In my second session with Eric, we looked over the research
that he had done and he opined to me his feelings about the issue. We then set out to write an outline. We chose 3 areas that were of
controversy. 1) Is animal testing valid
in its translation to human results; 2) Is animal testing necessary; and 3) Is
animal testing humane and are there guidelines and safeguards.
The first paragraph talked about these three areas and he
drew the hypothesis that animal testing was a necessary evil. In the second paragraph, he compared the
opinions of different experts from both sides of the issue and ended with the
conclusion that if the right animal is chosen for the right category of
disease, the results are very relevant to human anatomy. In the third paragraph,
he came to the conclusion that results when animals were used, the efficacy
rate of cures rose significantly over, say, modeling. In the fourth paragraph, he could not way
that the outlines were uniform in all labs and felt that they needed implovement. In the final paragraph, he reiterated his
position that, although not perfect, the benefits of animal test far outweighed
its flaws.
We set up the next session for the next night.
No comments:
Post a Comment