatives for advances. The news article provided unbiased information about both sides of animal experimentation stands with factual information.

Work Cited

“EPA chief directs agency to dramatically reduce animal testing.” Washingtonpost.com, 10 Sept. 2019. Gale OneFile: News, https:/link.gale.com/apps/doc/A599031563/STND? u-cuny_ccny&sid-STND&xid-0c1820c7. Accessed 13 Sept. 2019.

Gericke, Corina, and Silke Strittmatter. “Science Instead of Animal Experiments. ALTEX: Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, vol. 36, no. 1, 2019, p. 140+. Gale Academic Onefile https:/link.gale.com/apps/doc/A581423674/AONE?u-cuny_ccny&sid-AONE&xid-d9936dc0. Accessed 9 Sept. 2019.

“Protection priority: all involved in animal research must ensure that rules for ethical experiments are observed.” Nature, vol. 525, no. 7569, 2015, p. 290. Gale Academic Onefile https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A429410675/AONE?u cuny_ccny&sid-AONE&xid-6fa589a5 Accessed 12 Sept. 2019.

Hajar, Rachel. “Animal testing and medicine.” Heart views : the official journal of the Gulf Heart Association, Medknow Publications Pvt Ltd, Jan. 2011, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3123518/.