contraversial essay Essays - Poliomyelitis, RTT, Vaccination

In ?Animal Research Saves Human Lives? Heloisa Sabin uses logos to argue that animal testing saves lives. In Sabin?s article, she stated the example of her husband using polio vaccine as her persuasion as he was one that benefited a lot from the outcome of animal testing. Her husband, Albert Sabin, inventor of oral polio vaccine, told a reporter before his death in 1993, ?There could have been no oral polio vaccine without the use of innumerable animals, a very large number of animals.? Sabin shows that polio has been eradicated in Western Hemisphere in about forty years after the polio vaccine was introduced to United State. She truly believes that the polio vaccine saves the world from the fear of the polio, therefore she repeatedly reference to reality to help her in persuading readers that animal testing is in fact an advantage. Since she shows that the information she pointed out was from the reality, not just something she made up, this makes readers easier to believe in her po int of view. In her essay ?A Question of Ethics,? Jane Goodall, uses pathos to argue that her readers have an ethical obligation to protect animals from suffering, but she also implies that it might be necessary sometimes to abandon that obligation. She points out that animals share similar traits with human beings: they have a capacity for certain human emotions, and they may be capable of legitimate friendship. Goodall?s evidence for this claim is an anecdote from her research. She recounts that one chimpanzee in her study, named David Greybeard, ?gently squeezed her hand? when she offered him food. Appealing to readers? emotions, Goodall hopes to persuade readers that the chimp is ?sociable? and ?sentient,? or feeling. According to Goodall?s logic, if researchers are careful to avoid tests that cause human suffering, they should also be careful to avoid tests that cause suffering for other life forms. By contrast, Goodall?s criterion of ?essential? testing leave open the possibility that as long as alternatives are unavailable or ineffective and as long as researchers do not differentiate among degrees of human suffering, mindless animal testing would be acceptable. Her assumption suggests that David Greybeard could suffer, for example, because inadequate computer simulations have prevented researchers from finding a cure for the common head ache or for mildly unpleasant pollen allergies. To make a more persuasive case, Goodall should define essential and nonessential human needs.