Ethics Of Animal Testing

Animals have been used in research for countless numbers of years, dating back all the way to BCE. The number of animals in testing has grown as the years have passed, and their purpose has resulted in treatments for lung cancer, childhood leukemia, breast cancer, and many others. When most people think about animal science, they think about the cruelty and immoral treatment of animals; they do not bother to think about the side effects of animal testing. The medicine we buy or are prescribed, the lotions we use, and everyday makeup we wear would not be available without the use of animals in labs. With all the benefits that come with animal testing, one might ask why anyone would be opposed to animal testing. However, an article entitled “Ethics
“We” and “I” are used to make to make a personal connection with the readers with their experiences and thoughts as they read through the article. This feeling of inclusion is essential in the judgment of what the authors are saying, particularly when they start to talk about human-animal relationships: “We enjoy them as our pets or when we see them in their natural environment, in zoos or in natural wild parks. In some cultures, certain animals have religious significations and are treated with a special consideration” (Marinescu and Coman 197). The use of “we” shows that they are trying to make a connection to the readers, and once that connection is made then the reader can relate more to what the authors are saying. The reader can truly analyze how maybe he or she also consider animals as pets and then see animal testing in a more negative light, as the authors are trying to explain. The author then continues to turn dramatically from the happy associations that people have with animals to the disturbing connections that also exist in our daily lives: “We use animals at work, transport or sports. We hunt them or we fish them. We make interventions by various methods in order to preserve stabile populations in the natural ecosystems or we kill them when they come in conflict with the human population” (Marinescu and Coman 197). While they hurt the animal population, they serve the human population- they help “us.” This use of the first person in “Ethics of Animal Testing” implies the authors’ agreement with the claim as well as the readers. They want us as equal members in these acts, to think about what we are doing right and what we are doing