Reproduced with permission from student

January 26, 2004

Public Speaking 220

Katherine E. Oleson

 

Title: “The importance of understanding the controversy around animal testing”

Topic: animal testing

General Purpose: to inform

Specific Purpose: to inform the audience about what animal testing is, and explain the alternative practices to it

Thesis Statement: Animal testing is a highly controversial topic that has divided people into group that either support animal testing or oppose it altogether, and another one that advocates the use of alternatives.

 

Organizational plan: Categorical

 

I. Introduction

 

  1. Attention getter: How many of you use here use razors to shave? How many of you wear makeup? How many of you have been on antibiotics at some time in your life? If you raised your hand or answered “yes” in your head to any of these questions, then this speech concerns you. Animal testing has been used as a mechanism in the advancement of medicine, household products, and the cosmetic industry in the United State s for nearly 60 years. With between 17 and 70 million animals killed each year in U.S. laboratories, the growth in animal experimentation has sparked much debate.
  2. Thesis: Animal testing is a high controversial topic that has divided people into groups that support animal experimentation, oppose it altogether, or advocate the use of available alternatives.
  3. Preview: Today I am going to tell you about some of the main ideas that are involved in the debate surrounding animal experimentation. Along with providing you a background about animal testing, I will educate you with information about both the benefits of animal testing and the disadvantages of animal testing.

<Transition> I will start out by illustrating the historical background of and the legislative reasons behind its use.

 

II. Body

 

  1. While there is a law in effect that regulates the condition of animals used in experiments, the legality of these tests is not enforced.
    1. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) is the federal law that governs the humane care, handling, treatment, and transportation of animals used in laboratories (PETA, 2004).
    2. No law requires animal testing for cosmetics and household products, and both the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Food and Drug Administration does not require any particular product test.

<Transition> Even though there is not strict regulation that can force companies into using animals as their means of testing, proponents of animal testing support its use for the efficiency it offers that other types of testing do not.

 

  1. Supporters of animal testing feel that because the animals are handled in a civilized manner, their use in making medical breakthroughs and guaranteeing product safety justifies animal testing.

 

    1. Various medical advances have been made thanks to animal testing that would otherwise have not been achieved.

a.       Barbara Davies, deputy director of the Research Defense Society, reports that “All you have to do is think of any major medical advances of the last 100 years to see the benefit of animal testing,” (Morrison, 2001).

b.      Because of animal research we have anesthesia, hip replacement, kidney dialysis, and a vaccine for acute Hepatitis B, and without animal testing doctors would not have the chemotherapy to save 70% of children who now survive acute lymphatic leukemia (Americans for Medical Progress Educational Alliance, 2002).

    1. Advocates of animal experimentation argue that laboratory testing is not as common or cruel as it is conveyed by the common public.

a.       Of all the areas in animal use, including agriculture, pet, sports, and animal research, the standards of welfare and veterinary care laid down are the highest for animals kept in labs for research (Haugen, 2000).

b.      In 1999, 57 percent of vertebrate animals in labs covered by the Animal Welfare Act experienced no pain or distress, and of those that do undergo moderate to severe pain, 34 percent were relieved by anesthesia or analgesia, and only 9 percent tested suffered from unrelieved pain or stress. (The Center for Laboratory Animal Welfare, 2004).

3. Product testing is crucal to guaranteeing consumers that they can securely use everyday products without experiencing side effects.

a. Scientists defend testing on animals because they are conducted in the name of protecting consumers, while manufacturers rely on animal testing to verify the safety of the product and protect them from lawsuits (McCoy, 1993).

b.  Researchers call attention to the fact that only 20 percent of animals used in laboratories are used to evaluate the safety of consumer products (The Center for Laboratory Animal Welfare, 2004).

c. If no testing is performed on a product, the producer is legally responsible to print a warning on the product label reading: THE SAFETY OF THIS PRODUCT HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED, which may turn away potential buyers and in a snowball effect the manufacturers, scientists, and researchers are left without jobs (McCoy, 1993).

