Comparing Two Arguments - Essay Example

He defends the use of animals in scientific experiments. Roger Caras is a well-known photographer and writer. He is known best for being a wildlife preservationist and as a president of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Obviously, Caras is on the other side of the fence, defending animals as subjects in scientific experiments. Karpati believes that the use of animals in scientific experiments is a necessary means to discover and understand the different principles, such as biological processes.

He agrees that computer simulation may help but it will not be enough to imitate the different processes happening within one’s live body. Thus, it is important to have live subjects to replicate the same processes. He argues that if the use of animals in experimentation is restricted, the scientific research will be greatly impacted. Medicines, surgical techniques and other great innovations may not be discovered for years, even decades. Karpati says he does not advocate a cruel treatment to animals, rather he wants the public, and the animal rights movement, to ponder on whether to choose using animals to discover treatments for the illness of a child or to let a sick child die without attempting to treat him.

Caras, on the other hand, argues that animals have rights and we don’t have the right to inflict pain and suffering on them. We should not be treating animals as properties that we can do anything we want to. Caras believes that there is a pressing need to find alternatives to animals when doing scientific research. His argument focuses on the quest to discover other means on how scientific research can effectively simulate the needed information gathered from live bodies. Different with other animal rights advocate, he attempts to direct the public in resolving the conflict by looking for alternatives rather than by just arguing not to use animals or to continue using them as live subjects.

While Karpati defends his point of view, Caras points the reader to a different direction. Caras wants the reader to look for solutions rather than just argue about the issue. Karpati wants the reader to understand that the restriction of animal use might as well be a call to limit scientific research. He does this by enumerating the many effects of limiting the use of animals in research. He says that “the terrifying effects of the effort to restrict the use of animals in medical research is that the impact will not be felt for years and decades” (Karpati).

He continues that drugs, surgical techniques, and fundamental biological processes may not be discovered and understood until years later, and even more that these delays may mean the cost of many lives. Karpati defends himself by saying he does not advocate animal cruelty. In fact, he believes that the animal rights movement has made a significant contribution in making the scientific community search harder for suitable alternatives for animal experiments. But Caras believes that there is little effort in doing so as it has only recently become an imperative for the scientific community (Caras).

Caras points out that even if the scientific community is looking for alternatives, they are not looking hard enough or their efforts are delayed. Caras and Karpati both declares that the scientific co