An Analysis of Animal Experimentation Papers - Essay Example

?Appendix B An analysis of Animal Experimentation articles Identify if the topic you chose—as presented by both articles—is a problem or an issue,and explain what makes it a problem or an issue. If you believe the articles present both problems and issues, identify and explain what the problems are and what the issues are. The content of the two articles, focusing on two different sides of the animal experimentation debate, clearly highlight that the topic is a societal and moral issue instead of a problem. It is perhaps important to state however that due to the passionate support that this subject creates, wither side of the debate possibly see the opposition’s view as a problem. The presented arguments by the doctors and research scientists (two experts in their field) indicate that this is a subject that divides opinion between informed, intelligent people. The clear issue in the debate revolves around morality and whether animal experimentation is necessary to safeguard human beings against potentially harmful new drugs and practices in medicine, and is vehemently supported by both sides. 2. Were the problems or issues expressed effectively? Describe how the problems or issues were or were not best expressed. The two articles vary on their ability to express the issues effectively. Lankford uses the article to defend the position of support towards animal experimentation. In this manner, the article does not address the issue but just seems to provide a list of statistics to prove his point. The work highlights a number of animal research achievements and how it has led to the prevention of disease but does not suggest any form of resolution of the issue. The Carlson article does attempt to resolve the issues. The work discusses that “we can learn to improve public health by looking first at what threatens it” (Carlson), indicating a willingness to seek a resolution. This viewpoint also acknowledges that it is vital to keep questioning forms of medicine and that it can be beneficial to look at the argument from different perspectives. 3. How would you determine the credibility of the sources of information used by the authors in the articles when investigating the problems or issues presented by your topic? The two articles appear to be fairly reliable and credible sources of information regarding the animal experimentation debate. The first, written by Lankford, was written for the Foundation for Biomedical Research. The group is in favor of animal experimentation and use medical facts and statistics to back up their claims. The author is clearly knowledgeable, although the article does not highlight his position in the organization. The second article is an expert opinion in the field of research science. Her work contrasts with the first, emphasizing that the results of animal experimentation have been grossly misjudged. Carlson relies on findings from University studies and medical journals to persuade her audience. In terms of credibility, both articles appear to be so, though Carlson does provide sources for the statistics used whereas Lankford states facts such using language such as “between 1950 and 2004” (Lankford) but fails to ascertain where they come from. 4. Compare two steps that would be most effective in refining solutions to the problem and resolutions to the issues presented by your topic. The animal experimentation debate is saddled with a number of issues concerning morality and ethics. For animal experimentation to be proven necessary and useful to society, it appears that more clear research and positive results are needed that link the success of medical improvements to the need to test them on animals. The main difficulties to overcome are the beliefs surrounding animal cruelty which animal extremist groups chiefly use as their main argument against animal experimentation. These groups will perhaps never be persuaded as to the benefits of animal experimentation but scholars such as Carlson indicates that there is no proof that animal testing is necessary to ensure safety for humans in developing new drugs. Perhaps the most successful solution to resolving the issue is to provide substantial evidence that counters the views put forward by those in medicine who argue against animal experimentation. 5. Identify three strategies that could help you foster criticism when evaluating both arguments for your topic. When analyzing the two articles on animal experimentation, it is important to use strategies that help distinguish whether the articles are correct in their own particular stance towards the topic. It is important, regardless of personal belief, that the two arguments are considered impartially on the merits of the information that they provide. Secondly, both articles stay away from making assumptions about the reader, meaning that they are clear and well presented and can be read by any level of interested observer. Finally, the two articles present their evidence in response to criticism and different perspectives, indicating that they are aware of the debate that exists and aim to persuade others of their beliefs. 