2. 职称英语
  3. Animal research, including medical research, toxicology testing, and psychol

Animal research, including medical research, toxicology testing, and psychol

游客2024-11-16  5
问题     Animal research, including medical research, toxicology testing, and psychological research involving animal subjects, has been used for several centuries as part of our efforts to better understand the world around us. Should animal testing be banned? The following are opinions from different sides. Read the excerpts carefully and write your response in about 300 words, in which you should:
    1. summarize briefly the different opinions;
    2. give your comment.
    Marks will be awarded for content relevance, content sufficiency, organization and language quality. Failure to follow the above instructions may result in a loss of marks.
    Clark： Animals have a right not to be harmed. The differences between us and other vertebrates( 脊椎动物) are a matter of degree rather than kind. If we accept as true for the sake of argument, that all humans have a right not to be harmed, simply by virtue of existing as a being of moral worth, then we must ask what makes animals so different. If animals can feel what we feel, and suffer as we suffer, then to discriminate merely on the arbitrary difference of belonging to a different species, is analogous to discriminating on the basis of any other morally arbitrary characteristic, such as race or sex. If sexual and racial moral discrimination is wrong, then so is speciesism.
    Frey: Animals’ rights are of less moral worth than human rights. Animal lives and human lives are of unequal value. This is due to the fact that no animal possesses all of these characteristics to the same degree as the average human, or even comes particularly close. Thus any rights ascribed to animals should be truncated relative to the rights we ascribe to humans. Therefore animals should not rightly possess the same rights to not be experimented upon as humans might. To the extent to which causing some harm to animals brings great benefits to humans, we are morally justified in creating some moral harm, to achieve a far greater moral good.
    Pete: Research can be done effectively without experimenting on living creatures. Science and technology has moved faster than research protocols, however, and so there is no longer a need for animals to be experimented on. The previous necessity of the use of animals is no longer a good excuse for continued use of animals for research. We would still retain all the benefits that previous animal research has brought to us but should not engage in any more. Thus modern research has no excuse for using animals.
    Tia: Animal research is necessary for the development of truly novel substances. After the effects, side effects and more complex interactions of a drug have been confirmed using animal and non-animal testing, it will usually pass to what is called a phase I clinical trial—tests on human volunteers to confirm how the drug will interact with human physiology and what dosages it should be administered in. The risk of a human volunteer involved in a phase I trial being harmed is extremely small, but only because animal tests, along with non-animal screening methods are a highly effective way of ensuring that dangerous novel drugs are not administered to humans. In the United Kingdom, over the past twenty years or more, there have been no human deaths as a result of phase I clinical trial.
    Beth: It would send a positive social message, increasing animal welfare rights more generally in society. This creates a clear moral tension, as one group within society is able to inflect what to any other group would be illegal suffering and cruelty toward animals. If states are serious about persuading people against cock fighting, dancing bears, and the simple maltreatment of pets and farm animals, then such goals would be enhanced by a more consistent legal position about the treatment of animals by everyone in society.
选项
答案                 Should Animal Testing Be Banned?
    As quoted from Descartes, an influential French philosopher in the Enlightenment, human beings are the master and owner of the nature, while animals are animated machines. Therefore in the traditions of western medicine animals are harnessed to be tested in diversified fields. However, this brutal action of manipulating animals for the sake of human beings’ own interests has been challenged and condemned by animal rights campaigners, as it deprives the unalienable rights of animals, and it would fan the flames of aggressiveness into human beings themselves.
    One argument in favor of animal testing asserts that human beings are chosen to be predominated species, whose interests outweigh those of other animals in the pyramid of food chain. Nevertheless, others hold that differences among all species are arbitrarily predisposed, instead of morally justified caste differentiation.
    Animals are endowed with the unalienable rights just as human beings, such as the right of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, as they do have the same emotional needs for these rights. The pet-keepers would unanimously agree that animals are the same as, at least, or far beyond human beings, especially when the keepers are entrusted by the need for stroking the belly of puppies, even ashamed by the burst of tears from cows being slaughtered. Furthermore, every year in the world famous fashion shows renowned for the fur clothing, in Paris or Milan, witness animal rights activities asserting their opposition to the action that animals are abused for human beings’ interests. The aggressiveness manifested in animal testing would be intensified to abuse the same species of human beings, because the final judgment for human beings’ morals can solely be projected in their relations with the powerless group, like dominated animals or the unarmed human beings themselves. One good case in point is that well-documented prisoners of war from Allied Forces, like China, America, Britain, Australia, were tested ghastly in camps of occupied Manchoulia in China, or Rabaul in New Guinea by Japanese army in World War II.
    All in all, the wheel in the name of medical technology on animal testing shall be halted, as it strips the powerless animals of their basic rights, and inevitably those of the human beings’, as human beings are also part of the nature.
解析 本题讨论应不应该禁止动物实验这一话题，命题关注社会热点，启发考生思考。本题要求简要概括所给材料中的不同观点，并发表自己的看法。在具体的写作过程中，考生可以开篇点明社会现象，并提出论点；第二段简要概括材料中的观点；第三段重点阐述自己对这一问题的看法，并说明理由；最后一段总结全文，重申观点。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3847634.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)