While going through old magazines, trying to find a few to put in the restrooms of Shark Biscuits, I came across the December 2006 issue of Nature Magazine. Thumbing through it, I saw that an editorial piece shed light on the topic of animal testing. Now, as an appreciator of nature and all things living, I thought this was worth my time. I took a break from “decorating,” fixed a tropical refreshment, and sat down at the bar to read.
Though bunnies, primates, and PETA activists are key players in this hotly debated issue, the editorial feature focused its attention more on the scientists and their right to voice their opinions in the community without being serenaded by the voices of picketers and activists. An interesting perspective, this editorial was supported in a piece by Emma Marris. After reading about how this topic hits close to home for many college students, I cannot wait to see what kinds of posts I get back on this thread. Opinions are bound to vary while the middle ground continues to be left un-trampled.
As the editorial article mentioned, “animal research saves lives” is the campaign cry for those supporting the biomedical turn down animal lane. The thesis of this argument is clear in the piece: “Fear is clearly a significant factor in excluding the voices of ordinary researchers from public discussion of these (biomedical animal “research”) issues” (Nature Editorial, 789). The article also points out, early in the piece, that this issue is more complex than it seems at first glance (Nature Editorial, 789). According to the article, animal testing can prove to be both beneficial and not beneficial. In one example, testing on the primate brain led to discoveries and breakthroughs on for paraplegics. Then again, models of cancer in mice are not relevant replications of the disease in humans; therefore the research is not as fruitful (Nature Editorial 789). With these discrepancies, the argument has taken a clearly black and white form—you are either for or against it, and the middle ground remains untouched because no one wants to give in. This presents a problem for scientists looking to share and discuss research both among themselves and in public forums. “As one HIV researcher said, “I personally feel uncomfortable with primate research yet I realize that without primate data, vaccine candidates are rarely forwarded to human trial” (Nature Editorial, 790). Legislation in both the U.S. and Britain are being formatted to protect scientists while universities are working to give researchers a more open platform to discuss their work (Nature Editorial, 790). With all the facts and figures presented in the editorial, I felt that it left out a key element in making most any argument: the human element. For this reason, I advocate that Marris’ article is more all encompassing by default.
In Marris’ article, “Animal Research: Grey Matters,” the author seems to ally with Nature’s editorial piece. Marris describes the argument “depressingly black and white,” referring to the lack of room for discussion (Marris). By reflecting on a poll taken by Nature, Marris summarized, and issued her main thesis, that biomedical professionals have multi-faceted views on the topic and are in fact encouraged to not express their thoughts for fear of backfire. “Some of this is directly due to fear of animal-rights extremists; some is an indirect effect of the polarized atmosphere that surrounds the issue” (Marris). Through her article, Marris accounts for several interviews with professionals and dives into not only their research, but also their emotional connection to their work. With this strategy, I believe her argument is more grounded. While exerting a human element in her writing, she still, in my opinion, sides with the researcher and scientists over the animal activists. Even at her strenuous attempts to ride the journalistic fence, it becomes more and more clear how this topic is very black and white, no matter how neutrally the issue is meant to be presented.
In a related matter, college students at UNC- Chapel Hill, Emory, Harvard, John Hopkins, and Columbia have earned a dishonorable mention. On their website (http://www.stopanimaltests.com/f-worstlabs.asp), PETA lists the 2005 winners of a frightening prize: their names included in the “10 Worst Laboratories” (PETA). Video and accounts of inhumane treatment of lab animals can be viewed on this website.
As a lover of animals, I strongly encourage you to contact these and other universities, local governments, and media to alert the public. If we do not shed light on the problem, it continues to grow in the darkness of ignorance.
- Desmond
Though bunnies, primates, and PETA activists are key players in this hotly debated issue, the editorial feature focused its attention more on the scientists and their right to voice their opinions in the community without being serenaded by the voices of picketers and activists. An interesting perspective, this editorial was supported in a piece by Emma Marris. After reading about how this topic hits close to home for many college students, I cannot wait to see what kinds of posts I get back on this thread. Opinions are bound to vary while the middle ground continues to be left un-trampled.
As the editorial article mentioned, “animal research saves lives” is the campaign cry for those supporting the biomedical turn down animal lane. The thesis of this argument is clear in the piece: “Fear is clearly a significant factor in excluding the voices of ordinary researchers from public discussion of these (biomedical animal “research”) issues” (Nature Editorial, 789). The article also points out, early in the piece, that this issue is more complex than it seems at first glance (Nature Editorial, 789). According to the article, animal testing can prove to be both beneficial and not beneficial. In one example, testing on the primate brain led to discoveries and breakthroughs on for paraplegics. Then again, models of cancer in mice are not relevant replications of the disease in humans; therefore the research is not as fruitful (Nature Editorial 789). With these discrepancies, the argument has taken a clearly black and white form—you are either for or against it, and the middle ground remains untouched because no one wants to give in. This presents a problem for scientists looking to share and discuss research both among themselves and in public forums. “As one HIV researcher said, “I personally feel uncomfortable with primate research yet I realize that without primate data, vaccine candidates are rarely forwarded to human trial” (Nature Editorial, 790). Legislation in both the U.S. and Britain are being formatted to protect scientists while universities are working to give researchers a more open platform to discuss their work (Nature Editorial, 790). With all the facts and figures presented in the editorial, I felt that it left out a key element in making most any argument: the human element. For this reason, I advocate that Marris’ article is more all encompassing by default.