6. Identify three approaches that would be most effective in refining solutions to the problem. In refining solutions to the problem it is important to “consider the moral impact” (Ruggiero 200) on those involved. The two main sides of the debate differ due to their stance over the treatment of animals. Not only that, there is also discrepancy in the competing research studies over the rates of success of animal testing for human medicinal development. The most suitable approaches to refining this problem focus on reducing the negative impact that the solution could have on the people involved in the debate. The moral nature of the debate means that people are unlikely to change their viewpoint easily and therefore the solutions to the problem should be analyzed and refined so that even if people disagree morally, they are still able to not argue with the clear benefits that animal experimentation can have on society and the health of human beings. 7. Identify at least three errors affecting truth and validity in the arguments for your chosen topic. Although there does not appear to be any factual inaccuracy in the two articles, the Lankford article does not clearly state the sources for any of the statistics provided. There is a further reading section but the precise statistics should be referenced properly to ensure complete validity. Furthermore, the work has no conclusion and does not summarize the points of the article. Therefore the reader is left with a list of statistics but unsure of the reason for them. The second article also has an area of concern. The article emphasizes that there is an issue concerning animal experimentation but uses the work mainly to criticize and discredit those in favor of animal testing, rather than providing resolutions to the issue. This is vital to the debate because if animal experimentation were to be discontinued, an alternative would need to be in place and so this area should have been addressed. 8. Summarize the steps you completed while evaluating both sides of your topic. When evaluating the arguments provided by the two articles, there were a number of steps taken to ensure a fair appraisal. Initially, both articles were read briefly to make certain that the arguments proposed could be understood. Following this, the works were viewed in terms of whether they could be deemed reliable and credible. Both articles were deemed credible although there were certain issues over referencing (particularly) in the Lankford article. Finally, the articles were examined on their clarity and whether the conclusions matched the information provided in the premise. 9. Explain what techniques you would use to present your ideas on this topic and persuade others effectively. This debate is on an issue that creates great tension and support on every side. Although it is an issue, it is one that generally fails to find any particular compromise due to the moral question it poses. However, in an intelligent debate, there is often the chance to persuade others of a similar intellect if certain techniques are used. In this manner, it would be vital to consider all objections of the opposition and prepare information that could be supported by research and statistics. Anticipating these audience objections and answering confidently could be one way that the persuasion occurs. It would also be necessary to focus not just on the views of the opposition but to use a central theme throughout that positively championed the argument being made. In this case, it could be that animal experimentation is vital to the development of medicine and the overall safety of human beings. 10. Identify three approaches you will use to apply these techniques to effective writing and speaking skills. These techniques could be used successfully to persuade certain audience members. In achieving this, there are approaches that would need to be adopted. Firstly, as mentioned earlier, this is a debate that creates great division and most people have a viewpoint on the subject. Therefore, it is vital not to demand of the audience a decision to support you straight away. The audience must be respected and provided time to weigh up their own beliefs and pose questions if necessary. When presenting the work, it is also key that the focus remains throughout. The central message is a narrow one and fairly simple (that animal experimentation is vital to human medical development) and this should be constantly referred to throughout the work. Due to this, a conclusion-to-evidence order is recommended to ensure the message is at the forefront of the minds of the audience. The work should also be clear, concise and free from medical jargon. It should also not just be a list of statistics but viewpoints supported by key findings that can be easily verified. Works Cited Carlson, Peggy. "Animal Medical Experimentation Is Unjustified". Baltimore: Greenhaven Press, 1999. Print Lankford, Ronnie. D. "Animal Experimentation Is Vital for Medical Research". Washington D.C: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Print Ruggiero, Vincent Ryan. The Art of Thinking: A Guide to Critical and Creative Thought. New York: Longman, 2009. Print. by Foundation for Biomedical Research. Animal Experimentation Ronnie D. Lankford, Jr., Ed. At Issue Series. Greenhaven Press, 2009. Foundation for Biomedical Research, Proud Achievements of Animal Research. Washington, DC: Foundation for Biomedical Research, 2008. © 2008 Foundation for Biomedical Research. by Peggy Carlson. The Rights of Animals. Tamara L. Roleff, Ed. Current Controversies Series. Greenhaven Press, 1999. Excerpted from Peggy Carlson, "Whose Health Is It, Anyway?" The Animals' Agenda, November/December 1996. Reprinted with permission from The Animals' Agenda, P.O. Box 25881, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA. Read More