 

<Transition> Although I have presented several reasons in support of animal experimentation, there are also a number of strong arguments that oppose it.

 

  1. Those against the current means of animal testing undermine it as a malicious procedure of yielding inaccurate results that could be more effective and scientific with the use of alternatives.

 

    1. Opponents allege testing on animals leads to unreliable and unscientific findings that harm or kill humans 61% of the time after being deemed safe (Americans for Medical Progress Educational Alliance, 2003).

a.       Plavix, which is taken by more than three million patients, passed all required animal tests and was considered safe for humans. Now it is causing bleeding, anemia, and kidney failure in some clients (Cohen, 2001).

b.      Medications such as aspirin kill cats, and penicillin kills guinea pigs, yet guinea pigs can safely eat strychnine, one of the deadliest poisons for humans that is safe for monkeys to consume (Haugen, 2000).

    1. Animal testing is a vicious process that inflicts stress and physical pain that can very well be avoided.

a.       The Eye Irritancy Test involves immobilizing rabbits from stocks where only their heads project and dropping different substances into their eyes usually with no anesthesia to test the damage to the eye tissue over a course of generally 72 hours (PETA, 2004).

b.      With the Acute Toxicity Test a substance is usually forced by tube into the animals stomachs or through holes cut into their throats to determine the amount of a substance that will kill a percentage, even up to 100 percent, of a group of test animals (PETA, 2004).

    1. Challengers of animal testing say alternatives are the future, and that since they are available they should be persued.

a.       A study by the American Medical Association found that 75 percent of Americans are against using animals to test cosmetics (Haugen, 2000).

b.      While the expansion and recognition of using alternatives is slowly growing, over 500 companies have already shunned animal testing (PETA, 2004).

i.                     Colgate-Palmolive is one of the largest companies that’s reduced its use of animal testing and their research facility has reduced the use of animals for experimentation by as much as 90 percent (McCoy, 1993).

c.       Through epidemiology (population research), in vitro experimentation, and clinical studies we have discovered our most valuable information about the origins of cancer, the efficiency of treatments, and the prevention of cancer (Cohen, 2001).

 

<Transition> Both sides of this debate have valuable arguments that should be taken into consideration when shaping your opinion and when deciding the future of animal testing.

 

 

 

 

III. Conclusion

 

  1. Signal: Considering how detailed and supported the statements of the challengers and advocates of animal testing are, the outlook of animal testing will take much time and deliberation to make an educated decision. It is important that we the public stay informed and active as we are the consumers of these products.
  2. Summary/Review: As you have seen, those who agree with animal testing cite the medical breakthroughs, the necessity of animal testing in determining safety, and the humane treatment of animals as reasons to support their position. In contrast, those who disagree with animal experimentation see it as unreliable and unscientific, cruel physical harm, and want alternative practices to be more widely used.
  3. Closure: Billions of dollars are funded each year in the animal testing industry, so next time you go to the store to buy makeup, medication, or even toothpaste, make a well-informed decision about whether or not you support animal experimentation.

 

 

References

 

Americans for Medical Progress Educational Alliance. (2003). Animal Research. Retrieved

January 25, 2004, from Americans for Medical Progress Educational Alliance Web site: http://www.amprogress.org/Issues/issuesmain.cfm

 

Cohen, M. (2001 April). Human lives not saved by lab animals. Seattle Post-Intelligencer. A19.

Retrieved January 22, 2003, from UMI Proquest Direct.

 

Haugen, D.M. (2000). Animal experimentation. San Diego: Greenhaven Press.

 

McCoy, J.J. (1993). Animals in research, issues, and conflicts. United States: Impact.

 

Morrison, N. (2001, February). Animal rights and wrongs. Northern Echo. 08. Retrieved January

21, 2004, from UMI Proquest Direct database.

 

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). (2004). Factsheets. Retrieved January 21,

2004, from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Web site: http://www.peta.org/mc/facts.html

           

The Center for Laboratory Animal Welfare. (2004). Laboratory Animal Welfare. Retrieved

January 21, 2004, from the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Web site: http://www.labanimalwelfare.org/