Who Are the Animals in Animal Experiments - Article Example

Who Are the Animals in Animal Experiments? Animals used for testing and experimentation in the of scientific research and medical analysis are a widely discussedtopic among activists and holds a controversial value. The article sheds light on the issue of animal abuse and cruelty pointing out to the conditions of animal testing labs and how animals kept in laboratories are provided inadequate conditions and living habitats that put them under constant mental stress which leads them to adapt neurotic behaviors making them almost ineffective in response and hinder the chances of cure or any reasonable discovery. The ill management on the part of government to protect the rights of living creatures other than humans and negligence in following established policies on the part of scientists. This also aims to point out the general ineffectiveness of Animal Welfare Act when it comes to protecting the rights of animals. The article written by Aysha Akhtar is taken from the Huffington Post. The paper will prove that this editorial article on animal testing is successful in conveying the ideology it is meant to because it contains all of the Toulmin elements. In the editorial piece the author makes claim about animal abuse and experimentation which is first opened with accounts of personal experience at a neuroscience conference. (par.1) The general ineffectiveness of the system to protect the rights of animals and the loopholes in Animal Welfare Act (AWA) which discriminates not only in the categorization of animals but those violating the code facing minimal charges for the infraction.(par.10) Giving account of the Harvard Medical School violation which is an institute of great prestige that got away with breaking a law by paying a penalty which proved of no effect since, the tax funding and open funds to such test laboratories and medical institutions are generously available and a few thousand dollars fine is no strict punishment which might inhibit them to commit the act again which is a logical reason because if only financial punishments are imposed then such institutions have enough funding available to get away with any sort of crime. Money is not the answer here. The writer claims that the experiments done on animals are not effective and they do not increase the possibility of obtaining treatments. (par.4) Her claim is supported by the fact that all the experiments are conducted in underground or hidden labs which make it difficult to trace down the happening.The operations or testing they are made to go through only scar them physically and psychologically. The claims made are backed by reason that, behind the ignorance on animal abuse in testing labs can be opted to the fact that consciously and unconsciously due to the human nature and psychology we account anyone in white lab coats as a person who is reasonable to make decent choices and act with responsibility. The white collar and conforming behavior dictates. Her second claim targets the groups the experiments that are carried out in "the taxpayer-funded animal experimentation industry." She explains that animals used in this industry which include rats and mice are not covered by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). Other animals like birds and reptiles that are subjects of experiments are also covered by the AWA (par.10). The detail study of the act and the reason put forth are true that the superficial needs of animals are cared for but the small necessary needs such as appropriate habitat and care are not present. The reason forwarded is logical on how it hampers the very result it intended to produce. Animal testing has effects on the animals that hinder any feasible progress because of their psychological incapacity developed overtime due to harsh environmental condition they are exposed to. The article states a personal experience of the writer when she says, “Well, I have visited numerous laboratories and witnessed countless experiments on animals and I can tell you from personal experience that nothing is further from the truth.” (par.8) Her argument does not state central rebuttals and gives a personal account viewed first handedly and then gives the research details which implies how she moved from simple to more complex side of the issue-which gives the readers and idea to view her firstly more of an “animal lover/activist” then as a critic who simple puts light on the issue. The organization of her essay allows a wordy approach to the issue and personal accounts in the start of the article (par1-5) give us the detail that her argument is not based merely on scientific evaluations but personal experience as well. The discussion of Animal Welfare Act of 1966 lays the solid foundational basis of animal protection but points at the loopholes in the system by which many animal testing institutions are able to get away with the crimes. Pointing out the holes in the Act shows the dire need to revise the act and ensure strict penalties on those found violating the law.“Isnt it time we shake this habit, take a stand against this senseless suffering and pursue science… by ending the abuse of animals in experiments, not only do we save them, but we will also discover the most effective research methods that will save us.” (par.22) the author makes both a claim and gives reason to counter the problem and validates the argument by further pitching in action that can be implemented to eliminate the problem at hand.The personal accounts and the data in the article suggests that the animal protection act has failed to display any reasonable form of security to the helpless creatures who are victimized every day and massacred on large scale in the name of science. There are other reliable methods to replace animal dissection that are sure to produce the same result as (Para18) shows that the animals are subjected to the same emotions as ours and should be treated humanely. There is no need to treat them in a way that counts as downright cruelty to living beings. This claim is not based on isolated views but has been backed up by scientific research that animals tend to feel the same emotions of pain and sorrow when subjected to different environments and triggered responses. The editorial article reflects the basic cruel ways faced by animals in the name of science and conducting progress tests. The editorial “Who Are the Animals in Animal Experiments?” proves successful in exhibiting Toulmin elements. The claims were verified by reasons and data. There were substantial reasons and ground facts reality given by the author for the claims. Warrants were justified.Animal testing and the subjection of torturous ways on them led to question the moral ethics of mankind. There are many other ways through which tests can be conducted without harming any life or the loss of any individual. The qualifiers in the argument put forth also elaborated the reasons onto why the act itself is morally wrong and that is funded by the taxpayer money without their knowledge or consent. Throughout her argument she establishes the ethical and moral reasons backed up by scientific researches to prove that the practices are unjust and wrong. Her identifying herself as a human being first and then as a medical professional exhibits that the article is just not a written critic but validates the points from a two way spectrum. The broad study conducted from a two way point of view gives the opinion that makes it easier for the reader to understand the sensitivity of the topic at hand. The authors personal opinion in the end reflecting hope and a change in the exercise of animal cruelty does not shed a dark glimmer on the process but provides hope as to what can be changed. The inter-subjectivity of the topic with the idea is linked thoroughly and clarifies all the points of Toulmins elements method of arguments. Works Cited Akhtar, Aysha. "Who Are the Animals in Animal Experiments?." The Huffington Post. 12 Jan. 2014. Web. 21 Sept. 2014. . Read More