Animal testing is use of animals in experimental ways for the benefit of biomedical research, and it has been a topic long argued about. To every argument, there are two sides: The American Medical Association (AMA) and the People for the Ethical Treatment of Humans (PETA). AMA’s opinion on the topic states that animal testing is necessary, while PETA highly discriminates it. These two major groups of people have been “at war” with each other on this topic of animal testing in biomedical research for decades. The AMA has recently published an article on this topic titled “Use of Animals in Biomedical Research.” AMA’s argument in this article is effective, they use persuasive techniques to support their claim, and their evidence is clear; however, the author fails to make some of his counterarguments convincing.
AMA’s claim convinces you that animal testing is needed for biomedical research in many different, but persuasive ways. For example, they express that without all of the information gathered from animal testing, either man kind will be tested on, or we wouldn’t have the health benefits and treatments for diseases that we have today. In this statement, the author uses appeal to fear, by stating that humans everywhere will pay the price in terms of human pain and suffering, thus increasing fear and prejudice towards the audience. Another way the author uses persuasive techniques to support the claim, is by saying that there are limitations to the use of human subjects such as in the testing of a potentially toxic drug in the terms of what can be learned. This is an excellent example of ethical appeal, because the author aims to persuade the audience to accept AMA’s specific point of view. Another reason why the argument that AMA makes is effective, is the author’s use of substantial evidence to back up the claim. For example, the author states why animals are used for testing and not humans. “The process of aging, for instance, can best be observed through experiments with rats which live an average of two to three years, or with some type of monkeys, which live fifteen to twenty years.” This evidence is relevant and clearly states the situation of why we need animals to be tested on rather than humans. If the author would have just said we cannot use humans because it is unethical to do so, it would be classified as a hasty generalization, so the author uses evidence to support this claim. There is also not too much evidence and information so that the reader doesn’t get lost. The author uses these same techniques when talking about some accomplishments made from testing on animals. “A longer life span has been achieved, decreased infant mortality rate, effective treatments have been developed for many diseases, and the quality of life has been enhanced for mankind in general.” Again, the claim by itself is almost useless. The author then states this piece of evidence to support the claim. Also, the author continues by stating the Nobel Prizes won from animal testing, and the diseases we have found cures for such as Polio. These two pieces if evidence the author states give more than enough detail to support the claim and it is difficult to counter against. However, the counterarguments that the author made could have been more clear and persuasive. The author failed to use some counterarguments to persuade the readers. For example, the author goes on a different point when saying “Animal rights activists contest experiments that utilize animals in both these grounds and assert that this practice no longer is necessary because alternative methods of experimentation exists for obtaining the same information.” This clearly shows that the author is arguing about a different point of why animal testing shouldn’t be banned. By doing this, the author confuses the reader, because the author has countered a different statement. In fact, this is the only point in the article that the author talks about this, and it is in this counterargument.