Jenna Wang Jan. 19, 2012 Period 5 The Great Debate: Pro-Position Essay (Outline Format) I.

Opening Statement Rosie the mouse and her siblings live in a lab and are used for research and to evaluate the toxicity of consumer products and their ingredients. These mice recently went through a laboratory experiment, where they had taken shots of certain chemicals to test the products ingredients and if they are safe to use on humans. Throughout the experiment, Rosie had started to lose some of her fur and seemed to be in a lot of pain. A few days after the experiment, Rosie and one of her siblings died, it seems, because of their sensitive skin and overexposure of the product tested on them. Even though many scientists believe it is helpful in developing and testing new products and medicines, animal experimentation should not be practiced because of its low-reliability factor, the inhumane act of the suffering of animals in the procedures, and the option for scientists to use non-animal, viable testing alternatives. II. Argument/Evidence #1 Animal experiments can have misleading and unreliable results. An animal's response to a chemical, drug, medication, or any cosmetic product can be different to a human's. In fact, the Food and Drug Administration reports that 92 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal tests actually fail in humans. Is animal experimentation really reliable and accurate, acknowledging the fact that animal body structures are different than humans? III. Argument/Evidence #2 It's cruel and inhumane to put many thinking, feeling animals to live in a laboratory cage and intentionally cause them pain, loneliness, and fear. The stress that animals endure in labs can affect experiments, making the results meaningless and inaccurate. Therefore, they would not react to the drugs in the same way, compared to their natural habitat. This further weakens the validity of animal experimentation. Many of these animals had been tested for substances that will never see approval or public consumption and use. It seems that these animals had died in vain because humans had no direct benefit from their painful experimentations. IV. Argument/Evidence #3 Many scientists have actually found viable alternatives to test drugs, medications, vaccines, and other products, without the use of animals. Successful alternatives include test tube studies on human tissue cultures, statistics and computer models. If there are so many successful alternatives, why still put innocent animals through such painful experiments? V. Rebuttal Generally, the scientific community is strongly in favor of animal testing. While animal suffering should be reduced, scientists say that it is preferable for an animal to suffer, as opposed

Jenna Wang Jan. 19, 2012 Period 5 to a human. It is true that animal testing has helped to develop vaccines against diseases like rabies, polio, measles, mumps, rubella and TB, but what about the many vaccines that worked on animals but didnt have the same results on humans? The reaction of a drug in an animal's body is sometimes very different from the reaction in a human. Many believe animal testing is unreliable. Because of their captivity and the unnatural environment they are in, the animals won't react to the drugs in the same way compared to their potential reaction in a natural environment. VI. Closing Statement In animal testing, countless animals are experimented on and then killed after their use. Others are injured and live the remainder of their lives in captivity. Many of the substances used in animal experimentation dont even get approved or used by humans. These experiments arent even always accurate, evaluating all the factors of the animals living conditions and stress. Rosie and her siblings had had to endure terrible experiments that resulted painful deaths by products that were never going to see approval, so it seems that all they had gone through was in vain. Animal experiments prolong the suffering of people waiting for effective cures by misleading experiments, wasting money, time, and resources that could have been spent on more human-relevant research and other testing alternatives.