Cambridge, Both. “Animal Research Is a Source of Human Compassion, Not Shame.” Lancet
364.9437 (2004): 815–816. Web.
This source offers evidence-based arguments on animal rights and the effects of scientific research projects that often compromise the integrity of such rights.
The author recognizes the position that animals have a right not to be tortured and not to be abused either, physically or physiologically. Nevertheless, the thesis of this article is founded on the position that without research projects in laboratories; it would be impossible to develop new drugs for human use and safety, hence the escalation of sickness and disease in the society. Consequently, the use of animals in research is morally justified. As such, the confounding ethical and legal principles between animal rights and the necessary use of the animals as tools for experimental study covers the most of this article. The weakness of this article is that it dwells more on the resultant effects and misunderstandings that characterize the use of animals in research other than the preventive measure or solutions to such issues. Nevertheless, the author's arguments are persuasive, because he cites the cases of human research and animal rights conflict in world-class institutions like Cambridge and Oxford backed with evidence.
Folescu, Roxana, Egidia Miftode, and Carmen Lăcrămioara Zamfir. “Animal Experimental Studies: Controversies, Alternatives and Perspectives.” Revista de Cercetare si Interventie Sociala
43 (2013): 266–273. Print.
This source is about the controversial and intriguing arguments between the proponents to the use of animal models in research and those opposed to animal abuse.
Typically, the author postulates his discussion founded on a theme of alternatives, controversies, and perspectives of animal experimentation about moral ethics bound to such practices. On the one hand, those opposed to the use of animals for research experiments argue that animal life is sacred and hence should be preserved. Moreover, they affirm that there should be alternative models or techniques that researchers should utilize instead of abusing animal lives. On the contrary, the proponents of animal model exploitation in laboratories certify that as long as human life is more precious than that of animals, and that once there is need to do experiments that are more advantageous to humanity than the harm caused to animals; then the utilization of animals experiments is not unethical. The authors' arguments are persuasive because out of the discussion he presents, a platform for finding consensus and agreement is hereby established.
Hurst, Samia A., and Alex Mauron. “Articulating the Balance of Interests between Humans and Other Animals.” American Journal of Bioethics 9.5 (2009): 17–19. Web.
This source talks about the ethical and moral uprightness that should be embraced in balancing the interests between human benefits and the sanctity of animal lives.
Indeed, while using animals in research can be justified in most cases, among the few occurrences that abuse of animal life and wellbeing is witnessed often portray humanity as a special class of life, which amounts to speciesism; hence the thesis of this article.
On the one hand, this source has a weakness in that the authors use explicit dissection to put across his arguments, which could be confounding to a lay audience. On the contrary, their arguments are persuasive because of the extensive citing of multiple peer-reviewed articles which are evidence-based and the concise presentation of facts of reason on the subject of balancing between animal lives and human interests in research.
Lachmann, P. “The Use of Animals in Research.” BMJ
305 (1992): 1–9. Print.
This article is about the moral ethics and virtues principles that are often flawed but pertinent to animal rights as well as human interests.
The author notes the physical, psychological, and emotional aggressive animal rights activities project toward the researchers in biomedical research institutions with or without cause. The theme of this source is that animal experimentation matters, however, that there is a need to factor in the public perceptions and the legal principles that guide the discipline of animal rights and their being used in research. The arguments the author makes in this source are convincing because the fears of the public in science are made real, and the role of different stakeholders made clear.
Morrison, Adrian R. “Making Choices in the Laboratory.” Society 39.6 (2002): 16–23. Web.
This article discusses reason in decision making while dealing with animal models in research.
The author highlights many fundamental moral, legal, professional, and cultural issues that often bring controversy in the process if not well-balanced latest beyond average.
The thesis the author exploits and hence the subject matter of this source is the appeal for rational decision making in animal-based research experiments. For the most part, the author of this article is persuasive in convincing his audience based on research facts that many biases and unfounded choices compromise the discipline of biomedical research pertinent to animal models.
Paul, Ellen Frankel. “Why Animal Experimentation Matters.” Society 39.6 (2002): 7. Web.
This article discusses why the experiments that involve animal lives in studies are crucial.
Indeed, the author cites multiple areas of medical discoveries and breakthroughs in the discipline of human health than can be directly attributed to animal models used in research.
The incidence, prevalence, morbidity, and mortality rates in human populations are fundamentally affected by research that affected animal lives directly. On the other hand, the thesis of this article offers a more neutral position of discussion than a partisan approach, such the primary subject matter in this article is the need to embrace reason and proper decision making while utilizing animals in research. The author makes a purposeful discussion that is impactful because he emphasizes on both the past and the future of human medicine, about the moral use of animal models.
Phillips, Tim. “Oxford Lab Gets Greater Protection New Systems Biology Centres.” 53.3 (2006): 1–45. Print.
This article is about the use of animals in research-based institutions, citing several in the process, for example, the University of Oxford.
The author highlights how the institution has been in controversy with the animal rights activists, following the persistent use of animals in research and the construction of new biomedical units for animal research.
The thesis of the author is that diversity in research should be amplified, hence the position he makes that alternative models for biomedical research should be exploited to save animals from such arbitrary causes in the laboratory. Typically, the discussion the author puts across is persuasive because while he appreciates that millions of citizens in the UK benefit from medicines invented after involving animal-based research projects, he as well insists on the need to acknowledge the rights for animal lives.
Weatherall, D., and H. Munn. “Animal Research: The Debate Continues.” Journal of Internal Medicine 262.6 (2007): 591–592. Web.
This article highlights the historical use of animals in research experiments in the biomedical setting.
The author discusses in detail how mice and apes have been used across millennia, especially in the case of malaria, Alzheimer, and Human Immunodeficient Virus pandemics with success.
The theme of this source is founded on the concept of how to make desirable choices in the laboratory while dealing with animal lives and the available alternatives for similar functions. The arguments put across herein are purposeful, because the reason behind biomedical research using animals is appreciated, while the sanity that should accompany the process is as well championed.
Works Cited
Cambridge, Both. “Animal Research Is a Source of Human Compassion, Not Shame.” Lancet
364.9437 (2004): 815–816. Web.
Folescu, Roxana, Egidia Miftode, and Carmen Lǎcramioara Zamfir. “Animal Experimental Studies: Controversies, Alternatives and Perspectives.” Revista de Cercetare si Interventie Sociala
43 (2013): 266–273. Print.
Hurst, Samia A., and Alex Mauron. “Articulating the Balance of Interests between Humans and Other Animals.” American Journal of Bioethics 9.5 (2009): 17–19. Web.
Lachmann, P. “The Use of Animals in Research.” BMJ
305 (1992): 1–9. Print.
Morrison, Adrian R. “Making Choices in the Laboratory.” Society 39.6 (2002): 16–23. Web.
Paul, Ellen Frankel. “Why Animal Experimentation Matters.” Society 39.6 (2002): 7. Web.
Phillips, Tim. “Oxford Lab Gets Greater Protection New Systems Biology Centres.” 53.3 (2006): 1–45. Print.
Weatherall, D., and H. Munn. “Animal Research: The Debate Continues.” Journal of Internal Medicine 262.6 (2007): 591–592. Web.
