Andrew Blake is telling us that his organisation is doing the right thing and animal experiments works to find cures for diseases and saves lives and that the people who are attacking the organisations are bad people who are ruining the system to get cures so these people who are attacking are in the wrong this means Andrew Blake is accusing the people who are against him and his people. Also Andrew Blake’s verbally attacks the anti-vivisection protesters and says what there doing is wrong and out of order evidence is shown here 'violent actions of anti-vivisection protesters are deplorable' he also calls them violent which is a biased remark as he is in the organisation against them so he is not telling the full story to both views and all of the anti-vivisection are not all violent. Other bias comments is that he calls them names such as 'These animal rights terrorist hold a fanatical belief that animal research does not work' here Andrew Blake calls them terrorist meaning they sabotage and use violence to achieve there goals also this implies they will do anything for there beliefs to go as far as violence is deplorable but again not all of them are violent some are peaceful so this is a biased. He also criticizes them saying there beliefs are wrong evidence is shown here 'they have an obscure view of life, then everyone else, including patients, should be forced to live life according to their opinions.' This is telling us that they have a messed up view of there lives and implies they don’t know how to live and so they go against animal testing and everyone should listen to there beliefs, this is also bias because he doesn’t know the people so he questions them and there life style and exaggerates the situation and implies bad stuff about them.
In article two Sarah Kite explains why she thinks animal testing is unethical and why it’s wrong. She says that BUAV (British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection) is peaceful and oppose violence to humans and animals; this tells us that they are not terrorist. Sarah Kite then argues and turns the violence around on the animal research saying that they commit violent offences to millions of animal laboratory every year; she quickly blames it on the opposition in the article. She then explains the facts about what the HLS actually do, for example ‘It conducts toxicity tests on animals…’ she then explains the cruelty to animals ‘These range from being dripped into the animals eyes, injected into the bodies, forced up their nostrils or forced down their throats.’ This shows us the inhuman behaviour of these scientists. So she exposes the truth of the suffering of the animals. HLS does it to check for any side affects and other poisoning symptoms such as ‘vomiting, diarrhoea, bleeding and fits.’ These animals suffer badly for us humans which is cruel, she makes us think about the suffering animal and says is it really worth it? Sarah Kite then argues with statistics and explains that there ‘is a success rate of 5%’ and she says these ‘animal experiments do not reliably predict what will happen in humans because of differences between species’ meaning that different drugs have different effects on other species than to humans, so experimenting on different species wouldn’t really find a cure. Also she argues that the HLS is corrupted and are undertaking brutal activities, evidence shown; ‘extreme animal cruelty as well as serious breaches of the law’ this tells us that they are getting away with crimes like ‘staff repeatedly stabbing dogs with needles’ this is extreme violence to animals, they treated unfairly.
Reasons to accept and agree with animal testing is that it can save lives, even if it’s true that only 5% of the drugs that pass for okay, it still save lives and cures diseases even if it’s such a small percentage, it still cures the people suffering with that illness right so what’s the harm in using animals to help us?. Also another reason for animal testing is it may find cures for much more other serious diseases for the future, cures and treatments have been developed to save human lives. Treatments for diabetes, cancer and others would not be available if it wasn’t not for animal testing, these are common illnesses that people are in need for help on. So that’s why we need our research on animals for the life of us and even the research on animals not only benefit us it benefits the animals, many things that have been discovered through animal testing also benefit animals. Animal testing is also cheaper than the other options and it works, so it’s also good financially.
Reasons against animal testing are that it’s cruel to hurt animals and they suffer really badly it goes against a number of laws to abuse animals by forcing products on the animals up their nostrils and in their eyes and into their body’s to check for poisons or bad side affects for a product. Animals die even if they survive the pain suffering treatment, so they researchers don’t even get a cure for their suffering but instead just kill them off which is heartless. Using animals as toys to get a result and don’t even look after them is just terrible to do. Also why not to use animals for testing is it is a less accurate way because the animals are different to us human beings, so it should have different affects on animals than us so animal testing isn’t accurate. Anti-vivisection can argue that instead of research on animal we can use computer simulations which would be better, but it cost a lot more than animal testing.
My opinions of animal testing are that it isn’t completely wrong but it is cruel and horrible it way hurt animals in indescribable ways but is it worth it? I think yes in order to prevent suffering for a human’s life. Animal testing benefits us so why not do it? We kill animals for food so why can’t we use them for health purposes. It may cure someone of a life mattering disease it could affect someone we love so that’s why I am for animal testing. Even though animals has feelings and suffer I think that a human life is more significant in life than an animal so therefore we should find a way to survive and live of the expense of an animal’s suffering. Animal experiments and research based on them helped us already with a number of medicines for example; insulin to help control diabetes is made from animals also children's immunizations were created with the work of animal testing and woman who take progesterone to prevent miscarriages, these are used from research on animals as well. But on the other hand I think that animal testing is cruel and cold-hearted because it is just spiteful to hurt animals to the top and to kill them after they have been used it’s just not right. I would want the animal to have the minimum amount of suffering.