In Marris’ article, “Animal Research: Grey Matters,” the author seems to ally with Nature’s editorial piece. Marris describes the argument “depressingly black and white,” referring to the lack of room for discussion (Marris). By reflecting on a poll taken by Nature, Marris summarized, and issued her main thesis, that biomedical professionals have multi-faceted views on the topic and are in fact encouraged to not express their thoughts for fear of backfire. “Some of this is directly due to fear of animal-rights extremists; some is an indirect effect of the polarized atmosphere that surrounds the issue” (Marris). Through her article, Marris accounts for several interviews with professionals and dives into not only their research, but also their emotional connection to their work. With this strategy, I believe her argument is more grounded. While exerting a human element in her writing, she still, in my opinion, sides with the researcher and scientists over the animal activists. Even at her strenuous attempts to ride the journalistic fence, it becomes more and more clear how this topic is very black and white, no matter how neutrally the issue is meant to be presented.
In a related matter, college students at UNC- Chapel Hill, Emory, Harvard, John Hopkins, and Columbia have earned a dishonorable mention. On their website (http://www.stopanimaltests.com/f-worstlabs.asp), PETA lists the 2005 winners of a frightening prize: their names included in the “10 Worst Laboratories” (PETA). Video and accounts of inhumane treatment of lab animals can be viewed on this website.
As a lover of animals, I strongly encourage you to contact these and other universities, local governments, and media to alert the public. If we do not shed light on the problem, it continues to grow in the darkness of ignorance.
- Desmond
Marris, Emma. “Animal research: Grey Matters” Nature 444.7121 (14 December 2006) . E-Journal Finder. UNC University Libraries. Chapel Hill. 29 January 2007. http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061211/full/444808a.html
PETA’s ’10 Worst Labrotories’ List. PETA. 29 January, 2007. http://www.peta.org/feat/unc/vid.html
4 comments:
Carly, I think this is a good first post. You do a very good job of reading the articles carefully and summarizing them clearly. However, some aspects of your argument aren't very clear. I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by the "middle ground" that you write about frequently. I agree with Marris that there isn't much room for compromise in this situation; if you believe that killing animals is wrong, it's not like you will consent to killing only a few animals or only certain animals. Further, I don't think the articles are really opposed. The Nature article seems to be calling out PETA for essentially terrorist tactics that keep researchers from speaking up for fear of being targeted, but Marris' article doesn't really take a position on this exact aspect of the debate.
I agree-- I had a difficult time finding articles that contrasted. I just had to find one that discussed the same topic and comment on it's journalistic qualities and which was more effective. That's the part of the assignment which I felt like I tackled alright.
It was interesting, though, to have two articles on nearly the same side, but prefer one to the other because of a journalistic style.
The purpose of Clomid analysis in treating infertility is to decree reasonable ovulation pretty than ground the development of numerous eggs. Once ovulation is established, there is no perks to increasing the dosage further . Numerous studies expose that pregnancy usually occurs during the elementary three months of infertility cure and treatment beyond six months is not recommended. Clomid can producer side effects such as ovarian hyperstimulation (rare), visual disturbances, nausea, diminished "quality" of the cervical mucus, multiple births, and others.
Clomid is in many cases prescribed past generalists as a "opening oblique" ovulation induction therapy. Most patients should weather the fertility "workup" ex to genesis any therapy. There could be many causes of infertility in appendix to ovulatory disorders, including endometriosis, tubal blight, cervical ingredient and others. Also, Clomid analysis should not be initiated until a semen analysis has been completed.
Clomid and Other Ovulation Inducti
Somali pirates persist their attacks against worldwide ships in and without a doubt the Hollow out of Aden, despite that the discouragement of stepped-up measureless naval escorts and patrols - and the increased inoperative reprimand of their attacks. On earth agreements with Somalia, the U.N, and each other, ships union to fifteen countries up to engagement guarding the area. Somali pirates - who be subjected to won themselves more $200 million in unshackle since virtually the start 2008 - are being captured more as often as not conducive to the plot being, and handed more than to authorities in Kenya, Yemen and Somalia in interest the account of trial. Blas‚ here are some several photos of piracy full of it = 'full of shit' the seaside of Somalia, and the cosmic efforts to harness it in.
[url=http://cs.jackrabbit.blorq.com/members/clomid-abilene-texas-75/default.aspx]clomid abilene texas[/url]
[url=http://chachochingon.com/members/clomid-does-work-81/default.aspx]clomid does work[/url]
[url=http://community.nachoordinaryclass.com/members/clomid-alcohol-liver-function-males-89/default.aspx]clomid alcohol liver function males[/url]
[url=http://dogmaticdeveloper.com/dd/members/all-natural-clomid-94/default.aspx]all natural clomid[/url]
tel:95849301231123
Yes undoubtedly, in some moments I can phrase that I acquiesce in with you, but you may be inasmuch as other options.
to the article there is still a question as you did in the fall delivery of this solicitation www.google.com/ie?as_q=congestion charge lpg ?
I noticed the catch-phrase you have in the offing not used. Or you partake of the dreary methods of inspiriting of the resource. I possess a week and do necheg
Post a Comment