Animal Test Tubes

Link to Article:

https://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/why-we-do-it/arguments-against-animal-testing

Conclusions:

     The topic for this post is animal testing. Animal testing is and has always been a huge topic of controversy and debate. As someone who is an advocate of animal welfare I have heard both the pros and cons of animal testing. I am a Animal Science major at New Brunswick's Rutgers University and I have two lectures where animal welfare and the topic of animal testing was discussed. This article is called " Arguments against animal testing" and is written by a member(s) of Cruelty Free International. Cruelty Free International is the "leading [Animal Rights] organization working to end animal experiments worldwide." 

Evidence:

        This article happens to have a lot of evidence. Mostly everything except the first two paragraphs is facts. But upon closer examination of these facts, I found most of them are not sourced. For example, one fact is, "95% of drugs fail in human trials despite promising results in animal tests – whether on safety grounds or because they do not work." Due to this I would say the other just has bulleted statements that are presented as facts. However, the do mention The Food and Drug Administration and the former director of the cancer institute but, that is almost nothing at all compared to the amount of "facts" presented. It would have been nice if the author include citations so, that readers would be able to actually read the information themselves and decided whether or not the sources were reliable.

Fallacies:

    I am starting to notice a trend when it comes to controversial topics that are hot for debate. There is entirely too much emotionally charged language being used in articles it almost gives off the feeling of propaganda. I believe that animal rights organizations would be more effective if they stopped using emotionally charged language and started using hard facts and evidence to back up there claims. I think it honestly is used so that the reader is easy to manipulate. There should be no reason that anyone would need to manipulate a person into saving animals and this is why I believe facts speak more volumes than emotionally charged phrases. 

My Conclusions:

    Honestly, I am not sure where I stand regarding animal testing, I used to believe it was horrible for animals and should be banned. Similar to my GMO's article this year I meant animal laboratory scientists that opened my eyes to the less known argument. In fact I got to learn all about animal testing and about all the procedures and laws that protect the animals. There are about 4 different authority organizations who are responsible for ensuring the well being of the animals being used in experiments. Also, it was incredible to hear the people who work in these labs say that the United States governments laws regarding animal testing were weak and that scientist actively chose to use these authority organizations to ensure the well being of the animals they want to experiment on.