Some people argue that these experiments should be banned because it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer, while others are in favour of them because of their benefits to humanity. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
-
June 3, 2020 at 1:20 pm
Nowadays animal experiments are widely used to develop new medicines and to test the safety of other products. Some people argue that these experiments should be banned because it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer, while others are in favour of them because of their benefits to humanity. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Medicines have been routinely tested on animals before they are cleared for human use. Personally, though I do not believe in the testing of products on animals, I think there is a clear argument for experimentation on animals for medical purposes.
There are clear ethical arguments against animal experimentation. Opponents of animal testing argue that humans have no right to subject animals to trauma, and that the lives of all living creatures should be 100% respected. They believe that the merits of human do not justify the suffering caused on other organisms, because they can feel pain as well and should not be inflicted with anguished diseases. Therefore, scientists should use alternative methods to reduce harm on animals for investigation.
Countering this argument, however, some feel that there are no viable methods to research life-saving drugs without animal-based study. They believe that the pain inflicted upon laboratory animals is a small price to pay for the benefits to humanity. One of the most compelling examples is the demand for the specific medicine during this epidemic period. Thousands of people are suffering from the coronavirus and facing the danger of death. Under this circumstance, research on the battle against the novel coronavirus should speed up in no time. This implies experimentation on living subjects must be applied to save the others. While I do not believe in the use of animal-based research for non-medical purposes, I feel that it may be a necessary evil when testing new formulas for life-saving drugs.
In conclusion, while I can see the moral viewpoint of people who disagree with animal-based experimentation, I reckon that saving people from illnesses outweighs the pain suffering from the other creatures. As a result, it would be irresponsible to ban it until a proper alternative has been developed.
June 4, 2020 at 5:15 pmScore: 49.9
Issues:
- About 35% of the sentences exceed 20 words. Shorten/split them.
- About 15% of the sentences are passive. Convert some of them into their active counterparts.
I will send you screenshots to illustrate specific problems/errors.
June 5, 2020 at 2:10 amMedicines have been routinely tested on animals. Personally, though I do not believe in the testing of products on animals, there is a clear argument for experimentation on animals for medical purposes.
There are clear ethical arguments against animal experimentation. Opponents of animal testing argue that humans have no right to subject animals to trauma that is morally wrong.They believe that scientific purposes do not justify the suffering caused for other organisms.This is because they can feel pain as well and therefore should not be free from those anguished diseases. Hence, experimenting on animals is inhumane so scientists should use alternative methods to reduce harm on animals for investigation.
Countering this argument, many people feel that there are no viable methods to research life-saving drugs without animal-based study. They believe that the pain inflicted upon laboratory animals is a small price to pay for the benefits to humanity. One example is the demand for the testing of medicine during this epidemic. Thousands of people are suffering from the deadly coronavirus. Research on the battle against the disease should thus speed up in no time ,which implies experimentation on living subjects must be applied to save the others. While I do not believe in the animal-based research on non-medical purposes, I feel that it may be a necessary evil when testing new formulas for life-saving drugs under stress.
In conclusion, while I can see the moral viewpoint of people who disagree with animal-based experimentation, I reckon that saving people from illnesses outweighs the pain suffered by the other creatures. As a result, it would be irresponsible to ban it until a proper alternative has been developed.
June 8, 2020 at 11:23 pmScore: 45.5
Issues:
- About 40% of the sentences exceed 20 words. Shorten/split them.
- About 25% of the sentences are passive. Convert some of them into their active counterparts.
- Many sentences don’t make sense.
I will send you screenshots to illustrate specific problems/errors.
June 9, 2020 at 2:07 pmMedicines have been routinely tested on animals. Though I do not believe in the testing of products on animals, there is a clear argument for experimentation on animals for medical purposes.
First and foremost, there are clear ethical arguments against animal experimentation. Opponents of animal testing argue that humans have no right to subject animals to trauma. They believe that every organism has its right to choose a living way. Because of this, we should respect their rights. This means scientific purposes do not justify the suffering of organisms. Since animals feel pain during the investigation, which breaks their rights. Hence, experimenting on animals is inhumane and no longer carries out. Consequently, scientists should use alternative methods to reduce harm on animals for investigation.
Yet many people feel that there are no viable methods to make drugs without animal-based study. They believe that the pain inflicted upon laboratory animals is a small price to pay for humanity. One example is the demand for the testing of medicine during this epidemic. Thousands of people are suffering from the deadly coronavirus. Research on the battle against the disease should thus speed up in no time. Which means experimentation on living subjects is essential to cure others. Under these circumstances, I feel that it may be a necessary evil when saving people from hell.
In conclusion, though animal-based experimentation is cruel, saving people from illnesses outweighs anything. As a result, it would be irresponsible to ban it until a proper alternative has developed.
June 9, 2020 at 11:19 pmScore: 53.2
Medicines have been routinely tested on animals. Though I do not believe in (the testing of products) [ unclear ] on animals, there is a clear argument for experimentation on animals for medical purposes.
First and foremost, there are clear ethical arguments against animal experimentation. Opponents of animal testing argue that humans have no right to subject animals to trauma. They believe that every organism has its right to choose (a living way)[ unclear ] . Because of this, we should respect their rights. This means scientific purposes do not justify the suffering of organisms. Since animals feel pain[ word form error ] during the investigation, which breaks their rights.[ grammatical error ] Hence, experimenting on animals is inhumane (and no longer carries out)[grammatical error ] . Consequently, scientists should use alternative methods to reduce harm on animals (for investigation)[ unclear ] .
Yet many people feel that there are no viable methods to make drugs without animal-based study. They believe that the pain inflicted upon laboratory animals is a small price to pay for humanity. One example is the demand for the testing of medicine during (this epidemic)[ unclear ] . Thousands of people are suffering from the deadly coronavirus. Research on the battle against the disease should thus speed up in no time. Which[ grammatical error ] means experimentation on living subjects is essential to cure (others)[ unclear ] . Under these circumstances[ unclear ] , I feel that it[ unclear pronoun ] may be (a necessary evil )[ unclear ] when saving people from hell.
In conclusion, though animal-based experimentation is cruel, saving people from illnesses outweighs anything. As a result, it would be irresponsible to ban it[ unclear pronoun ] until a proper alternative (has developed)[ grammatical error ] .
