Some people think it is acceptable to use animals in any way for the benefits of human beings, while others think it is not justifiable. Discuss both views and give your opinion. 一些人認(rèn)為可以為了人類的利益合理的利用動物,但有些人認(rèn)為這是不合理的,你怎么看?
Should animals be tested for the interests of humans? Views vary over the past several decades.
Those who endorse animal testing base their arguments on the grounds that whilst it is true that in some cases harm to the animals is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the research, this is minimised wherever possible,with pain killers, anesthesia, and attempts to use other research means. More importantly, the intention behind this act is held to be morally just, e.g. helping millions of people to combat diseases.
Those who oppose experimenting on animals argue that the differences between us and other animals are a matter of degree rather than kind. Not only do animals closely resemble us anatomically and physiologically, but they behave in ways which seem to convey meaning, such as recoiling from pain, appearing to express fear of a tormentor, and showing to take pleasure in activities. If animals can feel what we feel, and suffer as we suffer, then to treat them as experimental subjects is morally unacceptable.
I, personally, back up the view that animal testing should be stopped. Science and technology has advanced fast and so there is no longer a need for animals to be experimented on. We now know the chemical properties of most substances,and powerful computers allow us to predict the outcomes of chemical interactions. Experimenting on live tissue culture also allows us to gain insight as to how living cells react when exposed to different substances, with no animals required. 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 us but should not engage them in any more.