Ama Jane Goodall Analysis
Imagine a whole empire being brought down with the help of a devastating plague, killing millions of people. This happened to the Roman Empire; the epidemic claimed the lives of around seven million people. Yet, this seemingly deadly virus is what we call Smallpox. Smallpox has been eradicated from the Earth, only due to the use of cows in its research. In her essay, Jane Goodall argues that the use of animals (mainly gorillas) is inhumane, while the AMA believes that the use of animals in medical research is necessary and unavoidable. The AMA is more persuasive, because they state several undeniable reasons for the necessity of animals in research Although Goodall is less persuasive, she still has several good points. Goodall argues that,
…show more content…
One argument the AMA makes is, “humans cannot be substituted for animals in studies where an inbred strain is essential” (681). This is an undeniable truth. It is a fact that this research cannot be done with humans, since it is not possible for humans to be bred like that. Another point the AMA makes is that, “the issue is not what has not been accomplished by animal use in biomedical research, but what has been accomplished” (682). This refutation invalidates the opposition, and reminds the audience of the other side of animal use in research, which is purely beneficial for the human race. The AMA exceeds Goodall is terms of persuasion, because it appeals more to logic, which is a good choice in this kind of argument. Goodall focuses too much on appealing to the emotional side of her audience. If one ignores all the excess details, they’d notice the lack of logical reasoning; overall, there’s only one or two. While she did an exceptional job, she should have focused more on cold, hard reasoning to support her argument. Regardless of one being more persuasive than the other, I learned a lot from both of them. I had some idea about the living conditions of animals in research, but I didn’t know it was that bad. And I was aware of how beneficial animal use in biomedical research is, but there are many more accomplishments through that research
One argument the AMA makes is, “humans cannot be substituted for animals in studies where an inbred strain is essential” (681). This is an undeniable truth. It is a fact that this research cannot be done with humans, since it is not possible for humans to be bred like that. Another point the AMA makes is that, “the issue is not what has not been accomplished by animal use in biomedical research, but what has been accomplished” (682). This refutation invalidates the opposition, and reminds the audience of the other side of animal use in research, which is purely beneficial for the human race. The AMA exceeds Goodall is terms of persuasion, because it appeals more to logic, which is a good choice in this kind of argument. Goodall focuses too much on appealing to the emotional side of her audience. If one ignores all the excess details, they’d notice the lack of logical reasoning; overall, there’s only one or two. While she did an exceptional job, she should have focused more on cold, hard reasoning to support her argument. Regardless of one being more persuasive than the other, I learned a lot from both of them. I had some idea about the living conditions of animals in research, but I didn’t know it was that bad. And I was aware of how beneficial animal use in biomedical research is, but there are many more accomplishments through that research