Article 2: Addressing Attacks on Animal Testing

Article used: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/we-agree-on-animal-alternatives_b_11681212

Article Summary:

In the 2017 Huffington Post article “Stop Being Ridiculous: We Agree on Animal Alternatives”, Alan Kelly defends his perspective that political extremists on all sides are hindering progress on animal testing reforms. He explains the arguments voiced by many through categorizing them, including viewpoints that relate to absolutism, rationalism, entertainment, and pure information; after presenting each perspective, the author insightfully points out the flaw in such reasoning and shows how unproductive it is.  Instead of polar viewpoints and hostility towards opponents of one’s own beliefs, Kelly advocates for a balanced and practical mindset and for compromise. The author includes graphs and statistics that track the American people’s support and opposition to animal testing and discusses the difference between various forms of it. Kelly makes the distinction between incorporating animals into laboratory experiments to eradicate horrendous illnesses and exploiting animals for profits and cosmetics; while the former saves human lives with immense value, the second is unnecessary and often cruel. Kelley explains that the moral arguments of activists lead to irrational and impractical conclusions, and animal testing is a necessary practice in the current era until technology can advance past it. No one actually likes the cruelty, and measures should be taken to prevent extremely inhumane treatment of animals, but testing of appropriately treated animals is vital at this time in science. Ultimately, Kelly is arguing that many people are hindering progress with their extremist views, stubbornness, and their “idealistic” aspirations (in an unideal world).

 

Rhetorical Strategies:

The purpose of the article is to draw attention to the dangers of extremist views on animal testing and to advocate for more productive, rational alternatives to it; the author ultimately supports the continuation of animal testing within the bounds of necessity and respect of test subjects. To accomplish this purpose, Kelly utilizes strong diction, hard data (i.e. logos), and the appeal of pathos. One major aspect of the article is its disdain for irrational arguments in regard to animal testing. In this, Kelly’s diction includes words like “ridiculous”, “tone-deaf verbiage”, and “disingenuous”. These words all have negative connotations and imply that many extremist views are not well-reasoned, ineffectively explained, and are often ludicrous at their core. Furthermore, Kelly includes helpful graphs, charts, and statistics to provide logical evidence for his views on the continuation of animal testing and to display the opinions of other Americans. In this, Kelly states that the “public approval of animal research and testing has dropped year-to-year”. This fact demonstrates that animal testing is already getting less prominent as science advances and that many hope for a testing free future. However, with the other charts, Kelly addresses this point of view but adds that until technology can catch up, animal testing is vital to find cures to fatal diseases. The statistics are visual evidence that reiterates what he has already said. Finally, Kelly appeals to the emotions of his audience to bring them to realize that animal testing remains necessary. He states, “…no activist would rather lose their child to a disease than spare the mice and monkeys that help cure it”. The pain of losing a child is so immense, and a human being’s worth is infinitely more than that of a mouse. The reality is that even if animal testing is not ideal, it has the power to prevent one of the greatest sufferings one might endure. In addition, Kelly describes activists as those who are “driven by compassion and a dream for a higher standard of humanity”, which is packed with emotion. This declaration is inspirational and poignant, conveying utmost respect for activists.

 

Response to the Column:

The topic of animal testing in laboratories is very controversial and complex in our world today. If I believed that the animals were all being treated cruelly or thought that the worth of a human was equal to that of a mouse, I would by all means agree with the extremist activists that Kelly describes. However, since I do not think that way, I agree with Kelly’s sentiment that the extremist views on both sides of the aisle are hindering actual progress with regulations on animal testing; without compromise and awareness of every perspective, no improvements can be made. Until better technology is available, animals could provide what we need to eradicate diseases that take countless lives each day; this technology cannot be too far away anyway, judging by how science has been advancing recently in terms of genetics, engineering, and more. Personally, I was recently very concerned about whether or not I should support animal testing and to what extent. This prompted me to seek out Mrs. Schwankl and ask her about this, which led me to my new perspective. Thus, like Kelly, I believe that though animal testing should not be cruel or barbaric, it is necessary and shows promise in curing extremely dangerous illnesses.